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/2006/06/20/AR2006062001367.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006062119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/20/AR2006062001367.html
|
Firms Seek Federal Privacy Rules
|
2006062119
|
Several large technology companies, including Google Inc. and eBay Inc., announced support yesterday for stronger federal regulations to protect consumer privacy on the Internet.
Twelve companies formed an advocacy group, the Consumer Privacy Legislative Forum, to lobby for greater protection of private information, and several members testified yesterday before a House subcommittee.
For over a decade, consumer groups have pushed for measures to safeguard personal information from identity theft and fraud.
The group of companies is seeking federal legislation that would require businesses to notify consumers when collecting personal information, then allow individuals to choose how the information is used and to access data they have provided to cut down on unauthorized use.
An "uneven patchwork" of state laws aimed at protecting consumer privacy makes it difficult for companies to comply and is confusing for consumers, said Nicole Wong, Google's associate general counsel.
"When you have so many laws all with the same aim but with different definitions, companies aren't able to create protection in a uniform way," Wong said.
Ari Schwartz, deputy director of the District-based Center for Democracy and Technology, said a multitude of industry-specific laws has been ineffective in protecting consumers "across the board."
"We don't want states passing new laws every time a data breach happens," he said.
Meg Whitman, eBay's president and chief executive, is also in favor of a single federal law. Yesterday, she told the House Energy and Commerce Committee's subcommittee on commerce, trade and consumer protection that the Federal Trade Commission should more closely monitor how consumer information is obtained and shared on the Internet. She said Web-based retailers should not be held to a higher standard than other businesses.
Before the group formed in March, a few companies -- among them Hewlett-Packard Co., Microsoft Corp. and Intel Corp. -- actively supported far-reaching legislation, Schwartz said. Now companies such as Eastman Kodak Co., Eli Lilly and Co. and Procter & Gamble Co. have joined the cause.
The involvement of companies that haven't traditionally been big online players indicates the importance of the consumer privacy issue, he said.
Other analysts said that overregulating data gathered online could disrupt the free flow of information that is vital to healthy markets.
Restricting information could reduce competition and prevent new firms from entering the marketplace, said Thomas M. Lenard, senior fellow at the Progress & Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit organization that analyzes public policy relating to digital technology.
"The personal information utilized by firms produces great value for consumers and the economy," Lenard told the subcommittee. Regulation, he said, would have "unintended" consequences, "especially when imposed on a medium like the Internet that is changing so rapidly."
He said companies already have market-induced incentives to protect private data.
The challenge of securing personal information and the reluctance of Congress to pass stronger legislation has frustrated consumer advocates. Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said state governments have been more responsive than Congress in safeguarding consumer privacy. Pressure from private companies may yield results as long as the new campaign is more than a ploy to improve their image, he said.
"We welcome the participation of industry in the discussion, but it can't simply be an exercise in public relations," Rotenberg said.
|
Several large technology companies, including Google Inc. and eBay Inc., announced support yesterday for stronger federal regulations to protect consumer privacy on the Internet.
| 24 | 1 | 27 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/20/AR2006062001476.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006062119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/20/AR2006062001476.html
|
Merrill Apparently Shot Himself On the Bay
|
2006062119
|
Philip Merrill, the prominent publisher and former diplomat whose body was found floating in the Chesapeake Bay on Monday, apparently took his own life after struggling with a heart condition for more than a year, his family said last night.
Merrill, 72, was found with a small anchor tied around one or both ankles and what investigators believe was a shotgun wound to the head, according to a source familiar with the investigation. The source said Merrill had bought a shotgun in recent weeks.
"Obviously, he took his own life," the source said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the investigation remains open. "This is not an accident."
The development was a startling turn in a tragedy that began June 10, when Merrill's boat, the Merrilly, was found under full sail but with no one aboard, drifting in a stiff breeze near Plum Point. A recreational boater found his body Monday near Poplar Island, more than 11 miles from where the Merrilly was discovered.
Merrill, who was famously brash and determined as the leader of the Annapolis-based publishing empire that includes Washingtonian magazine and the Capital newspaper, lately had become fatigued and unmotivated, his family said in a statement late yesterday.
"Over the past four weeks we observed that his spirit had dimmed," the relatives said.
Merrill had undergone heart surgery a year ago and was on several medications as a result, they said.
"We were concerned for his welfare but never imagined that he would consider taking his own life," they said. "Unfortunately, with the same resolve and single-mindedness that made him so effective as an executive he appears to have made his decision to carry out his actions with tragic consequences."
From the moment the boat was recovered, authorities said they did not suspect foul play. Although Merrill's expertise as a sailor contributed to speculation that an accident was unlikely, confirmation of an apparent suicide left some of his former associates stunned.
"To be honest with you, I'm speechless," said Tom Marquardt, executive editor of the Capital. "This ending does not change his accomplishments one iota."
Chuck Conconi, who worked alongside Merrill for 15 years as Washingtonian's editor at large, said: "It is the most improbable thing I could conceive of. From everything I could determine, he loved his life."
Merrill was assistant secretary general to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in the early 1990s and president of the Export-Import Bank of the United States from 2002 until last year. Throughout his working life, he took time away from his business interests to pursue diplomatic and intelligence assignments for the government. He served six administrations, mostly in the State and Defense departments.
|
Philip Merrill, the prominent publisher and former diplomat whose body was found floating in the Chesapeake Bay on Monday, apparently took his own life after struggling with a heart condition for more than a year, his family said last night.
| 12.136364 | 1 | 44 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/20/AR2006062001490.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006062119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/20/AR2006062001490.html
|
Deal to Curb Sales of Paraphernalia Sours
|
2006062119
|
Twenty-one beer and wine stores in Ward 8 had agreed to stop selling items that double as crack pipes, rolling papers and baggies that police say aid in the use and distribution of illegal drugs.
But at a news conference yesterday to announce the deal, only two business owners showed, and even they did not sign the agreement, angering civic and government officials who had spent months working to broker the deal.
"They totally disrespect the black community," said Anthony Muhammad, a Ward 8 Advisory Neighborhood commissioner, during the news conference yesterday in Congress Heights.
"This is just devastating," said Phil Pannell, executive director of the Anacostia Coordinating Committee, which has sought the changes for nearly a decade.
Gary Cha, speaking on behalf of most of the business owners, said race was not an issue and that owners want minor changes to the agreement, including the removal of a requirement to monitor illegal activity inside and outside their stores. Cha also said the agreement is overreaching, citing provisions requiring owners to regulate when children shop, prevent loitering and limit advertisements for tobacco and alcohol.
"The retailers said, 'We don't want to put a noose around our neck and hope they don't tug on it,' " said Cha, president of the Korean American Business Association of Greater Washington. "We want to improve the relationship with the community. We don't want to go backward."
Until the businesses sign an agreement to stop selling paraphernalia, residents said they will continue to use their most effective tactic: challenging the liquor licenses of the offending businesses. Most of the businesses are near large commercial corridors, including along Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE and Alabama Avenue SE.
For years, residents and business owners have viewed one another warily. Muhammad spoke for community leaders who felt that the businesses -- mostly owned by Koreans -- ogled their mostly black patrons through clear plastic windows, spent little on upkeep and looked the other way as drugs and alcohol ravaged the community.
About 60,000 District residents, or 12 percent of the population, have a substance abuse problem, according to the D.C. Addiction Prevention and Recovery Administration. Partly as a result, police say, liquor stores, food carryouts and gas stations stock items used in the illegal drug trade, including tiny rose vases that double as crack pipes, rolling papers used to smoke marijuana and small plastic bags used to package drugs.
The Anacostia Coordinating Council had spent almost a decade trying to get the items off shelves, using poster drives and private meetings with business owners to try and shame them into compliance.
But what really worked was the council's latest tactic: challenging liquor store licenses. Two neighborhood advisory commissioners also signed on to the task, hoping to get store owners to keep their stores cleaner and prevent loitering, particularly at those near school buildings. Since the effort began in January, store owners have agreed to talks and even sponsored a dinner for community residents to listen to their concerns.
And signs of progress are popping up. Next to the cooler of Wild Irish Rose and Thunderbird malt liquors at King's Mini Market in Anacostia, for instance, is a sign alerting patrons that the store no longer sells crack pipes and rolling papers.
Last month, during a meeting at the Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration office, community leaders thought they had a deal.
So did Cynthia Simms, the ABRA's community resource officer, who was assigned to help the groups resolve their differences. Some businesses, she said, were concerned the agreement would put them at a competitive disadvantage because carryouts and gas stations would not be affected by the agreement. Her response: "The sale of these items is against the law."
Jamil Malik, who owns Liff's Market on Alabama Avenue SE, said he was disturbed about the language requiring businesses to not sell any goods to children during school hours.
"I cannot fight the whole day with children," said Malik, who attended the news conference but did not sign the agreement when others did not show up.
|
Twenty-one beer and wine stores in Ward 8 had agreed to stop selling items that double as crack pipes, rolling papers and baggies that police say aid in the use and distribution of illegal drugs.
| 20.25641 | 1 | 39 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/20/AR2006062001321.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006062119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/20/AR2006062001321.html
|
ABC Encouraged by Internet TV Trial
|
2006062119
|
More than 11 million viewers watched free ABC television shows on their computers during May, the first half of the network's two-month experiment with streaming shows on the Internet.
The numbers, which come from ABC parent Walt Disney Co., have encouraged the network that viewers are willing to watch advertising online in exchange for free programming. The shows -- "Lost," "Desperate Housewives," "Commander in Chief" and "Alias" -- promise limited commercial interruptions, and those are restricted to one sponsor per show. Advertisers include AT&T Inc., Cingular Wireless LLC, Ford Motor Co. and Universal Pictures.
The trial has been successful enough that the network will bring back the service to coincide with the television season's start in September.
To put the online numbers in perspective, "Lost" received the highest television ratings of the four ABC shows offered on the Internet, averaging about 15 million viewers a week in the recently completed season.
ABC -- along with ESPN, which is also owned by Disney -- is trying a number of ways to reach viewers with its programming and, in turn, deliver audience to advertisers.
In October, Disney began selling commercial-free episodes of some of its shows (Disney, ABC and ESPN content) at Apple Computer Inc.'s iTunes download store for $1.99 each. So far, iTunes has sold 6 million downloads of Disney content. About half of the downloads are episodes of "Lost," Disney Chief Financial Officer Thomas O. Staggs said recently.
Disney said the rate of purchased downloads stayed about the same in the first month of the two-month trial.
ABCNews.com averages 10 million unique monthly viewers, Disney said, and ABC News Now -- an Internet-based news and talk channel also accessible via cable and cellphones -- gets about 10 million plays a month.
Advertisers have complained to networks that they have been less able to deliver younger viewers, who are often spending more time online than watching television.
|
Stay updated on the latest technology news. Find profiles on different sectors of the tech industry. Learn about new developments in tech policy. Read technology reviews for PCs, laptops, cell phones, and other new gadgets.
| 8.511111 | 0.377778 | 0.511111 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/20/AR2006062001364.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006062119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/20/AR2006062001364.html
|
Union Rally Targets Smithfield Foods
|
2006062119
|
CHICAGO, June 20 -- Playing off the increased activism of immigrant rights groups, labor leaders said Tuesday that they are renewing efforts to organize some the nation's largest meatpacking plants where many immigrants work.
At a rally here that organizers said was the beginning of a series of demonstrations nationwide, labor leaders said they are targeting Smithfield Foods, one of the nation's largest meatpackers. A rally is scheduled in Washington on Thursday.
This city was once the center of the U.S. meatpacking industry, which has since shifted much of its operations to the South. Speaking at a rally in Chicago's largely defunct stockyards, North Carolina meatpackers said their working conditions have not improved in generations.
"The story is the same," said Rigo Valdez, an organizer with the United Food and Commercial Workers union, which has been trying for more than a decade to organize a Smithfield subsidiary, Smithfield Packing in Tar Heel, N.C. That facility is the world's largest pork processing plant, slaughtering about 32,000 hogs a day and employing about 5,500 workers. It has been cited for numerous violations by the National Labor Relations Board and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and was highlighted in a 2005 report by Human Rights Watch about abuses in the meat industry.
Former Smithfield worker Quincy Harvey described being denied workers' compensation and eventually fired after suffering three serious injuries on the job. He displayed a scar running down his hand and wrist where another worker's knife missed a hog's throat and hit him instead.
"There's less than a foot between workers, they're making fast movements with knives, so people are getting cut all the time," said Emma Herrera, director of the Eastern North Carolina Workers Center near the Smithfield plant.
In a statement in response to the rally, the company said that "there is no doubt that these are demanding jobs." But it noted that Smithfield has logged a downward trend in worker injuries. The company called the rally a politically motivated move by the union, which has been voted down in two elections at the Tar Heel plant.
The union organized the Chicago rally in conjunction with the same immigrants' rights groups responsible for the March 10 and May 1 marches attended by hundreds of thousands. Meatpacking jobs are a chief reason Mexican and Central American immigrants have flocked to the South in the past decade -- North Carolina had the country's largest increase in immigrant population between 1990 and 2000. More than half of Smithfield's workforce are immigrants, and about 40 percent are African American.
|
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.
| 11.571429 | 0.452381 | 0.5 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/20/AR2006062000138.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006062119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/20/AR2006062000138.html
|
Democrats Divided on Withdrawal Of Troops
|
2006062119
|
While congressional Republicans continued to show almost unanimous support for President Bush's handling of the Iraq war, Democrats struggled for consensus yesterday, reflecting what some of them called the public's mixed feelings about the three-year-old conflict.
After a sometimes heated closed-door meeting, Senate Democrats postponed action on two proposals related to drawdowns of U.S. troops in Iraq. One would direct Bush to bring nearly all the troops home within 13 months. The other would urge him to begin an unspecified withdrawal by the end of this year.
Debate and votes on the two measures are likely to be held today and tomorrow, with Senate Republicans happy to clear the way for Democrats to showcase their divisions. Senators predicted that few, if any, Republicans will embrace the Democrats' proposals, mirroring the nearly unanimous support House Republicans displayed last week for Bush's policies.
The Senate Democrats' weekly closed luncheon was unusually spirited, participants said, because the discussion focused entirely on Iraq, particularly Sen. John F. Kerry's proposal to order Bush to remove the troops by July 31, 2007. When the 90-minute session ended, only a handful of Democrats appeared to be leaning toward supporting Kerry (Mass.), but he vowed to push the amendment today.
Some Democrats said their party's divisions are hardly surprising in light of polls showing that many Americans oppose the war but do not want to leave Iraq amid such chaos that it is a breeding ground for terrorism.
"The American people have mixed feelings about Iraq -- where we are, where we're going there," Sen. Mark Pryor (Ark.) said as he left the meeting. "The American people really understand that it's a complicated situation."
The Democrats' chief alternative to Kerry's proposal is sponsored by Sens. Carl M. Levin (Mich.) and Jack Reed (R.I.). Their nonbinding resolution urges Bush to begin "redeploying" troops from Iraq by Dec. 31, but it sets no deadline for a full withdrawal.
Kerry, Levin and Reed say Iraqis must understand that the U.S. military presence in their country is not open-ended and that Iraqis therefore should step up efforts to train and equip their police and army. Backers of the Levin-Reed plan say that a firm deadline for a full withdrawal could imperil Iraq's government if its security forces are not ready to impose stability.
Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said yesterday that he would support both measures. "This war has been a costly, tragic mistake that has not made us more secure," he said. "We need to send the signal to all concerned that it's time for Iraqis to take responsibility for running Iraq and for our troops to come home."
GOP leaders took obvious pleasure in the Democrats' disarray, issuing a stream of press releases with headlines such as, "Democrats Divided On The Meaning Of Their Own Amendments."
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), speaking of the Democratic proposals, said: "The Iraqi people want and need us to help them. If we don't -- if we break our promise and cut and run as some would have us do -- the implications could be catastrophic."
Some Democrats, however, said congressional Republicans are misreading the public and the situation in Iraq. "Republicans are unified with Bush in an absolutely disastrous, calamitous policy," Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) said in an interview. Biden, who has traveled to Iraq several times, said he did not support Kerry's proposal but agrees that the United States must send Baghdad a strong signal to purge sectarian killers from its security forces and bring more Sunnis into the circles of power.
Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) acknowledged his party's divisions over Iraq but played down the significance. "One thing Democrats agree on is this war has taken too long, it's too expensive and costs too many lives and too many soldiers injured," he told reporters. "We all agree there should be a change in the course of the war. We all agree that there should be redeployment starting sooner rather than later."
|
While congressional Republicans continued to show almost unanimous support for President Bush's handling of the Iraq war, Democrats struggled for consensus yesterday, reflecting what some of them called the public's mixed feelings about the three-year-old conflict.
| 17.652174 | 0.978261 | 22.282609 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/20/AR2006062001340.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006062119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/20/AR2006062001340.html
|
Strike in Gaza Kills 3 Children
|
2006062119
|
JERUSALEM, June 20 -- An Israeli airstrike in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday killed at least three Palestinian children and wounded 14 people, many of them children as well, according to witnesses and Palestinian health officials.
Israeli military officials said the target of the strike, which occurred around 7:30 p.m., was a car carrying gunmen from the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the armed wing of the Fatah party. Military officials said the men were planning to carry out an unspecified attack, perhaps preparing to fire missiles into southern Israel.
But Palestinian witnesses said the men escaped from the Volkswagen Golf station wagon before the missile struck the car, which was passing through a busy commercial district of Gaza City. The scene turned quickly into an angry rally with demonstrators denouncing the attack and vowing to take revenge on Israel.
Shrapnel from the blast sprayed into a group of bystanders, Palestinian witnesses said. Hospital officials in Gaza said three children -- Mohammed Roqa, 5, Samia al-Shariff, 5, and Belal al-Hessi, 15 -- suffered fatal wounds in the attack.
"If there were civilian casualties as a result of this, the IDF does regret it, as it always does," said a spokesman for Israel's military, the Israel Defense Forces. "But the fact is the terrorist organizations operate within these civilian areas, and the Hamas government has done nothing to stop them."
Hours earlier, the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, called on the various armed groups at war with Israel to stop the rocket fire that has frightened and infuriated Israeli communities on the periphery of the Gaza Strip. Among the groups is the military wing of Hamas, the radical Islamic movement now running the Palestinian ministries, although two smaller factions are chiefly responsible for the missile fire.
At least three missiles landed in southern Israel on Tuesday before Abbas made his appeal, although there were no reports of injuries. The missiles are highly inaccurate and have not killed any Israelis since Israel evacuated its settlements in Gaza last year. But the attacks have surged recently, and one Israeli man was gravely injured this month.
The southern city of Sderot, the target of many of the missiles, closed schools, streets and the municipal government Tuesday to protest what residents say is the Israeli government's weak response to the rocket fire.
[On Wednesday, Israeli soldiers shot dead an armed Palestinian man and wounded another man in a raid in the West Bank town of Nablus, medics and Israeli military sources said, Reuters reported.]
The airstrike Tuesday came a week after an Israeli missile attack on a minibus carrying at least one rocket in Gaza City killed at least 10 Palestinians Also this month, an explosion on a beach in northern Gaza killed eight Palestinian civilians. Palestinian officials and a rights group have said an Israeli artillery shell may have caused the blast. Israel has denied involvement.
Special correspondent Islam Abdelkareem in Gaza City contributed to this report.
|
JERUSALEM, June 20 -- An Israeli airstrike in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday killed at least three Palestinian children and wounded 14 people, many of them children as well, according to witnesses and Palestinian health officials.
| 14.175 | 1 | 40 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061900833.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006062119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061900833.html
|
Flash: No Needles
|
2006062119
|
The search for a benign, effective alternative treatment for hot flashes -- which has included the use of soy products, Chinese herbs and hypnosis -- has hit another roadblock.
A new study of acupuncture by Mayo Clinic researchers has found that sham treatments were no better than real acupuncture in relieving the daily drenching sweats that some women find disabling during menopause.
The new research, presented last month at the North American Research Conference on Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Edmonton, Alberta, is scheduled to be published in the journal Menopause early next year, according to lead researcher Ann Vincent, an assistant professor of medicine at the Rochester, Minn., clinic.
Vincent said she and her colleagues were disappointed by the results of the study, which was funded by Mayo and prompted in part by the findings from the Women's Health Initiative (WHI), a federally funded study of more than 36,000 women ages 50 to 79.
"We were hoping for something better," she said.
Beginning in 2002, WHI researchers reported that estrogen was beneficial in reducing hot flashes, but that the hormone, routinely prescribed to middle-aged women for years, also raised the risk of cancer, heart disease, stroke, dementia and other ailments.
As a result, federal health officials have recommended that women bothered by menopausal symptoms such as unpredictable sweats, sleep disturbances and vaginal dryness take the lowest dose of estrogen for the shortest possible time. Hot flashes, one of the most common symptoms of menopause, affect an estimated 75 percent of women, most of them in their forties and fifties.
It is unclear what causes hot flashes, which range in severity from barely noticeable to embarrassingly obvious and can leave some sufferers red-faced and wrung out. In most cases they are transitory, lasting only a few months or years, but in some cases they can last a decade or more. Hot flashes typically begin in the year or so before menopause and tend to abate in the years afterward.
Experts in women's health say they are one of the most common ailments for which women use alternative medicine and that interest in non-hormonal treatments has increased as a result of the WHI findings.
The study of acupuncture as a remedy for hot flashes was sparked by reports from women who had undergone the ancient Chinese therapy for other problems and reported that their hot flashes seemed to moderate.
Acupuncture involves the use of hair-thin disposable metallic needles inserted into various parts of the body; treatments are supposed to be painless and are designed to correct energy imbalances.
The 2,000-year-old treatment is widely used around the world, according to the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
|
The search for a benign, effective alternative treatment for hot flashes -- which has included the use of soy products, Chinese herbs and hypnosis -- has hit another roadblock. The study of acupuncture as a remedy for hot flashes was sparked by reports from women who had undergone the ancient...
| 9.833333 | 0.981481 | 27.12963 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/20/AR2006062000558.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006062119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/20/AR2006062000558.html
|
Md. Test Scores Rise but Near Plateau
|
2006062119
|
Student achievement gains in Maryland public schools have slowed after an initial surge in reading and mathematics test scores, signaling that educators now face a much stiffer challenge to meet the ambitious goals of the federal No Child Left Behind law.
Scores for the 2006 Maryland School Assessments that were made public yesterday show gains statewide for the third straight year, including in school systems in Montgomery and Prince George's counties and elsewhere in the Washington area. Racial and ethnic achievement gaps also narrowed slightly in some grades.
But the overall pace of growth diminished sharply, a trend seen in most elementary and middle grades tested.
In third grade, 78 percent of students tested this year in reading and 79 percent tested in math reached at least proficiency -- the state's term for grade-level performance. Three years ago, 58 percent of third-graders met that standard in reading; 65 percent in math.
But the percentage-point increase in both subjects is tailing off. A 13-point jump in third-grade reading in 2004 was followed by gains of five points in 2005 and three points this year. Third-grade math gains were seven points in 2004, five points in 2005 and two points this year.
With one exception -- a slight acceleration of growth in seventh-grade reading scores -- similar patterns emerged in grades four through eight. Some trend lines appear to be nearing a plateau. State officials said the data show that many school systems face a more difficult climb to meet federal standards.
"The ability to make large gains when you're doing better is harder, much harder," said state Superintendent of Schools Nancy S. Grasmick. "The low-hanging fruit, so to speak, is easier initially."
Experts say scores tend to rise across the board in the first years of a new statewide test, as students and teachers learn the exam format. "Once those things are in place, now the growth is going to be more modest," said Duane Arbogast, a testing specialist with Anne Arundel County schools. "You're not going to see huge drops, either. Nothing is going to be very large."
But the rate of growth in test scores is critical to whether Maryland -- or any state -- can comply with the federal law. Enacted in 2002, No Child Left Behind envisions that all students from grades three through eight will perform at grade level by 2014.
Schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress toward that goal face sanctions, up to the threat of state takeover.
To gauge schools, the state tested about 400,000 students in March from third through eighth grade. Virginia and D.C. public schools gave standardized tests later in the spring, with results expected in August.
Among Maryland's 24 systems, the urgency for higher scores is especially acute in Prince George's. Seventy-five county schools are rated in need of improvement, a total exceeded only in urban Baltimore.
Yesterday, Prince George's schools chief John E. Deasy estimated that the needs-improvement total would grow to about 85 after the state finishes analyzing test scores. That's more than 40 percent of roughly 200 schools in the county.
Yet the Prince George's scores rose for a third straight year, and the rate of growth was higher than the state average.
"While we celebrate these successes, we need to escalate the gains," Deasy said. He said some schools with high numbers of disadvantaged students -- including five that are expected to escape the needs-improvement list -- offer a model for dramatic improvement. "It can happen anywhere," he said. Deasy spoke by telephone as he was headed into a Maryland State Board of Education meeting in Baltimore to discuss strategy for chronically underperforming schools.
In Montgomery, educators face what might be called the 90-percent barrier in elementary schools. More than eight out of 10 students in grades three through five in the county showed proficiency or better in reading and math. St. Mary's County had similar results. Improvement next year may be a tall order.
But Howard, Calvert and Anne Arundel counties have shown that it can be done. More than 90 percent of Anne Arundel fourth-graders scored at least proficient in math. Howard fourth-graders have achieved the feat in reading three years in a row. Calvert's third- and fourth-graders this year topped the 90 percent mark in reading and math.
Middle school remains a puzzle for many educators. Statewide, about 45 percent of eighth-graders and 40 percent of seventh-graders failed to show math proficiency. Math tests for those two grades perennially produce the state's lowest scores.
Montgomery officials have focused intensely on middle schools in the past year, but their efforts so far have yielded few gains. For the most part, middle school reading scores stagnated this year. Math scores rose modestly. Among the county's eighth-graders, about a quarter fell short of proficiency in reading and about a third in math.
State efforts to reduce educational disparities had mixed results. Black and Hispanic students continued to score well below their white and Asian American counterparts, with gaps of about 20 percentage points in third- and fifth-grade reading proficiency and about 30 points in eighth-grade reading. About half of black eighth-graders scored below grade level in reading; one out of five white eighth-graders scored that low.
But state charts posted at http://www.mdreportcard.org show some narrowing of racial and ethnic achievement gaps in elementary grades. In addition, the state reported that students with disabilities or limited English skills and students from high-poverty families narrowed some gaps.
About 57 percent of students receiving special education services who took the third-grade reading test showed proficiency or better, up from 25 percent in 2003. This year's special-ed performance in third-grade reading was nearly as strong as the results that regular education students posted three years ago. Their 2003 proficiency rate in third-grade reading was 62 percent.
Staff writers Lori Aratani, Daniel de Vise and William Wan contributed to this report.
|
Student achievement gains in Maryland public schools have slowed after an initial surge in reading and mathematics test scores, signaling that educators now face a much stiffer challenge to meet the ambitious goals of the federal No Child Left Behind law.
| 27.302326 | 1 | 43 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901236.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006062019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901236.html
|
Closing Time at Guantanamo
|
2006062019
|
We'd better not turn away just yet from the suicides of those three detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The rest of the world clearly isn't ready to move on. And with good reason.
In many newspapers around the globe "Guantanamo" is much more than the name of a beautiful harbor on Cuba's southern coast. It has become shorthand for a whole litany of American excesses in George W. Bush's "global war on terror," the most visible example of how the United States blithely ignores the values of due process and rule of law that it so aggressively preaches, if necessary at the point of a gun.
U.S. officials have portrayed the three men -- Ali Abdullah Ahmed of Yemen, and Mani Shaman Turki al-Habardi al-Utaybi and Yasser Talal al-Zahrani of Saudi Arabia -- as irredeemable jihadists whose deaths were an act of war. Ahmed was allegedly a "mid- to high-level al-Qaeda operative," Utaybi a "militant" recruiter for jihad, Zahrani a "front-line" warrior for the Taliban. One State Department official called their deaths by hanging "a good P.R. move," and while those words were quickly disavowed by higher-ups, the general reaction from the U.S. government has been something pretty close to "good riddance."
For all we know, these men might have been the evil miscreants our government says they were. Since our government wouldn't describe whatever evidence it claimed to have against them, it's impossible to tell. I think any reasonable observer would conclude it's also quite possible that these men were clinically depressed after being held for years in steel-mesh cells without legal recourse, without even formal charges, and that they simply sought the only kind of release they could possibly achieve. At least one of them, Ahmed, had been on a hunger strike for most of this year, which would have meant that guards regularly force-fed him through tubes stuck down his nose. What would that do to your state of mind?
The point here isn't to go all bleeding-heart over three men who may well have been the type who gleefully slaughter innocents in the name of a warped religiousness. The point is that when our government mocks transparency and tries to conduct this war of ideas in the shadows, away from prying eyes, we defeat ourselves.
Four journalists -- from the Charlotte Observer, the Miami Herald and the Los Angeles Times -- who happened to be at Guantanamo on other business and whose reporting could have independently confirmed the Pentagon's version of the suicides were unceremoniously put on a plane home last Wednesday. The Pentagon's rationale -- that it was unfair to allow the reporters to stay, because others who wanted to come and cover the story were being turned away -- is one of those masterpieces of faux logic for which Donald Rumsfeld is justly famous. Wouldn't the solution be to let other journalists in, rather than kick those four out?
How silly of me. The White House and the Pentagon have fought tooth and nail to keep the prison camp at Guantanamo cloaked in deepest obscurity. They didn't want to tell us who was being held there. They still give us only the sketchiest information about why individuals are being detained. They just say, basically, "these are bad people," and don't give us the information that would back up that judgment.
The administration doesn't want to call the detainees prisoners of war, because that would accord them some rights under international law, and it doesn't want to treat them as criminal suspects since that would give them rights under U.S. law. So they remain "enemy combatants" for whom the rules seem to be whatever we decide at any given time.
The president's lament that he can't find countries that will take some of the Guantanamo detainees is, frankly, lame. It may well be true that some of these people are hard to get rid of. But any way you look at it, arbitrary, indefinite detention without formal legal charges is an abandonment of the very ideals this country is supposedly fighting to spread throughout the world. We're long past the point where the U.S. government's clear obligation is to give the detainees a proper day in court, with effective legal representation and access to the evidence against them.
And we're long past the point where the government needs to show the world what's happening at Guantanamo. Instead of hurrying to expel reporters, the Pentagon should invite one and all to witness the orderly, legal process of emptying and shutting down a prison that is doing this nation much more harm than good.
The writer will take questions at 1 p.m. today onhttp://www.washingtonpost.com. His e-mail address iseugenerobinson@washpost.com.
|
We'd better not turn away just yet from the suicides of those three detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The rest of the world clearly isn't ready to move on. And with good reason.
| 24.72973 | 1 | 37 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/howitsplayingout/2006/06/everybody_loves_to_hate_linda.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006062019id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/howitsplayingout/2006/06/everybody_loves_to_hate_linda.html
|
Everybody Loves to Hate Linda
|
2006062019
|
In the lead piece in Sunday's Outlook, Linda Hirshman says she stopped reading the mommy blogs when the vitriol tended toward the vomit-inducing (literally: as in “you make me vomit”), but that doesn’t mean the mommy bloggers stopped reading her. And so in response to her piece on the vehemence of the response to her views on women and work, the Linda Hirshman anti-fan club is out in respectable force. Also out in respectable force: bloggers rising either to defend fellow online journalist Jason Leopold in the face of Joe Lauria's piece on his dubious ethics in Outlook this week or to commend Lauria for his account.
Starting with Hirshman, the most interesting response is from the non mommy-bloggers on Hirshman’s argument that it is a failure of feminism that many well educated women are fleeing the workforce to stay home and raise their children. No one attacks the argument head on, really, or at least not without chiding Hirshman’s tactics as well as her message.
At Powerline, Paul Mirengoff posts that Hirshman’s questions about what is best for women sounds like “the kind of stuff best left to one’s support group—or one’s psychiatrist.”
In the Corner at National Review Online, Jonah Goldberg calls Hirshman the Sally Field of Philosophers, which is a little backward because, as Hirshman notes, the bloggers don’t like her, they really don’t like her.
His take is that Hirshman’s surprise at the breadth of online criticism against her shows she’s an internet neophyte (with her book blog now up and running one could argue she’s caught on quickly enough). Additionally, her scapegoating is weak: “She does manage to blame — shock! — evangelical Christians for much of the push-back against her book and for the pernicious support this society gives to women who want to devote a few years to raising their kids.”
The story came out on father’s day, so a few daddy bloggers took time to reflect on the women (and children in their life). James Harris at dadspoint (“Fatherhood in the 21st century”) is “proud to call” himself a feminist. He says “It is a core value of how I treat women and educate my sons.” He’s hopeful that “the personal is political” can mean something again. Implied in that statement, perhaps, is that the situation Hirshman criticizes means the personal has slipped from the political radar. Another dad sort of shrugs at the Catch-22 Hirshman highlights in her writing. “On one level, she's probably right. If you drop out of the workforce, you harm yourself by making yourself economically dependent, and to the extent that this serves as an example for others, you hurt others…” But: the problem here is having kids is great. That’s his Father’s Day conclusion. “If you don't raise children, you are also missing out on an important part of the human experience.”
And then there were the moms. They were the ones Hirshman responded to in the piece and they are keeping up the volley, for the most part. The majority of bloggers don’t react to the piece itself so much as reiterate their initial outrage. The most interesting, new points respond to Hirshman’s assertion that faced with personal attacks in the vein of “I wave my middle finger at you” she stopped reading “the unmediated content of the Internet.” This statement irked many who toil, unmediated, on the internet.
Alison Byrne took offense, asking “In other words, promote intellectual debate until someone disagrees with you.”
Karen Braun, who blogs at spunkyhomeschool.blogspot.com, also criticized Hirshman for admitting that she tuned out some critics. Braun is a college-educated mother of 6 who, as her blog name might suggest, homeschools her children. She notes that it might be possible that “the ‘queen bee’ of the working woman has been dethroned by a growing number of little bees busy in the blogosphere and she doesn't like it? Today, the voices of stay at home moms can be heard by anyone willing to click over and read what we're saying…Slowly women are catching a vision, one blog at a a time, for what their heart told them was true all along - being a wife and mother is the most lucrative career around.”
The conversation continues, with some nuance, from women writing that the negative reaction to Hirshman is not simply about the issue, but more about “her arrogance dictating what women should do,” and that Hirshman needs to acknowledge the value in raising children as not just a series of backbreaking repetitive tasks, but also the most important job any person, man or woman, could undertake.Others suggest that the conversation needs to shift to the public policy arena, with more realistic options affordable childcare and flexible employment.
And Brad Wilcox and Elizabeth Marquardt at Family Scholars respond directly to Hirshman. Marquardt takes issue with Hirshman’s broad characterization of the site as evangelical. She then asks: “Since when does getting a paycheck from “the man” make for a life well-lived?” and Wilcox chimes in with statistics that seem to suggest it doesn’t.
Hirshman was online, responding to 500+ messages on her site. She shared some personal stories and noted that one main theme emerging is the need for “regime change”.
She also said, as many have noticed, “I have an unnatural taste for judgment,” which is why she encourages readers to hit her Web site: gettoworkmanifesto.com and contact her there.
Father's Day Outlook wasn't all about Hirshman. Many Iraq-focused bloggers pick up on the Baghdad embassy cable and note how perilous it is even for employees at the "fortress-like US embassy in Iraq." Most express disappointment and sadness at the details in the memo, and very little surprise at how grim the picture actually is. Finally, as noted above, Linda Hirshman wasn't the only online personality featured in Outlook for whom bloggers expressed concern. Joe Lauria wrote about the reporter Jason Leopold's dubious tactics in obtaining his Rove "scoop." And while many bloggers excoriate Lauria, some are concerned for Leopold and his journalistic ethics. One, in particular, is Jeff Gannon, who is still blogging away at jeffgannon.com after his brief moment in the White House press corps spotlight. He says: "Get this guy some help--fast." Wise words from a man who would know from the perils of online journalism.
By Rachel Dry | June 19, 2006; 4:14 PM ET Previous: Advice Overload for the Democrats | Next: Perle's Wisdom
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cgi-bin/mt/mtb.cgi/7985
Sunday's Outlook piece by Linda Hirshman is the first time I've heard about the controversy set off, apparently, by her article last December. In Sunday's article she said that "women who quit thir jobs to stay home with their children were making a mistake . . . "
I'm just wondering . . . let's assume for a moment that, per her direction, no mother quits her job to stay home "with children;" (I'll ignore her choice of phrase for the moment -- no actually, I won't -- I think a more accurate phrase would be " . . . stay home to raise their children . . . " Stay-at-home moms (and dads) aren't just hanging out with the kiddies, they're working at raising the next generation!!!)
Anyway, I digressed . . . has anyone mentioned to Ms. Hirshman that, if no mothers stay at home to raise their children, that means (a) we will need to create a huge number (probably millions?) of day care slots; (b) another huge number of those slots will have to be subsidized or free, because on minimum wage no one can pay for day care (in Fairfax County, VA, monthly day care for a prekindergartener is $800 or more); (c) if we're going to need millions more day care slots, we're also going to need qualified and highly trained, carefully screened day care teachers . . . 90% of whom will likely be women . . . but that's ok, because since no mothers are going to stay home to take care of their children, lots more women will be available to work in the low-paying, highly frustrating and undervalued positions of day care teachers. And while we're at it, let's factor in the cost of infant care. And let's add sick child day care to the mix, because presumably if mothers don't take off work when children get sick, someone else has to take care of them . . .
I don't know for sure, but does anyone else see the vicious circle Ms. Hirshman's philosophy put into practice could cause?
So whatever happened to "the best interests of the child?" Sometimes that means a stay-at-home parent (usually mom) and sometimes it means available day care or a caring, stable relative. Yes, I agree that quitting her job puts a mother in the unhappy position of potentially jeopardizing her career (by the way, not all mothers have "careers" per se, many millions of mothers have jobs that they find just to keep food on the table, which is another undervalued strength women exhibit but keep right on doing -- because they HAVE TO!
Ms. Hirshman misses the mark on so many counts with her so-called philosophy (when did Philosophy become law, telling us "how to live?" I must have missed that turn of events.) I will defend vehemently her right to an OPINION. Thankfully, we live in a country where that is our political and human right.
Just as it is a mother's (or father's) right to decide where to put her/his priorities. Whether that's staying home for some period of time to raise children full-time, or work and raise children, or not to have children at all, or . . .
It's unfortunate that "having a career" is so highly valued and parenting is so far down the scale. We value athleticss more than parenting; not a new argument, I'm aware.
But to say that it's not valuable at all, or to classify it as "a mistake," is insulting to anyone who is making a choice they hope or believe is in their children's best interests. If more of us, including our welfare, social services, educational and judicial systems put children first more often, we would all benefit.
Posted by: Linda Schade | June 20, 2006 01:22 PM
Ugh. Contrary to what James Harris wants to think, the personal ISN'T political. That's a bunch of tired rhetoric from the 60s that has no basis in objective reality. I make personal decisions based on my personal needs, wants, and opinions, and I don't give a flying fig if someone else is offended by those decisions. Epidimeological psychiatrists will tell you that nearly everyone makes decisions that way.
I drink wine at dinner because I like it, not in a calculated maneuver to denigrate water- and beer-drinkers at the next table. My wife and I decided not to have children, because that's what WE decided was best for US; we honestly didn't consider anyone else's opinion or feelings in the matter. And we certainly didn't make that decision as a way of putting down someone else's decisions.
Whatever happened to "live and let live", and "to each his own"? Turning these intensely personal decisions into political theater is wrong on every count I can think of.
Posted by: John | June 20, 2006 01:51 PM
In this article, the writer said
No one attacks the argument head on, really, or at least not without chiding Hirshman's tactics as well as her message.
That's a bit of an unfair assessment. Many blogs wrote very articulate arguments shortly after her original article was published. But her piece this time around was about how she was "attacked" for what she wrote. This week's article was all about Linda Hirshman. It would have been redundant to rehash her original article again. The purpose of Ms. Hirshman's article in the Post was to talk about how the blogs affected her. And that is what most responded to this week.
Posted by: Spunky | June 20, 2006 03:35 PM
The idea that you know what God is or isn't going to do to Dana is call judgment. Guess what to all you Bible thumpers it is a sin to judge. You do not have the right to judge Dana or any other person for the actions that they do unless you are free from sin, are you? You have missed the point of this article, it is about choice, the last time I looked we have that freedom here in America. If Dana had the choice of Plan B then there would be no baby. We must be able to stop pregnancies before they happen or deal with the consequence's after, you can not have it both ways.
Posted by: nallcando | June 20, 2006 03:40 PM
I engaged in an email "debate" with Linda Hirshman after I saw her make her outrageous judgments about stay-at-home mothers last year on "60 Minutes." Although I give her credit for responding to my email and participating in a "discussion" with me, I have to say that she is even more hostile--indeed, downright insulting--in the context of personal interaction than she comes across in a media situation. She loses credibility and her ability to persuade in her complete refusal to acknowledge anything positive about opposing opinions and in her judgmental tone. I also discovered in my exchange with her that she believes that most stay-at-home mothers have domestic help, sometimes a full staff, that allows them to have frequent spa days and tennis lessons and such. That may be true in the rarified air of the wealthy suburbs of New York City, but it's definitely not true for most mothers at home in the rest of the U.S. I, too, find her hubris in declaring what is "right" for women to do for their well-being and career choices to be outrageous. She really seems to think that those of us who, despite being well educated, have decided to stay home to rear our children are not only stupid but under the thumbs of our imbecilic and domineering husbands. Heaven forbid the thought that we might actually be happy!
Posted by: Shippy | June 20, 2006 04:27 PM
Linda was specifically focusing on highly-educated women, not the average working-class woman. Thus, arguments about day care and the like are fairly irrelevant, for I doubt it is difficult for highly-educated people to afford childcare. Linda has good points. While I do not agree with her ideals about the goals of feminism--I am of the school that the goal of the movement is to provide women with equality, as well as choices in regard to how to live life, while she seems to believe that there is only one obvious path for educated women to pursue. She does bring an interesting question to the fore: where is the equality when it comes to raising children? Take two highly educated adults who are married and decide to have children and why is it that the mother will most likely be the one to take time out of her life (and career path) to raise them? It seems to be the default mode for the woman to stay home. Why aren't more fathers staying home, and most important, why aren't more women demanding that it be the father who stays home? Why bother to be a highly-educated woman if you have no other intention but to be a housewife in the end? Why waste the time and money? I realize the last two questions are pushing it a little. However, this has serious implications in the workplace. Men continue to excel and dominate in fields considered most respectable, while women (again, we are focusing on the highly-educated)dead-end and are left to live by others decisions when they could just as easily be the ones making them (in an effort to equalize the gender differential). For those who think that the personal is separate from the political--you're idealist, they are highly integrated. The personal choice of these women staying home results in the rule of the professional and political worlds by men. Effectively leaving out the voice of women no longer by force, but by the choices of these women who choose to "bear the great responsibility of raising the next generation." If you ask me, the best influence one can have on the next generation is by affecting change in the professional and political realms...and women are CHOOSING to drop out of these realms like flies.
Posted by: Z | June 20, 2006 10:35 PM
"Starting with Hirshman" and ... ending with Hirshman, you didn't get very far.
Posted by: yousee | June 21, 2006 02:24 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.
|
A weekly look at Internet reaction and blogging about the lead story in the Outlook section. Visit www.washingtonpost.com/.
| 182.631579 | 0.736842 | 0.947368 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901417.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006062019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901417.html
|
Japan Plans to Bring Troops Home as Iraqis Take Over
|
2006062019
|
TOKYO, June 20 -- Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi announced today that he will withdraw 550 troops from Iraq, ending a landmark mission that became Tokyo's largest military-related operation since World War II.
On Monday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announced that Iraqi troops would take over security next month around the southern city of Samawah, where the Japanese and other forces are stationed. Officials here have repeatedly said that the Japanese -- whose withdrawal has been anticipated for months -- had been awaiting that decision before finalizing withdrawal plans.
In a nationally televised news conference at 1 p.m. Tuesday, Koizumi said the troops had helped rebuild the infrastructure of the area where they were based and he pledged to continue aiding Iraqi reconstruction, but he offered no timetable for withdrawal.
At a news conference a day earlier, Koizumi declined to give a specific timeline on the withdrawal but said Japan will continue to provide reconstruction and humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people even after the troops are pulled out.
"When the time comes," Koizumi said Monday, "I will decide when will be the appropriate timing to have the SDF troops return home safely after getting the understanding of other countries and the Iraqi government."
Koizumi's decision to pull out, officials said, was likely to be contingent on an announcement by the British and Australians to withdraw the forces around Samawah that had been protecting the Japanese. In Canberra, Australia, Defense Minister Brendan Nelson said Tuesday that Australia would reassign its 460 troops now protecting Japanese forces to help the Iraqi military secure the border with Syria. Nelson said the troops would be redeployed when Japan withdrew.
The Japanese withdrawal is not expected to dramatically affect the effort to rebuild Iraq. Analysts have said the Japanese mission there is more symbolic than strategic. The troops have provided engineering guidance and humanitarian services but are limited in their role by Japan's pacifist constitution and have had to count on other foreign forces for protection.
The contentious move to dispatch Japanese troops to Iraq was seen as a dramatic step for Japan, which after decades of engaging in what came to be known as "checkbook diplomacy" has shown more willingness to deploy its forces.
Despite public opposition, Koizumi pushed through the plan to dispatch Japanese ground troops in December 2003, largely in an effort to demonstrate support for the U.S.-Japan alliance. Japanese troops began arriving in Iraq in February 2004.
U.S. officials have requested that Japan continue to provide air transport assistance in Kuwait and surrounding areas. The Japanese said they would consider the request, and analysts have said Koizumi is likely to agree to the proposal.
|
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.
| 10.913043 | 0.478261 | 0.478261 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901605.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006062019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901605.html
|
Artsy Hotel Raises the Barre
|
2006062019
|
Yesterday's staff training at the flashy new Hotel Palomar included none of the standard lectures, manuals or cheesy retro videotapes.
Instead, the management sent in ballet dancers. And comedians.
And so the sleek marble lobby bobbed with the compact frame and overflowing personality of Washington Ballet Artistic Director Septime Webre, who commandeered a troupe of lavender-shirted bellhops in a lesson of classical ballet.
"Fluid movements, one two three, one two three," Webre chanted, extending his arm toward the lobby's textured wallpaper. "Tuck in your [backside]. No booties out in Maryland, please. It's 202, not 301."
Greenbelt resident and Palomar bellboy-in-training Alvin Green tucked in. "This is extensive training," he said. "It's a . . . uh . . . different experience." Sighing at Green's port de bras, Septime said only, "Very, very good" before swanning away to adjust the shoulders of a future concierge.
That the Palomar has given its hotel a theme ("Art -- in motion," revealed General Manager Brett Orlando with a dramatic pause) may not come as a surprise. Though the theme of some chain hotels seems to be "Hand over credit card, get key," boutique hotels in past years have attempted to one-up each other in lobby spectacle. Think of the Standard in Los Angeles with its live female model ("performance artist") behind glass near the check-in. Or the Hotel QT near New York's Times Square with its glass wall looking through to swimmers lounging in a "plunge pool."
"There's a notion in hospitality that 'a great waiter disappears,' but I disagree with that," Webre said with a flourish. "I think of a lobby as a stage set."
Echoed Orlando, adjusting his taupe plaid tie against his taupe striped shirt: "Every hotel tells a story."
The Palomar hopes to tell its story to gallery-hopping guests who would get excited about chocolates hand-painted by an "artist chocolatier" and nightly "art of wine" tastings at which local artists mingle with the crowd. The Dupont Circle hotel will have its grand opening in September, but is currently accepting guests on a limited basis. It is Kimpton Hotels' seventh location in the District; others include Hotel Monaco and the Hotel Madera, just two blocks away.
At the Hotel Palomar, book the "ballet suite" with its barre and wall of mirrors and you'll become a patron of the arts: An (undisclosed) portion of the room fee will be donated to the Washington Ballet, according to Orlando.
Along with all the fancy physical footwork, employees must dance around guests' demanding personalities, too. Enter comedians from the Washington Improv Theater, who were called in to train the staff in how to deal with difficult customers.
|
Get style news headlines from The Washington Post, including entertainment news, comics, horoscopes, crossword, TV, Dear Abby. arts/theater, Sunday Source and weekend section. Washington Post columnists, movie/book reviews, Carolyn Hax, Tom Shales.
| 11.176471 | 0.431373 | 0.588235 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901193.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006062019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901193.html
|
Wizards Will Take a Look At 4 Big Men
|
2006062019
|
The Washington Wizards are expected to work out four draft prospects today at Verizon Center: forwards Cedric Simmons , who played two seasons at North Carolina State; James Augustine (Illinois); Damir Markota (Croatia) and Vladimir Veremeenko (Russia).
Simmons, who averaged 11.8 points, 6.3 rebounds and 2.5 blocks as a sophomore last season, is projected to be taken in the top 15. So the interest shown by the Wizards, who hold the 18th and 48th selections in next Wednesday's draft, could indicate that the team is considering moving up in the draft.
Under former North Carolina State coach Herb Sendek , Simmons played in a Princeton-style offense similar to the one used by Wizards Coach Eddie Jordan . Although the 6-foot-10, 235-pound Simmons has been described as offensively raw, he has impressed teams with his defensive energy, rebounding and shot blocking.
The 6-10, 235-pound Augustine averaged 13.6 points and 9.1 rebounds as a senior last season while the 6-10 Markota and the 6-10 Veremeenko are two of several international prospects -- most of them big men -- who have worked out for the Wizards. Augustine, Markota and Veremeenko have been projected as second-round selections.
Wizards Note: Guard Jarvis Hayes , who underwent surgery to repair a fractured right kneecap in February, has been cleared to go through basketball drills and plans to be ready for the opening of training camp in October. Hayes has averaged 9.8 points in three NBA seasons but has missed 89 games and two playoff runs with right knee injuries.
"I've been doing a lot of strength work on the leg," said Hayes, who did not undergo surgery after injuring the knee midway through the 2004-05 season. "I took some X-rays and MRIs and the fracture has completely healed so it's time to start getting back in shape. . . . I'll be ready to go in October."
|
The Wizards are expected to work out four draft prospects, all of them big men, Tuesday at Verizon Center.
| 15.5 | 0.833333 | 4 |
low
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901076.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006062019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901076.html
|
Court to Address Abortion Restrictions
|
2006062019
|
The Supreme Court said yesterday that it will broaden its review of whether a federal law banning a controversial abortion method is constitutional, taking the second case in four months that will reveal whether the court has shifted significantly on abortion rights with two new conservative members.
The court agreed to rule next term on a California case in which a federal appeals court struck down the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, a statute that was a political victory for abortion opponents but that lower courts have been finding unconstitutional.
The court said in February that it would consider a separate case in which a group of Nebraska doctors had challenged the same law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, based in St. Louis, ruled last year that the federal ban is unconstitutional because the law does not provide an exception that would allow doctors to use the abortion technique if a woman's life is in danger.
In accepting the California case, Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America , the court essentially agreed to evaluate a wider range of legal issues that the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit cited last winter when it, too, found the law unconstitutional.
The 9th Circuit found the law posed an undue burden on women because the statute is so vague it could be interpreted to forbid other abortion methods beyond one that is used rarely late in pregnancy. In addition, the 9th Circuit dealt with whether a court could "remedy" the law to permit the procedure when women's health is imperiled, ruling that it could not because lawmakers had deliberately omitted such an exception.
The high court did not say whether it intends to consider the two cases together.
The abortion cases will be the first the court has heard since Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined in February and the second since John G. Roberts Jr. became chief justice last fall. Both men have conservative records and were nominated by President Bush, who favors restrictions on abortion rights, including the "partial-birth" law.
Leading advocates and opponents of such rights said yesterday that the court could use the pair of cases to place significant new limits on women's access to abortion.
"Look, you don't know how anyone is going to rule, but I'm optimistic," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, which supports the ban.
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said she has "a very, very deep fear" that the court will "eviscerate" Roe v. Wade , the 1973 decision that legalized abortion nationwide. Without striking down Roe , she said, the justices could rule that restrictions on the procedure no longer need to ensure that women can get an abortion if a pregnancy harms their health.
The court last considered the issue of "partial-birth" bans six years ago, when it ruled, 5 to 4, that a Nebraska statute -- similar to laws in many states that had been adopted during the late 1990s -- was unconstitutional, because it lacked a health exception. The deciding vote in that 2000 case was cast by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whom Alito has succeeded.
The Bush administration urged the court to consider the 8th Circuit case. It recommended, however, that the court hold the California case without ruling until the first one is decided. Eve Gartner, senior staff attorney for Planned Parenthood, which brought the lawsuit in California on behalf of the group's clinics and physicians nationwide, said it had asked the high court to take the case.
|
Continuing coverage of the Supreme Court nomination and confirmation process from The Washington Post.
| 45.8 | 0.466667 | 0.733333 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901381.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006062019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901381.html
|
In Tribal Pakistan, a Tide of Militancy
|
2006062019
|
PESHAWAR, Pakistan -- In North Waziristan, barbers are ordered not to shave off beards, and thieves have been swiftly beheaded. In Swat, television sets and VCRs have been burned in public. In Dir, religious groups openly recruit teenagers to fight U.S. forces in Afghanistan. In the Khyber area, armed squads have burst into rooming houses, forcing people to pledge to obey Islamic law.
A tide of Islamic militancy is spreading across and beyond the semiautonomous tribal areas of northwest Pakistan that hug the Afghan border, despite the deployment of some 70,000 Pakistani army troops there, according to a variety of people with close family, professional or political ties to the tribal regions.
Senior army officers in this provincial capital say they are making steady progress in pacifying the restive tribal belt and reining in religious extremists, who U.S. and Afghan authorities say have fomented much of the violence that has led to more than 500 deaths in Afghanistan in the past two months.
"We have them on the defensive now," Lt. Gen. Mohammed Hamid Khan, commander of the 11th Army Corps, said in an interview. "The miscreants have gone into their shells, and things have cooled down tremendously." Khan said the army had shifted from mass raids to "snap operations" based on intelligence and now controls key towns once in the hands of militants.
But other observers say the army's aggressive efforts since 2004 have backfired, alienating the populace with heavy-handed tactics and undermining the traditional authority of tribal elders and officials. They say the local Taliban movement, which has close ethnic and theological links to the Taliban across the border in Afghanistan, has won new supporters and been able to carve out enclaves of alternative power.
"Things are starting to spin out of control," one Western diplomat in Islamabad said of the tribal areas, which have historically been deeply conservative. "In some areas, it's beginning to look like they are setting up a government within a government."
The tribal areas are off-limits to foreign visitors, including journalists, except for periodic, brief helicopter visits with military authorities. But in recent interviews here, tribal lawyers, educators and politicians with knowledge of events in the areas described growing fundamentalist influence and intimidation that is spilling beyond the sparsely inhabited tribal zones and edging closer to settled, government-run localities.
In the past six months, they said, dozens of tribal elders and officials have been killed, including an uncle of the current provincial chief minister. Fundamentalist clerics have freely used FM radio stations to preach holy war and set up public recruiting offices in towns such as Dir and Bannu just outside the tribal areas. Music stores have been shut down and thieves executed before crowds.
"North and South Waziristan are in the grip of Talibanization" and all of the seven federally administered tribal agencies "can come under its grip, too," said Afrasiab Khattak, a human rights activist and official of the secular Awami National Party. "The army has put up an honest fight, but it has failed, and the government has failed. The traditional system has been made ineffective, and the Taliban have moved into the vacuum."
One university instructor, who comes from South Waziristan, said that when he visited a year ago the area was blanketed with army troops, but that when he went back several months ago for a funeral, not a uniformed soldier was in sight while armed men in Taliban-style turbans patrolled in trucks. He asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation.
"The situation is not what the government says," he said. "The Taliban are totally in control. The people welcome them and the youths idolize them. There is no government, only the security forces who kill people. The Taliban settle disputes and deliver justice on the spot. The tribal areas are becoming nurseries for the Taliban, and the army can't stop it."
Last week, the discovery that a journalist in North Waziristan had been assassinated generated expressions of alarm and protests in multiple cities. Hayatullah Khan, who had been missing since December after reporting that the United States appeared to have staged a missile attack on Pakistani soil, was found shot in the head and handcuffed. Officials blamed religious extremists, but Khan's relatives and others said they suspected Pakistani intelligence agencies were behind his killing.
|
PESHAWAR, Pakistan -- In North Waziristan, barbers are ordered not to shave off beards, and thieves have been swiftly beheaded. In Swat, television sets and VCRs have been burned in public. In Dir, religious groups openly recruit teenagers to fight U.S. forces in Afghanistan. In the Khyber area,...
| 14.517241 | 0.982759 | 56.017241 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901429.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006062019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901429.html
|
Police to Get Access to Student Data
|
2006062019
|
RICHMOND, June 19 -- Virginia's public and private colleges and universities soon will be required to submit the names and Social Security numbers of tens of thousands of students they accept each year to state police for cross-checking against sexual offender registries.
The little-noticed but groundbreaking law is raising concerns among privacy experts about giving police access to a vast new database of student information. They say the data could be stored permanently on hard drives and mishandled, stolen or used for unrelated homeland security or law enforcement purposes.
Passed this year as part of a crackdown on sex crimes and signed by Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D), the law also requires Department of Motor Vehicles officials to turn over personal information to police any time a Virginian applies for a license or change of address. It goes into effect July 1.
State police officials say they do not plan to retain the student data for long periods, but the provisions will give law enforcement authorities yearly access to information on tens of thousands of students that they must now request on a case-by-case basis when a crime is committed.
The Virginia law skirts federal prohibitions on disseminating student information by requiring colleges to turn over data after students have been accepted but before they have picked a school and enrolled. Advocates said it will help police track the whereabouts of those who have committed sex crimes and alert college authorities to the presence of such people among students.
"I've got two kids in college right now," said Kenneth W. Stolle (R-Virginia Beach), the bill's chief sponsor in the state Senate. "You're going to have a . . . hard time explaining to me why my daughter is living next door to a sexual offender. My guess is every parent out there would have the same expectation that I do."
The bill's provisions represent the latest attempt by authorities nationwide to use modern data collection techniques to foil criminal behavior. In 2002, for example, the Patriot Act required banks to monitor transactions by their customers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
State DMVs have long shared driver data with tax officials and routinely allow police to make requests for individual driver data. Officials said the new law is one of the few times that personal identification information automatically will be turned over to law enforcement.
Critics of the law say the information about student applicants from Virginia and across the nation is at risk. In May, a laptop containing the Social Security numbers of as many as 2.2 million veterans, including 80 percent of the nation's active-duty forces, was stolen from a Maryland home.
"It blows the privacy standards away," said Michael Froomkin, a law professor and privacy specialist at the University of Miami. "People ought to be concerned because you never know where your data is going to end up."
Froomkin and others noted that tracking sexual offenders is an important goal. But they said it can be done without casting such a wide net for information. And they questioned whether the information would someday end up being mined for other purposes.
"This is basically providing personal information to the state police for the purpose of conducting a background check on thousands of innocent students with no indication of any wrongdoing on their part," said David Sobel, a D.C. lawyer who specializes in privacy law.
Col. W. Steven Flaherty, superintendent of the Virginia State Police, said the department has no intention of keeping information about students unless an applicant appears on the sexual offender registry. In Virginia, the registry contains about 13,000 names of those convicted of such crimes as statutory rape and child sex abuse.
Authorities use the registry and a similar national one to track the movements of such felons who have served their time and moved back into society.
"Essentially, this information comes to us. We bounce it against the sex offender registry. If we don't get a hit, we don't keep the information," Flaherty said.
Not a single lawmaker in Virginia voted against House Bill 984, primarily designed to stiffen the penalties for sex crimes and add convicted nonviolent offenders to the publicly available registry. Some said they did not recall discussion about the provisions related to information sharing.
"That should have been more closely scrutinized," Senate Minority Leader Richard L. Saslaw (D-Fairfax) said. Student data "shouldn't be handed over willy-nilly like that. I don't know how that slipped through," he said.
The law requires colleges to transmit the information about students before they are enrolled and covered by the federal law known as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
"It's candidly quite a shock," said Barmak Nassirian, associate executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. "I'm not aware of any other similar release of private information."
Representatives of Virginia's colleges met Monday with state police to determine the proper format for delivering the information and to develop detailed guidelines.
College officials said they are still unsure exactly how the system will work.
"Whether we have concerns about this or not, it's the law," said Jeff Hannah, a spokesman for the University of Virginia.
Stolle said federal law does not allow state police to keep the student data indefinitely.
"You can't stop protecting people because you're afraid that efforts . . . are going to be abused," he said. "I think the benefits outweigh the inconveniences."
|
RICHMOND, June 19 -- Virginia's public and private colleges and universities soon will be required to submit the names and Social Security numbers of tens of thousands of students they accept each year to state police for cross-checking against sexual offender registries.
| 22.787234 | 1 | 47 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800618.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800618.html
|
Web Users Open the Gates
|
2006061919
|
A decade after major news providers such as The Washington Post began publishing on the Internet, they are finally beginning to ask the right questions about what the Web can do for them and their readers -- and to realize how disruptive web technology is to traditional journalism.
Big guns such as the Associated Press's chief executive, Tom Curley, have admitted that the industry seriously fumbled its new media strategy for years by opting to re-purpose material produced to serve print and broadcast audiences.
Only recently has it begun to respond to the decisive, Internet-driven shift in the "balance of power" between news providers and readers by striving to deliver news "on-demand" and by developing truly interactive reports, Curley told the Online News Association in 2004.
"When the Web was born as a commercial content enterprise back in the mid-'90s, we thought it was about replicating -- that is, 'repurposing' -- our news and information franchises online," Curley said. "The news, as 'lecture,' is giving way to the news as a 'conversation'."
The earlier idea of re-purposing content was not innovative, but it was rational and cost-effective. The Web is flexible. It can "kinda/sorta" replicate an older format, if that's the goal. It's useful as a cheap, fast mass delivery system. "Trusted brands," the thinking went, could establish trusted sites, and transfer their reputations to the new medium.
Newspaper, radio, television ... Web! It made sense at the time. But in the 10 years following the birth of washingtonpost.com, the Net and its publishing platform, the World Wide Web, have proved harder to master, scarier to get wrong and more thrilling to get right than expected. Wilder, and discontinuous with the past in a way those coming out of traditional journalism never could have imagined.
Simple example: The Net radically shifts principles of news distribution as all sites become equidistant from the reader.
In 2003, I tracked Arnold Schwarzenneger's gubernatorial campaign by reading California Insider by Dan Weintraub because the Sacramento Bee political columnist seemed more clued-in to the race than top national reporters. That I could choose his coverage (and links) over the Washington Post's demonstrates the "unbundling" effect of the Internet.
Containers in which news had been packaged broke apart because the Internet could deliver content without the wrapping. I had no use for the Sacramento Bee, just Weintraub. The technology increased his influence, his "brand," while subtly diminishing the Bee's.
The disintegration of news containers unsettled a business that had coped with the introduction of radio and television. Executives were forced to redraw their value chains. Curley, for example, suggested that "legacy technology, silo-ed bureaucracies and entrenched workflows" at American newsrooms had prevented creative responses to the Web. True. Yet the disruptions happened anyway. Here are some that stand out for me:
The "closed" system of gates and gatekeepers has been busted open. What's the most amazing thing about the new media world? Its low barriers to entry. Thanks to the Internet, it is cheap and simple to launch a site that, theoretically, the whole world could be watching.
Yesterday there were a few dozen providers; today news, views and attitudes stream through millions of gates. And the Web accepts all kinds of gatekeepers, each with unique rules for what matters, rather than the rules adopted by a class of professionals with set journalistic principles. For the old gatekeepers that's a big disruption. The charges made against Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, claiming that his medals were undeserved, could have been held out of circulation by newsroom gatekeepers, pre-Internet. By 2004, it was impossible to keep such a story quiet, and editors knew it.
|
A decade after major news providers began publishing on the Internet, they are starting to realize how disruptive Web technology is to traditional journalism.
| 29.076923 | 0.961538 | 8.5 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800986.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800986.html
|
Chicks Magnet
|
2006061919
|
Does Junichi Semitsu have the greatest summer job in the history of summer jobs? Point, click, discuss.
In the real world, Semitsu is a professor at the University of San Diego School of Law. But in this parallel universe into which he's somehow stumbled, Semitsu is working as the designated blogger for the Dixie Chicks.
Good work if you can get it! "Incredible," Semitsu says.
Armed with a laptop and an all-access tour pass, Semitsu, 32, is spending his summer on the road with Natalie Maines, Martie Maguire and Emily Robison, documenting All Things Dixie Chick. He is one of the music industry's first embedded bloggers, assigned to be everywhere and write whatever about this lightning rod of a country-music group.
And we do mean whatever: In one of his earliest posts at spaces.msn.com/3dixiechicks, Semitsu -- who is a fan but by no means a sycophant -- wrote about some of the pseudonyms the Chicks have used at hotels, a common if rarely discussed practice in the celebrity strata. On Wednesday, he posted this: "Emily showed up to the concert in London sloppy drunk. She was so inebriated she couldn't speak, much less sing. Natalie and Martie, in a panic, yelled, 'You're drunk again?' "
But in the very next sentence he revealed that it all was just one of Robison's "anxiety dreams."
Semitsu has also joked about the Chicks' undergarments in between blogging about rehearsals, exclusive parties and the Texas trio's reaction to a "60 Minutes" profile that aired on the eve of the release of the new album "Taking the Long Way." His posts are cleared by the Chicks' camp before landing online, but Semitsu insists he has free rein.
"I was told to just go and write anything I feel like writing about," he says. "I don't know of any other artist of their caliber that's essentially invited a nonmusic journalist into their entourage and commissioned them to follow them around and write about it. It's an experiment, and hopefully, I won't single-handedly ruin their careers. No pressure."
Plenty of musicians have their own blogs, from Fall Out Boy to Radiohead, and online tour diaries have become de rigueur. "I can't even name all the bands doing it, there are so many," says Antony Bruno, digital/mobile editor at Billboard magazine. "But I haven't heard of an individual artist bringing a blogger on board to do it for them."
Of course, few best-selling artists have had to work around the sort of major promotional obstacles that have threatened to trip up the Chicks, whose new album has been largely ignored by many of the same country radio stations that initially helped catapult the band to stardom.
Not that the frosty reaction has been a major surprise, given that "Taking the Long Way" has more in common with the breezy California pop-rock of the 1970s than contemporary Nashville. Then there's the tremendous backlash against the Chicks that began in 2003, when Maines told British concertgoers, "Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas." The Chicks' recent defiance and apparent rejection of the country-music industry and fan base hasn't helped.
Anticipating the cold shoulder, the Dixie Chicks and their label, Columbia Records, partnered with MSN on a Web site whose featured attraction is the blog, which is updated regularly though not daily. Semitsu isn't on the Chicks' payroll -- MSN is paying his summer salary and expenses. Nevertheless, Samantha Saturn, vice president of digital media marketing at Columbia's parent, Sony BMG, refers to Semitsu as "our blogger" and says his work is an important cog in the Dixie Chicks' overall promotional strategy.
"Previously, radio drove a tremendous amount of awareness for the Dixie Chicks' records," Saturn says. "But there was some question this time, based on what happened, whether we'd have that amount of airplay. So online was a key area."
"Taking the Long Way" hasn't exactly flopped; the album entered the Billboard Top 200 at No. 1 and has sold nearly 1 million copies in just three weeks. But ticket sales for the band's U.S. tour reportedly have been disappointing, and questions persist about the staying power of the new album.
As sharp as Semitsu's writing may be, and as broad as MSN's reach is, a blog is not a radio station. It's one thing to read about a band, an album, a song. Hearing the music is another experience altogether -- and a passive one at that: Music literally comes to listeners on the radio, whereas finding Semitsu's riffs requires some effort and intent.
MSN would not say how many people have visited the blog.
Semitsu is a newly married onetime poet, sometime musician and blogging hobbyist who grew up in California's Central Valley. He has a few, but not many, country CDs in his collection, including most of the Dixie Chicks' catalogue. Still, he'd never written anything about the band on his politics and pop culture blog, Poplicks.com. He has no journalism training, having majored in economics and minored in ethnic studies at UC Berkeley before going to law school. He was an attorney, briefly. Now, he's teaching first-year law school students about researching and writing.
It was a mystery to him, too, how and why he landed the tour gig. In fact, when he was first contacted by MSN, he thought he was such a long shot for the job that he could barely be bothered to put together his writing samples. (He also thought that maybe he was being "Punk'd" by some of his friends.) "I figured every single blog was contacted, and I just happened to make the top thousand list," he says.
He wasn't MSN's top pick. But when the front-runner didn't pass muster with the Chicks (personality clash, apparently), Semitsu got the gig.
"I truly believe that there is some sort of higher power involved in me getting this job," he says. "And I believe that higher power is the Make-a-Wish Foundation!"
The job comes with a few ground rules. Semitsu stays away when the Chicks are getting dressed -- "and I don't go into their bedrooms," he jokes. There's also the screening process for his posts, though Semitsu says it's in place only to ensure that he doesn't violate anybody's privacy or release confidential information. "They don't screen for editorial content."
When Semitsu first met the Chicks, he says, the musicians told him they didn't want him to come across like their fan-club president or a member of their marketing team. "They said, 'Want you to be honest. Feel free to criticize us and make fun of us.' "
While he's poked gentle fun at the girls in some of his posts, he suggests it's unlikely that he'll be dropping the hammer on the band anytime soon. Something about not wanting to screw up his summer job.
"It would," he says, "be awkward to be in a room and constantly traveling with people when you're writing bad stuff about them."
|
Get style news headlines from The Washington Post, including entertainment news, comics, horoscopes, crossword, TV, Dear Abby. arts/theater, Sunday Source and weekend section. Washington Post columnists, movie/book reviews, Carolyn Hax, Tom Shales.
| 28.627451 | 0.392157 | 0.431373 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800524.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800524.html
|
Data Mining Still Needs a Clue to Be Effective
|
2006061919
|
In the two decades or so since software scientists began "mining" computerized databases for information they were never designed to yield, the sophistication of their techniques has increased dramatically.
And although marketing companies today -- especially with the advent of the Internet -- can routinely predict who you will vote for, where you will eat dinner and, most of all, what products you will buy, experts say it is far less clear whether security agencies can sift mounds of data to track down terrorist networks -- unless they start with a useful lead.
More than a month has passed since USA Today reported that the National Security Agency had amassed a database of 2 trillion telephone calls since 2001, ostensibly as a tool to hunt al-Qaeda operatives.
Details of the NSA's activities remain unclear, but data mining experts say they are puzzled about how the information might be used. It would work best, they say, when investigators can trace telephone numbers of known suspects and build a web of contacts, in much the same way police use phone records to track drug traffickers.
But to discern suspicious call patterns from lists of dialed numbers, they will have to dig past the raw data into callers' identities, and, in the vast majority of cases, will find they have simply tapped into networks of law-abiding people involved in daily routines. This approach, several experts said, raises privacy questions even as it wastes time.
"When they look at a map of phone numbers, they have no idea what's going on," said Valdis Krebs, an expert in deriving "social networks" from databases. "It might not be a bad person you find; it may be that the soccer team and the softball team are calling the same pizza parlor."
Even though they have no firsthand knowledge of the NSA's program, Krebs and other data mining experts, some of whom requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of their work, agreed to discuss how such a mountain of information might be used.
The only clue offered by the Bush administration came when former NSA director Michael V. Hayden told the Senate during his confirmation hearing as CIA director that analysts used "targeting" to enter the database:
"Every targeting is documented," he told the Senate. "There is a literal target folder that explains the rationale and the answers . . . as to why this particular number we believe to be associated with the enemy."
His testimony suggested that NSA analysts are searching the database for telephone numbers of known suspects. These calls can be traced to other numbers, establishing a communications pattern and providing leads to other suspects.
"You start with a few bad guys, and you have to know where to look," said IBM distinguished engineer Jeff Jonas, a specialist in using software to track undesirables in the gambling industry. "Phone records can give you that."
But Jonas and others noted that tracking suspects' telephone records was a staple of good police work long before electronic search engines made it feasible to scan trillions of calls. And even now, just as 50 years ago, the search moves more quickly and effectively if the searchers can rule out useless information.
"Before you search the world, make sure you're using your local resources properly," Jonas said. "And make sure your search complies with some process. Remember, the 'no-fly list' also includes people who are abusive to other people on planes."
This "number first" approach reflects traditional "deductive" law enforcement techniques, in which investigators begin with a fact -- a telephone number or a corpse -- and work backward to find the details needed to build a case.
In theory, experts said, modern computers also allow investigators to move in the other direction -- to identify telephone use patterns in a call record database and work forward until a suspect's name drops out. But these "inductive" techniques are far more difficult and less reliable, the experts said, because it is virtually impossible to distinguish a web of suspicious linkages from a harmless one in an immense, unedited bundle of numbers.
"I'm sure the NSA is excellent at finding patterns and motifs in the data, but what do they mean?" Krebs asked. "Unless you start getting more information on the patterns, you're not going to be able to interpret them at all. Patterns alone won't tell you whether someone's good or evil."
What investigators get instead are lots of "false positives": "It's like if you Googled [Secretary of State] Condoleezza Rice and al-Qaeda. You'd get millions of hits, but they wouldn't be meaningful," one industry expert said. To milk whatever databases NSA may possess, "what they have today are glorified search engines."
Still, several experts suggested ways that pattern-making could be useful. "Suppose you looked at calls between two geographical points, and you could see what kind of pattern ordinary people had," said Olvi L. Mangasarian, co-director of the University of Wisconsin's Data Mining Institute.
"Then you compare it to another pattern of calls that you know" are suspicious and try to develop a "classifier" -- a software tool -- to distinguish between them, he said. "It would be difficult -- but it would be doable."
Another expert suggested comparing call patterns at different times. "Suppose that before the Super Bowl, there's a quickening of traffic in the phone system of the city that has the game," the source said. "Then suppose you see a similar pattern, except there's no Super Bowl. Then what's going on?"
In all cases, however, the technicians operating the system would have to be expert, even visionary, to avoid false positives and to root out meaningful patterns from the background "noise" of billions of innocent communications.
One authority compared the ideal analyst to an expert lie detector operator or to the sonar man who can identify a submarine's nationality just by listening to its screws turning. "Computers can jump to conclusions just like humans," this expert said. "To make the correct inference requires deep, intellectual thinking; these systems are significantly less reliable than lie detector tests."
Still, even the best technicians are going to find themselves searching multiple blind allies in navigating a mega-database such as telephone logs, the experts said, so much so that the time needed to clear false positives may outweigh the odds of finding a terrorist.
"Even if one out of 10 searches is a hit, the technique is useful," one expert said. "But one out of 1,000 or one in 1 million?" In these cases, experts suggest, maybe the technician would be more cost-effective by searching something besides phone logs.
|
Full coverage of the White House and Bush administration from The Washington Post and washingtonpost.com, including a guide to the members of President George W. Bush's Cabinet.
| 44.566667 | 0.533333 | 0.8 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800969.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800969.html
|
Polo, Anyone?
|
2006061919
|
It was a lovely day for polo. Really. Just lovely.
This was Saturday at the Great Meadow Polo Club near The Plains, out in the Virginia Piedmont. There was the Ambassadors' Cup, which drew a lot of international diplomats and some buff professional players. They played for the Chief of Protocol Trophy, a friendly competition the U.S. chief of protocol has hosted for the past five years.
There was the Courage Cup, a charity event, and a handful of other matches. Organizers billed it as one of the biggest polo events in the region since the sport's Jazz Age glory days, when polo was an Olympic sport.
These days, although polo is again gaining popularity, matches are as much a society as an equestrian sporting event.
So Saturday afternoon, there were a few hundred well-heeled observers ducking into white tents to get out of the heat, gazing out at a manicured grass field. We can't say how many people overall as we were not allowed in the Ambassadors' tent. Because, we were told, a society magazine was sponsoring the tent and other reporter lowlifes weren't allowed in.
We were so upset at this.
But then we were out on the field with everybody else during the divot stomp. This is a break in the match where people drink champagne and say things like, "Hey, the brown thing isn't a divot !" And we met Dustee Tucker, who is from Dallas and is in public relations. We asked her how she would describe the event, and she said:
"It is truly the beautiful people of the day. The champagne is free-flowing and smiles are abundant."
Did we mention Tucker is in PR?
Then the man on the public-address system said something that sounded like this:
"BLEREIOUSN NEED THE BLWERS CHAMPAGNE IOSEKBL THANK YOU!"
This was generally understood to mean the patrons had to get off the field. Apparently the buff pros wanted to get back to playing. Our usually reliable notebook says the team sponsored by Moet was leading the team sponsored by Outback, 4-3, at this point.
|
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.
| 8.235294 | 0.333333 | 0.333333 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/06/16/DI2006061600904.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/06/16/DI2006061600904.html
|
Outlook: Are Stay-at-Home Moms Making a Mistake?
|
2006061919
|
Hirshman, a retired professor of philosophy and women's studies at Brandeis University and the author of the just-published " Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World ," was online Monday, June 19, at 1 p.m. ET to discuss her Sunday Outlook article, " Unleashing the Wrath of Stay-at-Home Moms , ( Post, June 18, 2006 )," and the realities of the "opt-out" phenomenon.
Linda Hirshman: This is Linda Hirshman. I just entered the chat room and I want to thank you all for the many submissions you have already written. Give me a minute to see if there are any large themes emerging, and I will try to participate as best I can.
Linda Hirshman: Several themes seem to run through most of the questions.
One is that it's not nice to argue about women. Let me answer that first, because if you can't argue about women, what's the difference what I have to say?
I think this argument that we should all just support one another is a very good example of the "soft bigotry of low expectations." Women are people; their decisions matter, to themselves and to the society. Let's call such behavior "political." There is no reason in the world that women's behavior should be so unimportant that we cannot have a political argument about it.
For a lot of history, women were considered to live only personal lives. Feminism suggested "the personal is the political." After forty years of feminism, I say, the female is the human. The human is the political. No more confining our decisions to the invisible realm of the household and hiding them behind some nonsense about "all get along." I don't hear Democrats saying that to Republicans or Moslems to Christians, flat taxers to progressives. Women are important enough to argue about.
Fairfax, Va.: What interests me so much about this debate is that there seems to be no choice that doesn't get a segment of the population up in arms. Working full time? You are putting your own needs ahead of your children and paying others to raise them. Staying home full time? You are subverting your intelligence and wasting your life changing diapers and washing dishes. Juggling the part time work/home combo? You trying to do two full time jobs in half the time and failing at both.
Maybe if we all stopped shooting each other down for making the wrong choice and started to really try and figure out a way to create fundamental balance between work and family, we could all calm down and get on with the business of living.
Linda Hirshman: See overall answer I just posted.
Springfield, Va.: Linda, I am very much looking forward to reading your book. I "mommy-tracked" at my job for a decade, as did many of the women I worked with. Many other women left the workforce. I wish they had not, it's lonely here as the token female. All of the men that I work with have built-in backup for our constant travel and long hours. I am torn between keeping my struggles quiet so as not to look like a whiner, or putting it out in the open and trying to effect change. If there were more of us, I would have some support instead of being a lone voice.
Linda Hirshman: I received a lot of email since my article appeared online Saturday and in print on Sunday (about 500 and still coming). Several of the emails that I did have a chance to read sounded this theme of being alone or a token female.
I was glad to know it, although I am sorry to hear it, because it makes the point very well that the individual's decision to quit affects the other women in the workplace. It's not just her individual choice, and it's not personal. It's political, and questions like this one show why.
Silver Spring, Md.: I was chastised by my (ex) boss recently when I had to leave a nonessential meeting that dragged on past my usual quitting time. My boss, also a woman, said that I should have stayed, even if it meant picking up my kids from daycare late (which becomes a logistical nightmare), and then pointed out that other parents in the office were able to handle the juggle better than I was. I thought was an odd thing to say to me given that the other parents in the office have stay-at-home wives.
I've thought a lot about the criticism, wondering if it was warranted. I've concluded that (a) the meeting really was unessential (a wrap-up for an event that happened while I was on maternity leave and that I wouldn't have been a strategic part of, anyway), and that (b) my major offense was in giving the appearance that my kids came before my job, or maybe even just any acknowledgement that I had kids.
I've since left that job for another one, but I know that if I had stayed, I would have felt pressured to choose between my job and my kids. As it was, I was left with the sense that I wasn't doing right by them, myself, or my job. I'm lucky that I was able to find something better so quickly.
All this is to say that, as a self-respecting feminist with a messy house and a truly equal marriage to a supportive partner, I can understand women wanting to just call it a day and stay home.
Comments? Thanks so much for writing about these difficult topics!
Linda Hirshman: Here is another example of how the individual decisions affect everyone. Political philosophers call this the "regime effect." When men can count on stay at home wives, they have a huge advantage at the office. I picked this up in interviewing one of the 1996 grooms, who crowed about how he didn't have to get the dry cleaning, like the men with working wives he competed with had to do. Imagine how hard it is for a working mother to compete. If you read my book, hint hint, you will find the numbers about the college professors in the University of California system. It is staggering how much harder those women academics are working at home than the men are.
Linda Hirshman: Here's a second important theme (first one was the regime effect).
Someone has to be there at least in the time before and after school to mind the children. Some people solve this, as we solve most things in a market economy, by hiring someone to do it for them. These child care employees are not strangers, as the SAHMs called them on GMA when I was on. They are very familiar, or the parents aren't doing enough research first.
My preferred solution would be for the mothers and fathers to share equally in the child care. The children would benefit by having the most committed people caring for them more of the time. Having two people of equal authority would expose the children to different points of view. And the men would be pressed to refuse to participate in what has been described as soul destroying law firm work, although the lawyers I interviewed among the New York Times grooms for my original article, did not assert that they had lost their souls.
Anyway, as the economists say, "I never met a man who washed a rented car" before he returned it to the lot, so unless women refuse to cut their careers off and bear it all themselves, the guys show little willingness to take it on.
washingtonpost.com: AUDIO: Hirshman, Steiner on Motherhood , ( June 19, 2006 )
Washington, D.C.: I think working moms would have it easier if men would take on their fair share of the housework. But how does a woman get that to happen without having to be the delegator all the time? It seems like women notice sooner what needs to be done, so they end up doing it themselves. My husband doesn't think about grocery shopping till he's hungry. I have to give him a list, and sometimes I wish he'd think of these things himself. After all, we both work!
Linda Hirshman: I'll share a personal story, even though I told Leslie Morgan Steiner this morning that it's sexist and bigoted to require a female thinker/writer to be "vulnerable" and cuddly and talk about their personal lives, whereas male writers can recommend anything without sharing a word about their sex lives. But it is directly responsive to your question, and it just happened, so here goes.
When I started working on the ms for Get to Work, I had a very tight deadline. (It's short, but very carefully laid out. I WANT to force people to struggle to disagree with me. That's what we are trained to do.)
At the end of the first day of work, I heard heavy breathing in my home office and turned around to find my husband standing behind me.
"Are we having dinner?" he asked. This is the male equivalent of "what did you plan for dinner?"
"Honey," I said, "if it meant I could finish this book -- which is the culmination of my life's work -- I would live on canned tunafish for every meal for the next three months."
Shortly thereafter, my husband, who, like all humans, does get hungry, and is not a jerk (see Hirshman Rule 3, never marry a jerk), began to shop. He went to the store every day, since he seemed never to be able to anticipate what he would want more than 24 hours from the current shopping trip. Sometimes he went two or three times a day, one trip for each meal.
It does not matter. We ate. The food got purchased. Nobody starved. Sometimes the meals were better, because there was cool stuff in the store just then and sometimes they were worse, because it takes a little advance planning to make a brisket. After a few weeks, I got used to the new routine and stopped fragging him about making a list.
It was sort of exciting, actually, like the Iron Chef thing, trying to make meals out of the unexpected arrivals (we both like to cook, and by dinner time I was too tired to write any more).
So, TMI probably, but it's a real story
and a moral: just leave him alone til he's hungry.
Washington, D.C.: Dear Dr. Hirshman, first, thank you so much for raising these very important issues at a critical time for feminism and for our country. I enjoyed your article and rushed out to buy your book. I was a little surprised, however, by your response just now on the child-care issue. Don't you think male and female parents who instead of outsourcing work-day childcare do the bulk of it themselves, either on their own if single parents or sharing it if they are together, they will be disadvantaged at the workplace compared to nonparents or parents who have outsourced--and are therefore available to get to the meetings, take the business trips, and so forth. Moreover, I'd make a strong argument for the outsourcing as being good for the kids--daycare makes for better socialization, etc. In the spirit of full disclosure, I'm a professional and a non-parent who grew up the daughter of two working parents (and who was very happy as a latch-key kid)
Linda Hirshman: This is a very interesting and intelligent question.
I think that there will always be competition, certainly in a market economy. It seems fairer to me to have the competition based on shall we say a "taste" for childrearing than on a gender ideology that lays the burden on women and frees up the men. And I have received so many communications from men who "wish" they could spend more time with their children that I think you could SHIFT the workplace somewhat if women didn't volunteer to do it all.
As the economists say, ALL CHANGE IS AT THE MARGINS. If women stop buying into the assumption that the domestic labor belongs to them, a lot of behavior will change. Maybe it will even reach a "tipping point" and change the regime.
Linda Hirshman: Okay we have a lot of input about sequencing, part time work and the like.
There is a lot of data that women who leave the workplace for more than a couple of years never come back to where they left. At the highest end, they miss out on the high trajectory that puts you in the Senate, the CEO's office, the producer's office, the editor-in-chief's office. The society, which is hierarchical as all society's are, is then run by men with stay at home wives. Maybe that's why there never have been meaningful public or market policies enabling families to work and care for home as they would like to do.
Even short of the highest end, they miss out on accumulating enough pension to be independent at the end, they often are dependent on their husbands' social security rather than their own. At the middle level, they can go back and be the assistant to the admissions director but they'll never be the dean or the principal.
The other thing I noticed in my interviews is that many of the home mothers had no desire at all to go back to work. They could not get on in a bureaucratic environment, they articulated, to me and on the mommy blogs, a real aversion to being bossed, which is, unfortunately, part of any human enterprise, and an aversion to being judged for their performances, which I found quite alarming actually. But then, as many people have noticed, I have an unnatural taste for judgment.
Washington, D.C.: I am an attorney who left to stay at-home 8 years ago, and I almost regret not keeping at least a part-time schedule to keep a foot in the door. What have you found is the best way to transition back in? Are moms/women who stayed in resentful of us who try to reenter or are they mostly willing to help us return? Comments or suggestions for us who want to go back?
Linda Hirshman: I have a feature on my Web site: Get to Work Manifesto, called "Ask Linda." I am going to start trying to answer some of these discrete questions there soon. Please send your questions to Ask Linda and we'll try to get some wisdom from each other as well as from me. This has been wonderful fun and I thank you all for taking the time and for your civil tone and good questions.
Write to Ask Linda and let's continue to think things through.
Arlington, Va.: I am 30 years old, married, and have a Masters degree. I find this dialogue extremely interesting, especially as I consider the impacts of my decision to have children in the future. The last year, I have stayed in a job that I find only somewhat interesting because it offers good benefits and would be supportive of shorter hours. While I would prefer to have a job which challenges me more, I worry about not being able to take the time off to raise a child. It is interesting that my husband and I pool our incomes to share expenses and also split housekeeping duties, but I would surprised if we invested equal time into rearing a child. While I am willing to not go as far in my career as I would like when I have a child, it saddens me that my choice would affect other career minded women somewhat - as you noted in your article. I hadn't considered that side effect of my choice, and I wonder if I am doing what is right by not living up to my career potential.
Linda Hirshman: Don't have babies if he won't do half the childrearing. Does he know where babies come from? He's there, right?
Stafford, Va.: As a working mother of many moons ago, who was at the beginning of this 30 odd years ago. I feel that to be a mother is not a mindless and brainless task, it takes great skill, patience,and time. It is actually the most important job that we as mothers and women can do. Not running a corporation, not being on a management team, or much less anything else. I worked as a nurse for many years, a rewarding but thankless job, I had my mother as my child care provider, my husband and I both had to do shift work, manage a household and child care. Now looking back, your child's primary years are the most important and the big house isn't, this area is so out a site unfortunately that to live here it takes two paychecks and that is the sad commentary of the American way of life and the children and relationship are suffering as a result. Just read the headlines in the post in the past month or so, teen years are just as important and the phone is not substitute for being there.
This is just my take, as a grandmother, mother of some 30 odd years, hindsight is always 20/20
Linda Hirshman: Saying that being a mother is the most important thing a mother can do is a tough one to answer, right? because you have assumed your conclusion.
Try again. what's the question?
Linda Hirshman: I have to say goodbye now.
The whole argument is much more interesting than these snippets. Try reading "Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World" (Viking) on the shelves at bookstores everywhere or online. I have information about how the feminist movement wound up in this predicament, what we can learn from Nobel prize winning economic analysis of family life and from the moral arguments now coming from lesbians and gays, and how the tax code keeps women down.
Buy the book. With mom, that will make two sold!
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.
| 88.219512 | 0.634146 | 0.731707 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/06/14/DI2006061402086.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/06/14/DI2006061402086.html
|
Artificial Intelligence
|
2006061919
|
Inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil was online Monday, June 19 at 2 p.m. ET to answer your questions about Artificial Intelligence.
In his latest book, "The Singularity Is Near," he examines the next step of the evolutionary process: the union of human and machine, in which knowledge and skills embedded in our brains will be combined with greater capacity, speed and knowledge-sharing ability.
Kurzweil is also the author of "The Age of Intelligent Machines," "The 10% Solution for a Healthy Life," "The Age of Spiritual Machines" and "Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever." As a noted inventor he is credited for his work with music synthesis, speech and character recognition, virtual reality and cybernetic art.
About this series: Beyond the Future is a weeklong series of live Web chats with noted experts and Washington Post reporters examining the kinds of technological advancements the world could see in 20, 50 or even 100 years. Related news on the subject can be found on the Science and Tech Frontier pages of washingtonpost.com.
Ray Kurzweil: Hi, this is Ray Kurzweil, look forward to our dialogue....
Reston, Va.: Would intelligent machines represent a threat to mankind that should be banned by formal regulatory action?
Ray Kurzweil: The 3 great technology revolutions - G (genetics), N (nanotechnology) and R (robotics) have profound downsides. We have a new existential risk right now from G (genetics or biotech). The same technology that will overcome cancer and other diseases can be used by a bio terrorist to create a bioengineered biological virus. The good news, though, is that we have the technologies to overcome this. For example, RNA interference can combat new biological viruses. But we need to put a rapid response system in place. Each technological response will only work to a certain degree of sophistication so the message for society is that we need to put a higher priority on creating the defenses.
It has been suggested that the neural system of the human brain is too complex to be able to work a sophisticated interface between biological neural processes and computer technology, and in the context of present technology, that is certainly the case. Seeing as how nanotechnology itself is still in its inception, how can we accurately predict the timescale and form of intelligent nanotechnology on the level of human neural interfacing?
If the Law of Accelerating Returns holds true and technology really does continue to increase at an exponential rate, then the rate of obsoleteness will likewise continue to increase. How will humans continue to "upgrade" technological components into their bodies when yesterday's state-of-the-art is today's old junk?
Ray Kurzweil: WRG the first question, a key issue is what the complexity of the human brain? We get a very different answer if we consider the apparent complexity of the brain versus the complexity of its design. The amount of information represented in a mature brain is thousands of trillions of bytes, which is a lot of complexity. But the design is a billion times simpler. How do we know that? The design is in the genome and with lossless data compression the genome only has 30 to 100 million bytes of information. Moreover, we're showing that we can create mathematical models and simulations of brain regions for which we have data from high resolution scans and other forms of reverse engineering. There is a simulation of 12 regions of the auditory cortex and the cerebellum, which comprises more than half the neurons in the brain. I make the case in chapter 4 of Singularity is near that we will have the models and simulations of all several hundred regions within about 20 years.
Los Angeles, Calif.: How do you see the actual physical merging of human biology and integrated circuitry? How does the biological chemistry of thinking, imagining and dreaming translate to computer technology?
Ray Kurzweil: There are multiple scenarios. But one that I find compelling is that we will send intelligent nanobots (robots the size of blood cells with nano features) into the human body and brain through the capillaries. One application is to keep us healthy from inside. If this sounds very futuristic I would point out we're doing this already in animal experiments. One scientist cured type I diabetes in rats with blood cell sized devices with 7 nanometer pores that let insulin out in a controlled fashion and block antibodies. These technologies will be a billion times more capable in 25 years than they are now based on the doubling of power of information technology in less than a year. Ultimately these nanobots will go into our brains through the capillaries and interact with our biological neurons. The ability to do this at a small scale has already been demonstrated. One application: virtual reality involving all of the senses in full immersion highly realistic VR environments from within the nervous system.
Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.: I was moved by your "Fantastic Voyage" book - what an excellent read! I would like to know what do you think is the most promising technological advance to occur dealing with radical life extension, since the release of that book, and why?
Ray Kurzweil: In Fantastic Voyage, we talk about 3 "bridges" to radical life extension. Bridge 1 is applying today's knowledge which is an ever changing frontier. Bridge 2 is the biotech revolution in which we are reprogramming the information processes underlying biology (and biology is essentially an information process). Our ability to do this is scaling up exponentially. For example, the amount of genetic data we have sequenced has doubled each year and the cost per base pair has come down by half each year. We are also showing the ability to reprogram these processes. Perhaps the most promising recent advance is RNAi (RNA interference) in which we can turn off genes. Turning off the fat insulin receptor gene, for example, enabled animals to eat as much as they want and remain slim and get the health benefits of being slim. There are other genes we'd like to turn off that encourage cancer or heart disease. And we have new forms of gene therapy that allow us to add new genes to adults. We can also turn on and off enzymes, the work horses of biology...
Cupertino, Calif.: It seems likely that the first truly capable AIs will be created within the closed confines of a large organization such as Google, which is in a position to capitalize on the competitive advantages such an in-house intelligence would give them. What are your thoughts on how others can compete, once the playing field goes from slightly tilted, to overwhelmingly tilted in favor of those who control both the AI and the data it draws on?
Ray Kurzweil: It is true that Google's massive data bases are a unique asset in creating an AI. They already created a translation system that can translate from Engligh to Arabic and back using a pattern recognition system that found the translation patterns automatically from large "Rosetta stone" texts (translated texts in the 2 languages). The system was apparently equal to professional human translators yet no one on the Google team that created it spoke a word of Arabic. But the development of an AI that can span all of human intelligence (so-called "strong AI") won't occur in one lab in one step. There will be many competitive efforts and many flavors of AI as we approach that point in about a quarter century.
Columbia, Md.: I have been following your career with great interest since my office acquired one of your first reading machines. And I have been fascinated by the SINGULARITY IS NEAR. I am also impressed with Al Gore's arguments that the global warming problem should be near the top of everyone's agenda. He claims that climate scientists say we have only about ten years, absent a concerted effort and political will to solve the problem, before the planet has reached a point where it's too late to prevent catastrophic consequences. Do you believe, given your arguments about progress acceleration, that these scientists are unduly pessimistic? Do you think that accelerated technology alone--even without political will to solve the problem--will save the planet?
Ray Kurzweil: None of the global warming discussions mention the word "nanotechnology." Yet nanotechnology will eliminate the need for fossil fuels within 20 years. If we captured 1% of 1% of the sunlight (1 part in 10,000) we could meet 100% of our energy needs without ANY fossil fuels. We can't do that today because the solar panels are too heavy, expensive, and inefficient. But there are new nanoengineered designs that are much more effective. Within five to six years, this technology will make a significant contribution. Within 20 years, it can provide all of our energy needs. The discussions talk about current trends continuing for the next century as if nothing is going to change. I think global warming is real but it has been modest thus far - 1 degree f. in 100 years. It would be concern if that continued or accelerated for a long period of time, but that's not going to happen. And it's not just environmental concern that will drive this, the $2 trillion we spend on energy is providing plenty of economic incentive. I don't see any disasters occuring in the next 10 years from this. However, I AM concerned about other environment issues. There are other reasons to want to move quickly away from fossil fuels including environmental pollution at every step and the geopolitical instability it causes.
Enjoyed your book, although discussing it with others often makes them uneasy, especially the idea of living much longer and acknowledging a superior intelligence (AI) here and now.
I think people put a lot of effort into thinking about getting ready to die and 'dying well', with and without the assistance of religion, and the new thought of an extrmely long life doesn't fit in that framework.
Did you collaborate with the science fiction writer of 'Counting Heads'?
Keep up the good work.
Ray Kurzweil: The major religions emerged in prescientific times. There is still wisdom there but we need to consider that a major motivation was rationalizing death as a good thing. After all, we had no alternative. But death is a tragedy. That is our instinctive reaction and that reaction is correct. In my view it is not death that gives life meaning. Life gives life meaning. The creation of knowledge in all its forms (art, music, science, etc.) and relationships gives life meaning. And death is disruptive of that.
Stanwich, Ct.: Is this Ray, or just some clever AI implemetation answering posts?
Ray Kurzweil: Well, given the quality of my replies, maybe I am just a chatterbot...
Malvern, Pa.: I have two kids, ages 9 and 11, that I care deeply about. Preparing them for life is of great importance to me. What technological tools and/or techniques have you found or created to make learning (across any or all of the realms of educational, social, physical, mental, emotional, and personal development) more fun, more effective, more efficient? Are the same or similar as effective for adult learning?
Ray Kurzweil: The world is increasingly based on knowledge. As I said, knowledge comes in many forms: art, science, technology... We are the only species that creates knowledge that we pass down from generation to generation, and the amount of knowledge is growing exponentially. Yet it still takes passion to create knowledge of value. So children need to be herded into a scientific career despite it being a scientific age. The key is to find what you have a passion for and pursue that. Having said that, it is useful for everyone to have an appreciation for technology as it is enhancing every field of human endeavor. I was at a music conference recently as a speaker and the conference catalog read like a computer catalog, so sophisticated technology is used in every field.
Washington, D.C.: The theological ramifications of such a fusion of man and machine immediately come to mind when I consider the possibilities represented by this next step in our potential evolution, is there any reassurance for people who are believers in the human soul and or the cosmic mind, that there will not be a negative aspect for the use of such technologies? Clearly this leads to the potential transfer of the human mind to a technological platform. What happens to a transferred mind, does the soul translate, and what happens when there's a glitch, power surge or loss?
Ray Kurzweil: I attempt to address these questions in chapter 7 of Singularity is Near. There are aspects of information entities that we take for granted in the computer realm that certainly seem perplexing in the human realm. If the hardware of our PC crashes, we don't throw all the software away, we just port it to new hardware. Yet when the hardware of our mind file crashes, the software dies with it. At least that has been the case. People a hundred years from now will think it remarkable that we went around in 2006 without backing up the most precious information we have, that contained in our minds that reflects our personality, skills, experiences...We will get to a point where we can access and back up that information. As we merge with our technology, we will become a hybrid of biological and nonbiological intelligence. The nonbiological portion, however, is growing exponentially, doubling its capability each year whereas our biological intelligence is fixed. Ultimately there will be a cross over in which most of the action will be in the nonbiological portion of our civilization. We are already a biological-technological civilization and routinely do intellectual feats that would be impossible without our machines. I agree that this raises profound philosophical issues as to where the seat of consciousness resides. Some people dismiss consciousness as not a real issue because it cannot be objectively tested. After all consciousness is a synonym for subjectivity and there is a philosophical gulf between the objectivity of science and the subjectivity of conscious experience. But I do believe it is a real issue. After all our whole moral and ethical system is based on conscous experience.
Alexandria, Va.: Whatever happened to Asimov's Laws of Robotics? With all the doom and gloom I hear from the media (namely the recent Sci-Fi Channel's Doomsday special) on how the robots will eventually "surpass" humanity, I wonder that perhaps Asimov's rules have become obsolete? That the nature of "real" AI precludes any such built in programming as it would be too limiting to the evolution of the intelligence?
Ray Kurzweil: Asimov himself showed over and over how these 3 laws could lead to unintended conseqences. Essentially, it is not sufficient to just have these 3 laws. As I mentioned earlier, we will need to put a high priority on developing defenses from the abuse of new technology. I advocated a "Manhattan" style project to develop new defenses against bioengineered biological viruses in a recent op ed piece published in the NY Times cowritten with Bill Joy. Bill Frist recently endorsed the call. An example of what I am talking about and where we have done a good job of this is the area of software viruses. Software viruses are getting more plentiful and more sophisticated, yet we have put in place an ever evolving technology immune system that protects us. The protection is of course not perfect and we will never be able to cross this concern off our list, but it has done a good job. No one has taken even a small portion of the Internet down for even a fraction of a second over the last ten years. That's a pretty good record of reliability.
Bowie, Md.: How have visions of the future changed in the last 50 years?
I'm not quite that old; but I remember seeing what "the future" supposedly looked like in the 60's; and the present looks a lot more like the actual 60's than their vision of the future.
(Computer and other electronic technology is the big exception.)
Ray Kurzweil: There is a lot of bad futurism and the primary problem is failing to understand the acceleration of information technology. I was at a conference in 2003 on the 50th anniversary of the discovery of the structure of DNA. So all of us speakers were asked to comment on what the next 50 years will bring. Every one of the speakers except for Bill Joy and myself used the last 50 years as a model for the next 50 years. But that is demonstrably wrong. According to my models, the paradigm shift rate (roughly the rate of technical progress) is doubling every decade, so we will see about 32 times more progress in the next 50 years than the last. Watson himself said in 50 years we'll have drugs that enable you to eat as much as you want and remain slim. I said, Jim, we've already demonstrated that in animals, it will be closer to 5 to 8 years, not 50. All of the predictions done this way were far too tame. The actual power of the information technologies in price-performance and capacity doubles every year, so we'll multply their capability by a billion in 30 years (it's actually 25 due to a second level of exponential growth). But this only applies to information technologies. However, each industry ultimately converts from a pre information era to a post information era. Biology and medicine is undergoing that transition right now. It used to be hit or miss but is now becoming an information technology. We'll even do that with energy as I discussed when we get develop nanoengineered solar panels that can capture enough sunlight.
Cupertino, Calif.: I'm left feeling you sidestepped my question about how others can compete once they are faced with competitors (the likes of Google) that control a strong AI. Without getting into debates on what is or is not strong, or whether that is well defined, do you have any thoughts on how the world will change once certain entities have strong AI, and others do not? Even if strong AI eventually becomes widespread, what about the interim period? My question is how will the business world cope with a much wider gap between the information haves, and the information have-nots?
Ray Kurzweil: At different levels, the gap between haves and have nots is diminishing not increasing. From the user perspective, technology starts out unaffordable (only the rich can afford it) but at this stages it doesn't work. Then it becomes merely expensive and works a little bit. Then it works quite well and is very inexpensive, ultimately open source and free. Today this is about a ten year progression, but within ten years will be a five year progression and in twenty years will be 2 or 3 year progression. This applies not just to electronics and software to but to any information technology such as drugs. For example, AIDS drugs were $30K per patient per year 15 years ago and didn't work very well. Now they are $100 per patient per year in Sub Saharan Africa and work pretty well. From the developer perspective, the tools of creation are not controlled only by large organizations. Google itself is a good example of this. A couple of kids doing a project in their dorm room created this new search engine technology that is now worth $100 billion and is threatening Microsoft. But a couple of kids in an American college or in India or China or Africa can and will do the same thing as we move forward, and the pace of these disruptive changes will accelerate. There is a lot of information available to everyone, not just to Google.
Odessa, Minn.: Do you envision a future world populated by groups of humans, cyborgs, androids, and artificial intelligences?
Herndon, Va.: Hi, Mr. Kurzweil.
I came across your name while working on some research into robotics, AI, and the future of the human condition.
You are probably familiar with the sociable robot Kismet, and with robots such as Qrio. The future of humans notwithstanding, how soon do you think we'll be seeing robots capable of learning so well that they become like the fictional Bicentennial Man?
Do you believe, like Andrew Martin or Data, that robots will really strive to be (more) human? How will global society accept these robots, when the robots learn so well that they may be indistinguishable from a biological person?
Ray Kurzweil: Computers and robots today still miss the power of human pattern recognition (which is the heart of human intelligence), but computers are improving in this area at a steady pace. This is my own area of interest. Robots will continue to develop to fill many economic niches. The great majority will be utilitarian and not built for their personalities, from robots like Roomba (2 million and counting) to the millions of robots that assemble products in factories (and that are becoming increasingly flexible and able to operate now in unstructured environments). We do however desire to build human like robots with which we can communicate and have relationships. These range from characters in video games (a form of virtual reality) to the kinds of experiments you mention. They won't be convincing as human equivalents until computers can pass the Turing test which I've consistently pegged at 2029. At that point we will have completed the reverse engineering of the several hundred regions that comprise the human brain (we already have pretty good models and simulations about of about two dozen regions including the cerebellum where we do our skill formation). And we'll have the hardware to implemented these principles of operation of human intelligence.
Parkville, Md.: Alright, alright... everyone moans and whines about the downside of our intelligent machines suddenly coming to realize that we're unnecessary and wiping us out. But how about the "upside?" Surely there'd be some advantages to having the planet populated by a purely robotic species?
Ray Kurzweil: Well, we are creating increasingly intelligent machines of all kinds because of their benefits to human society. They are not a race apart but are deeply integrated into out human-machine civilization. As one example of a great many, AI algorithms search for and help design rationally designed drugs that overcome disease. A good example of this is Pfizer's Torcetrapib that very selectively turns off a single enzyme which encourages atherosclerosis. The phase 2 trials showed this drug was very effective in stopping atherosclerosis (which causes about 90% of heart attacks) and they are spending a record $1 billion on the phase 3 trials. So yes intelligent machines of enormous value in helping us to to solve problems. That is why they are being created. As I mentioned before, however, we need to keep the downsides of technology in mind both through ethical guidelines on their construction and development of technological immune systems (such as we have successfully done with software viruses).
Silver Spring, Md.: Do you believe in free will? Obviously, technology will forever be deterministic, no matter how complicated of a deterministic system we come up with to try and make it LOOK stochastic. If human beings truely have free will, then it is clearly impossible to create TRUE artificial intelligence that models that of a human being. Many philosophers believe that the human mind is indeed also nothing but a very very complex deterministic system, and therefore AI is actually feasible (After all, no other system on earth is truly stochastic - only so complicated as to make it easier for analytical purposes to model it as such - so why should the human mind be any different?). How do you get around the problem of free will in predicting that true AI systems are actually feasible?
Ray Kurzweil: THe possibility of AI is not dependent on the issue of determinism. We know that the human brain is comprised of about 100 billion neurons and while complicated, a neuron can be described as a machine. Whether it or any other machine is fundamentally deterministic depends on your interpretation of quantum mechanics. Some interpretations say there is fundamentally a lack of predictability in events at the quantum level. Wolfram showed how a deterministic system can be very unpredictable at a fundamental level. If I describe a cellular automata, the trillionth iteration is fully determined but you cannot actually determine it without running the cellular automaton for a trillion iterations. He showed that there is no short cut. So there is no short cut to predicting biological systems other than to let them make their decisions even if at some fundamental level the processes are deterministic. There are a series of interesting philosophical issues here.
Washington, D.C.: Please weigh in on a debate my friends and I had.
Which will come first? A replacement robotic arm that can replicate everything a human arm can do down to touch or the ability to replace a human arm with one grown from your own DNA?
Ray Kurzweil: Interesting question. Both are developing separately. There were recent findings on why we are unable to regrow our limbs unlike some other species that do this routinely. There have been interesting demonstrations of giving animal species the ability to regrow certain limbs that they generally are not able to do. So this will happen. Meanwhile replacement robotic arms exist although not presently at human levels. But they get more sophisticated with each generation, and there is less and less time between each generation. It would be a guess as to which might come first.
Cupertino, Calif.: I think it's too late to enter another question, but as a rejoinder to what you said about a couple kids in India being able to match Google, I think Google is a moving target, and you have to factor in the training time for the AI, not just the time to put together the hardware. I'm not sure how the kids in Detroit or India are going to get access to all our email, or the entire web corpus that Google has, and match its understanding (not just storage, but understanding) of that data in a short time. But maybe as you say the acceleration in information technology will take care of this as well.
Ray Kurzweil: I do agree that Google has a lot of momentum. But there are competitors to Google that are pretty close and that will help to assure that the information provided by these vast data bases remains available. For example, people have created systems that can tell the difference bewteen a dog and a cat using the millions of pictures of dogs and cats that you can now get from google. So people can use google's data bases to create their own intelligent systems. Now if google were the only game in town, one might say that they could abuse that position, but as I say there are competitors.
I appreciate that you answered that question, as it is one I am very interested in. The one I asked was a pretty good one too! Although the form of the brain may ultimately simple, its functioning is still on a tiny, intricate, and massively parallel scale. How can we accurately predict the timescale and form of intelligent nanobots on the level of human neural interfacing?
Ray Kurzweil: That would take a book to reply to. I did attempt to write that book. I base my predictions on models of the advance of information technology in these different areas of computation, brain modeling, and so on. We need to determine how much computation is needed to simulate all regions of the brain. What is the complexity of the models needed, and so on. I have been making reasonably accurate predictions based on these models of information technology for 25 years. My first book, The Age of intelligent Machines written about 20 years ago had hundreds of predictions about the 1990s and early 2000 years that have tracked quite well. We might wonder how it is that these information technology measures track so predictably when each project is unpredictable. We see similar results in other areas of science. For example, thermodynamics. each particle's parth is unpredictable but the overall gas made of many unpredictable parties, has very predictable properties.
Ray Kurzweil: Thanks for the opportunity to share ideas - I thought the questions were very engaging and i wish we had more time....
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.
|
Beyond the Future: Inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil was online to answer your questions about the Singularity theory: an era where humans and technology converge.
| 197.321429 | 0.928571 | 3.5 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061900198.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061900198.html
|
Nestle Wants to Be Cause and Solution
|
2006061919
|
GENEVA, June 19 -- In a move that recognizes the modern world's twin obsessions -- indulgence and guilt -- chocolate maker Nestle SA said Monday that it would purchase weight-loss-product maker Jenny Craig Inc. for $600 million.
While best known for its namesake chocolates, Nestle also makes baby formulas, nutrition foods such as PowerBar and the Lean Cuisine line. The Swiss company's purchase of Jenny Craig follows the lead of consumer products giant Unilever, which bought both Ben & Jerry's ice cream and Slim-Fast in 2000.
Weight management will become a new business within Nestle's nutrition unit and will reinforce its U.S. presence, the company said.
"With this strategic acquisition, the group takes another important step in its transformation process into a nutrition, health and wellness company," said Nestle chief executive Peter Brabeck-Letmathe.
Nestle is buying Jenny Craig from two private equity groups, ACI Capital Co. and MidOcean Partners. The management team of Jenny Craig, based in Carlsbad, Calif., will continue to run the business and will report directly to Nestle.
Jenny Craig, which has more than 3,000 employees and more than 600 centers in the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, generated sales of more than $400 million in the past 12 months.
|
GENEVA, June 19 -- In a move that recognizes the modern world's twin obsessions -- indulgence and guilt -- chocolate maker Nestle SA said Monday that it would purchase weight-loss-product maker Jenny Craig Inc. for $600 million.
| 5.555556 | 1 | 45 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800629.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800629.html
|
Developer Works to Win Columbia's Trust
|
2006061919
|
Not long before its sale, Rouse proposed almost doubling the number of homes in downtown Columbia, antagonizing residents. That turned into deep suspicion about General Growth and its intentions when the out-of-towner inherited the plan in 2004.
Before long, company and community were on a collision course, which took them to court and led to a series of soul-searching community meetings where the company's vision of growth raised residents' fears of big-city trappings -- and problems -- with questions about just how mature communities should evolve.
That's when Douglas M. Godine, an early colleague of Columbia founder James W. Rouse, was lured out of retirement, and General Growth this spring named him Columbia's general manager -- and the company's goodwill ambassador.
"We're in the business of making money, but you don't make money unless you create a product that benefits those concerned," said Godine, 71. "General Growth wants Columbia to be something special so that 20, 30, 40 years from now they can say, 'Hey, look at what we've done there.' "
But because there's little land left to develop, the most obvious way to maximize profit is by building skyward and packing more people into more homes, more shops and more office towers on already developed land around the mall in the heart of town.
General Growth says it is considering something similar to Reston Town Center, an idea that for some residents conjures up images of high-rises and traffic jams.
"I don't want them to pick up a few square miles of Chicago and plunk them down in Howard County," Barbara Russell, one of Columbia's first 100 residents, said about the Chicago-based company.
The saga began to unfold when the Rouse Co. proposed enclosing the open-air Merriweather Post Pavilion and building 1,600 residential units on the surrounding 51 acres, including its parking lot.
In a rare and very public blow to Rouse, the Howard County Zoning Board rejected the plan. Rouse went to court to overturn the decision and suggested that it might bring in big-box retailers if it could not get approval for housing.
General Growth entered the scene in the thick of that conflict and briefly considered shedding the planned-community part of Rouse to focus on its core business of building malls.
"We didn't know any better," said John Bucksbaum, General Growth's chief executive. "But once we got to learn and understand more about the community-development business, the more we appreciated it and liked it."
|
When General Growth Properties Inc. paid $7.2 billion for the Rouse Co., it bought a portfolio that included 37 malls, the town of Columbia and a small dispute -- with powerful implications for the future of the town.
| 11.97619 | 0.642857 | 1.02381 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800825.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800825.html
|
FCC Drops Planned Vote On Multicasts
|
2006061919
|
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin J. Martin yesterday dropped plans to vote this week on whether to require cable companies to carry extra digital channels produced by TV broadcasters, suggesting he could not muster the votes.
Martin last week placed the issue on the agenda for an FCC meeting scheduled for Wednesday, but late yesterday the FCC said it had been removed. FCC spokeswoman Tamara Lipper said in a statement that the item was pulled from the agenda because "there did not appear to be consensus for moving forward at this time."
Wednesday's meeting will be the first in well over a year that Martin will have a three-member Republican majority on the five-member FCC. The decision suggested that the commission's newest member, Republican Robert M. McDowell, may not have been willing to go along with Martin's wishes.
The two Democrats on the commission, Michael J. Copps and Jonathan S. Adelstein, both voted against requiring cable companies to carry more digital channels produced by broadcasters -- a practice known as "multicasting" -- when the FCC last addressed the issue in February 2005.
It is possible to squeeze several digital channels into the bandwidth taken up by an analog channel. Broadcasters have argued that cable companies should carry multiple digital channels rather than just the single channel.
Cable companies oppose this, arguing that they are required to carry only a local station's primary channel. Should the FCC change this policy, they are expected to immediately launch a court challenge.
Aides to Adelstein, Copps and McDowell were not immediately available to comment.
|
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.
| 6.478261 | 0.413043 | 0.413043 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601067.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601067.html
|
Rapid Response Is Best Defense Against ID Theft
|
2006061719
|
It may have already happened to you: A letter arrives in the mailbox from your bank or alma mater, stating that a hacker break-in or lost laptop may have compromised sensitive data on thousands of people, and that you may be among the unlucky ones. What to do?
As a potential identity-theft victim, your first step is to "move quickly and in an organized way" before the thieves attempt to use the information, said Betsy Broder, assistant director of the Federal Trade Commission's division of privacy and identity protection.
In the past 15 months, corporations, universities and other organizations alerted more than 85 million U.S. consumers that their personal or financial data might have been compromised due to data breaches, disgruntled employees or just plain incompetence. While consumer data leaks don't automatically result in financial losses or cases of identity theft, experts say your chances of becoming a victim depend on how well you know your rights and how rapidly you spring into action.
A speedy response is most important in cases where a data breach or loss involves a consumer's Social Security number, which can be used to open new lines of credit in the victim's name.
The FTC recently made available on its Web site downloadable form letters and worksheets to help people navigate the myriad steps often required to repair such damage, Broder said.
"It's essential that people document each and every step they take in this process," Broder said. "It can be daunting to get through this, but ... people [should] be careful and deliberate in how they go about it."
Any potential theft of a Social Security number should immediately be reported to one of the three major credit bureaus, said Beth Givens, director of the San Diego-based nonprofit Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. That report should include a request that a 90-day fraud alert be placed on your credit files (consumers have the right to renew this alert indefinitely, but they must contact one of the credit bureaus every three months to do so).
The company you call must contact the other credit bureaus, who will place an alert on their versions of your report. This means that businesses and creditors will have to call you before extending additional lines of credit in your name. Givens suggests providing the credit bureaus with a cell phone number if you have one.
Consumers who have evidence of attempts to open fraudulent accounts in their name should contact those creditors immediately and file a report with the local police department (then get a copy of the police report, or at least the police report number). Evidence of fraudulent activity also allows victims to request that a 90-day fraud alert be extended to seven years, though a credit bureau will require proof of identity and of the existence of a police report.
Placing a fraud alert entitles you to a free copy of your credit report from each of the major credit bureaus. This is in addition to the free annual credit reports already allowed by federal law. Givens advises consumers to wait a few months after receiving their fraud-alert credit reports before requesting any other free reports to which they may be entitled.
If you see any inaccurate information or fraudulent accounts listed in your credit reports, alert the credit bureaus and credit issuers in writing. You also have the right to have the credit bureaus strike any inquiries against your credit history that were generated by fraud.
For many identity-theft victims, the first sign of trouble is a denial of credit or a call from a debt-collection agency. By law, if you inform a collector that a debt resulted from identity theft, that collector must also inform the creditor. Creditors are then prohibited from selling such debts or placing them for collection. You also are entitled to a copy of all information about fraudulent debt, including late notices and account statements.
Some 23 states have passed "security freeze" laws that allow consumers to indefinitely prevent anyone from issuing credit in their name. California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, Vermont and Wisconsin provide all their residents with the option of placing a security freeze on their credit files, while Hawaii, Kansas, South Dakota, Texas and Washington currently provide this option only to ID theft victims.
Business have been driven to alert consumers about potential data losses thanks to a proliferation of state laws requiring such notifications, but legislation being considered on Capitol Hill could soon change that. Ed Mierzwinski, director of the U.S. Public Internet Research Group, a consumer watchdog group in Washington, said a bill recently passed by the House Financial Services Committee and supported by the major financial institutions would exempt companies from alerting consumers about data thefts or losses if the company does not know whether that loss places the consumer at a direct risk of identity theft. The bill also would reserve credit freezes for ID theft victims only.
|
While consumer data leaks don't automatically result in financial losses or cases of identity theft, experts say your chances of becoming a victim depend on how well you know your rights and how rapidly you spring into action.
| 23.439024 | 1 | 41 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061600572.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061600572.html
|
House Approves Iraq War Resolution
|
2006061719
|
The House voted 256 to 153 yesterday to back President Bush's policies in Iraq after two days of passionate and partisan debate that saw Republicans try to recast an unpopular conflict as part of a broader war on terrorism and totalitarianism.
Forty-two Democrats bucked their leadership to join a virtually united Republican Party and to declare that the United States must complete "the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure and united Iraq" without setting "an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment" of U.S. troops.
Three Republicans -- Reps. Ron Paul (Tex.), John J. Duncan Jr. (Tenn.) and Jim Leach (Iowa) -- joined 149 Democrats and one independent to oppose the resolution. Five others -- three Democrats and two Republicans -- voted "present" in protest.
Public opinion polls continue to show that the Iraq war is deeply unpopular, even in the wake of the death of al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. But, convinced they cannot avoid the issue in an election year, Republicans tried to put Democrats on the defensive with the first extended debate on the war since Congress authorized the use of force nearly four years ago.
House Republicans sought to frame the conflict in the broadest possible terms, linking it not only to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the war on terrorism but also to what they see as the Clinton administration's repeated failures to act after terrorist attacks in the 1990s.
"The American public deserves to hear how their elected leaders will respond to international terrorism and those enemies who seek to destroy our American way of life. Will we fight or will we retreat?" asked House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). "Let me be clear: Those who say this is a war of choice are nothing more than wrong. This is a war of necessity."
House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said the question before the House was whether "the global war on totalitarianism is worth fighting."
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) countered: "Republicans in Congress continue to try to mislead the American people by suggesting a link between the war in Iraq and the war on terror. They are distinct . . . and efforts to portray one as part of the other are a disservice to the truth and to the men and women fighting in Baghdad, Kirkuk and Ramadi."
"We've become the enemy. We've given a microphone to people like Zarqawi," said Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), the hawkish Democrat who rocked Capitol Hill last year by calling for a rapid withdrawal of military forces. "We support the troops. It's the policy we don't support."
For much of the past four years, House Republicans have avoided a serious debate on Iraq. The Senate, not the House, held hearings on the abuse of detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison. The Senate, not the House, descended into bitter debate last year over an amendment by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to ban torture at U.S. detention facilities. And the Senate, not the House, pushed into law a provision declaring 2006 a "year of significant transition" in Iraq.
But with midterm elections less than five months away, House leaders -- driven in part by dissenting voices in their party -- decided that their members needed to confront the Iraq issue directly.
"I think all members are going to have to express themselves on this issue as the year goes on. There is no way of avoiding it," Boehner said.
|
The House voted 256 to 153 yesterday to back President Bush's policies in Iraq after two days of passionate and partisan debate that saw Republicans try to recast an unpopular conflict as part of a broader war on terrorism and totalitarianism.
| 16.302326 | 1 | 43 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601382.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601382.html
|
Indictment Rejected For Rep. McKinney
|
2006061719
|
A D.C. grand jury has decided not to indict Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) for scuffling with a U.S. Capitol Police officer this year.
U.S. Attorney Kenneth L. Wainstein issued a statement yesterday saying the decision followed "an extensive and thorough" investigation by a D.C. Superior Court grand jury. The grand jury filed notice with the court that the evidence did not support an indictment, a move that Wainstein said will end the investigation.
"I am relieved that this unfortunate incident is behind me," said McKinney, 51, a six-term House member. "I accept today's grand jury finding of 'no probable cause' as right and just, and the proper resolution of this case."
McKinney said she will be pleased to continue working "without this cloud hanging over me."
The outcome disturbed individual Capitol Police officers, who indicated that they expected McKinney to face charges in a March 29 incident that quickly generated national attention.
However, the Capitol Police department issued a statement last night saying it respected the grand jury's decision and appreciated what it termed an extensive and thorough investigation by the prosecutor's office. The department commended what it described as the professionalism of the officer involved. In the statement, the department also said the matter was diligently presented to the grand jury.
In the March 29 incident, McKinney sidestepped a Longworth House Office Building metal detector -- as House and Senate members are allowed to do. But she was not wearing her lapel pin identifying her as a member, and a police officer -- who did not recognize her -- grabbed her after she ignored his commands to stop. That was when she was alleged to have hit him in the chest.
McKinney, who is black, at first complained that she was a victim of racial profiling and accused the white officer, Paul McKenna, of inappropriately touching her. She also had dubbed the incident "much ado about a hairdo," saying that a hairstyle change this year may have made it harder for police to recognize her.
Capitol Police, meanwhile, urged the U.S. attorney's office to charge McKinney with simple assault, a misdemeanor. Prosecutors chose instead to have the grand jury review the case, and the panel heard testimony from officers and other witnesses.
Even hours before the decision was announced, police expected to hear that McKinney would be charged, said Lou Cannon, president of Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 1.
"We think the facts clearly speak for themselves in this case," Cannon said. "Our initial obvious reaction is disappointment and concern about the message this sends to America."
The police union plans to meet over the weekend to discuss strategy and determine whether it has further legal avenues. It plans to hold a news conference Monday to announce its proposals, Cannon said.
|
Get Washington DC, Virginia, Maryland and national news. Get the latest/breaking news, featuring national security, science and courts. Read news headlines from the nation and from The Washington Post. Visit www.washingtonpost.com/nation today.
| 13 | 0.52381 | 0.52381 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061602015.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061602015.html
|
Fall Elections Are Rove's Next Test
|
2006061719
|
White House political strategist Karl Rove emerges from the CIA leak case with his reputation scuffed, his power slightly diminished, and Republicans counting on him, once again, to help rescue their House and Senate majorities.
Described by friends as relieved and recharged after getting the news this week that he will not be indicted in the leak probe, Rove now faces another verdict this fall over his abilities as a political strategist and his ambition to build an enduring GOP majority.
Rove's reputation as a campaign operative is unparalleled -- he is hailed by President Bush as the architect of his 2004 reelection -- but his judgment in melding politics and policy into an effective governing strategy has been called into question in the president's second term. Bush endured the worst stretch of his presidency when Rove's powers inside the White House were at their peak.
Not all of the problems can be laid at Rove's feet, given how much the Iraq war has damaged the president's standing. But Rove was the conceptual brains and chief cheerleader behind what turned into the biggest domestic policy failure of Bush's presidency -- the effort to introduce personal savings accounts into the Social Security program.
Republicans interviewed for this article also said they believed that the failure of others in the White House to check Rove's expanded powers contributed to missteps that they say were far less common during Bush's first term.
Now Rove has the freedom to concentrate on preserving the GOP majorities in Congress, and an opportunity to purge the mistakes of the past two years. Based on recent Rove speeches and interviews with senior GOP officials, his plan for the midterm elections echoes the strategy he plotted out in 2002 and 2004, adapted to a new and more difficult environment. He hopes to make the election a choice between the philosophies of the two parties, especially on national security, rather than a referendum on Bush's performance. He also aims to stoke the Republican base with such issues as tax cuts, same-sex marriage and judicial appointments. Rove declined to comment for this article.
For the first time since Bush became a national candidate, Rove faces a fractured Republican coalition, at odds over immigration and spending. Rove has been concentrating his energies, GOP officials said, on reuniting the party.
"The results of the 2006 election will be the final verdict of his standing with the president and his party," said Tad Devine, who was a senior strategist in the campaigns of Democratic presidential nominees Al Gore and John F. Kerry. "If the Republicans hold the House and Senate, Karl's stock will go up, and if they lose it, the cloud that hung over him for a long time will return."
Most Republicans and Democrats interviewed for this article said Rove's White House stature has been diminished only slightly, and perhaps only temporarily, by Bush's political problems and the leak probe. Ed Gillespie, the former Republican National Committee chairman, struggled to find the right superlative. "He is, he is, he is, well, Karl Rove," Gillespie said. And Democratic strategist Donnie Fowler called him the "shrewdest of his generation -- and the toughest."
The record, they say, speaks for itself: Rove was the architect of a series of victories for Bush -- the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004, as well as the 2002 midterms -- that left Democrats demoralized and divided. While it might be Washington myth that Rove is responsible for all of Bush's wins -- after all, it was the president who executed the plans and earned the vote -- the balding Texan with the mischievous grin gets much of the credit in the eyes of Republicans and Democrats alike.
He also gets the blame when numbers go down. "Karl is rightly called a genius, and, like any genius, his can be big mistakes," said Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.). He said that Rove is the smartest political mind in the party today but that his efforts to "buy votes" from independents by expanding the education system and creating a Medicare prescription drug benefit in the first term are hurting Republicans badly today. "Those issues turned off the base," Feeney said.
The Social Security debate, however, was probably his biggest blunder, Republicans inside and outside the White House said. Fresh off the 2004 victory, Rove convinced Bush that an in-depth analysis of past second-term presidents showed the only way to succeed was to act quickly and boldly. Internally, Rove championed a plan to restructure Social Security by allowing younger Americans to put some of the their Social Security taxes into private accounts in exchange for a reduction in guaranteed benefits.
|
White House political strategist Karl Rove emerges from the CIA leak case with his reputation scuffed, his power slightly diminished, and Republicans counting on him, once again, to help rescue their House and Senate majorities.
| 22.525 | 1 | 40 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061600917.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061600917.html
|
Young Pastors Encouraged by Southern Baptist Election
|
2006061719
|
GREENSBORO, N.C. -- On the eve of this year's annual meeting of Southern Baptists, Micah Fries spoke of how he, as a 27-year-old pastor, often feels left out of the nation's largest Protestant denomination.
But with the presidential election of Frank Page, a self-described "normal" pastor, Fries and other young pastors and bloggers say they have greater hopes for inclusion.
"It's a whole new world," Fries, pastor of a St. Joseph, Mo., church, said Wednesday, the day after Page's election by a slim majority. "His arms are open. There's no small circle of leadership. There's no attempt to divide and conquer. He wants others to get involved."
The election of Page, 53, pastor of First Baptist Church of Taylors, S.C., is giving young leaders hope about their recent influence and their future involvement in the 16.2-million-member denomination. Some in the fledgling Baptist blogging community -- which gained prominence in the past year -- felt there was a narrowing focus on nonessential aspects of doctrine within Baptist ranks.
Page, at a news conference shortly after his election Tuesday, said: "I truly believe it is God's people who are saying we want to see a broadened involvement."
He won an unusual three-way race, getting a slim majority -- 50.48 percent -- of the vote; his opponents received about 24 percent each. About 11,000 delegates attended the two-day meeting.
International Mission Board trustee Wade Burleson -- like, Page, a relative unknown in the Southern Baptist Convention before this year -- and other bloggers attribute the election results to the ramped-up computer conversations. "These young men and women . . . got the word out," Burleson, 44, said of bloggers. "It's a new day."
They are pastors such as Benjamin S. Cole, 30, from Arlington, Tex., who helped draft the "Memphis Declaration," a document released last month that repented of "triumphalism" within Southern Baptist ranks.
"I think that younger conservatives walk away from Greensboro invigorated and enthusiastic about supporting the convention they love and preaching the Bible they believe and leading the world to Christ," he said.
Relatively young leaders -- often in their twenties and thirties but sometimes older -- are becoming a more forceful presence within the Southern Baptist Convention, differentiating themselves from the old guard that has long held the leadership posts within the denomination.
Although blogs are one key demonstration of their influence, there were signs in this year's annual meeting and preceding meetings that younger voices are being heard and changes are being made to accommodate them.
Burleson is one of the most prominent examples. The International Mission Board dropped its plans to remove him as a trustee for using his blog to criticize policies he felt focused on "nonessential doctrines." His phrase about "narrowing the parameters of cooperation" was almost a mantra for some of those who attended a Younger Leaders Summit in Greensboro on Monday.
|
GREENSBORO, N.C. -- On the eve of this year's annual meeting of Southern Baptists, Micah Fries spoke of how he, as a 27-year-old pastor, often feels left out of the nation's largest Protestant denomination.
| 13.697674 | 1 | 43 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/15/AR2006061500300.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/15/AR2006061500300.html
|
Cleric Calls on Bush to Convert to Islam
|
2006061519
|
SOLO, Indonesia -- A reputed leader of an al-Qaida-linked terror group blamed for deadly bombings across Indonesia on Thursday accused President Bush and Australia's prime minister of waging wars against Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Militant cleric Abu Bakar Bashir also called on Bush and Prime Minister John Howard to convert to Islam, saying it was "the only way to save their souls."
He added that families still grieving after the 2002 Bali blasts that killed many foreigners should also become Muslim to find "salvation and peace."
Bashir, 68, was released from prison Wednesday after completing a 26-month sentence for conspiracy in the Bali bombings that killed 202 people. He spoke Thursday at a hard-line Islamic boarding school that has spawned some of Southeast Asia's deadliest terrorists.
The firebrand cleric declined to directly condemn young men who carry out bombings in Indonesia in the name of Islam, saying he still considered them "holy warriors," because they believed they were defending the oppressed.
But he also said they were misguided and wrong to use bombs in a country at peace. "Why use bombs in a non-conflict zone? Preaching is enough," he said.
Jemaah Islamiyah is accused of church bombings across the world's most populous Muslim nation in 2000, the 2002 attack on the resort island of Bali, attacks in the capital Jakarta in 2003 and 2004, and a triple suicide bombing on Bali last October.
The attacks killed more than 260 people, many of them foreigners, and have thrust Indonesia onto the front line of the global war on terror.
The United States and Australia have expressed disappointment at Bashir's release, but Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono maintained Thursday it did not mean his government was soft on Islamic militants.
"Abu Bakar Bashir was put on trial. He was punished," Yudhoyono said in Jakarta, adding that Indonesia has arrested hundreds of suspected terrorists and sentenced three linked to the 2002 Bali bombings to death.
Bashir, who has never been linked to the preparation or commission of terrorist attacks, was asked Thursday about families still suffering from the Bali blasts.
He said the attacks "were God's will" and that survivors should "convert to Islam" if they wanted to ease their suffering.
|
SOLO, Indonesia -- A reputed leader of an al-Qaida-linked terror group blamed for deadly bombings across Indonesia on Thursday accused President Bush and Australia's prime minister of waging wars against Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.
| 10.47619 | 1 | 42 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/18/AR2006051800507.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/18/AR2006051800507.html
|
Explore Its Old-Time Charm at Your Leisure
|
2006061519
|
Lewes is a hand-colored postcard version of what small fishing towns used to be, an irresistible walking tour of Victorian and Queen Anne architecture. And even if the commercial district is teetering on the brink of "olde towne" cutesiness, the beautifully kept homes and gardens, the jumble of tackle and line at Fisherman's Wharf and the relative quiet (any jet skiers are far enough away to be mostly out of earshot) make it ideal for romantics and empty nesters happy to while away a leisurely afternoon -- which partly explains the increasing number of higher-end hotels, B&Bs and the like.
For those with small children, the softer surf of the Delaware Bay (at the foot of Savannah Road) is a comfortable compromise. And since Cape Henlopen, Delaware's answer to Assateague Island, is only a mile away, bird-watchers, nature-lovers and surf-fishers can have a field day.
7:30 p.m. As you pull off Route 9 toward old Lewes, stop for dinner at Fish On in the Villages at Five Points Town Center (17300 N. Village Main Blvd.; 302-645-9790). The dining room menu is tempting, but the bar menu is ideal grazing (roast scallops, pickled anchovies with raw asparagus ribbons, pan-roasted mussels with country ham, smoked trout dip), especially if you play with the wine list.
10 p.m. Head into Lewes proper and cross the drawbridge to the Lighthouse Restaurant (Savannah and Anglers roads at Fisherman's Wharf; 302-645-6271), which offers live music in its so-local-you-can-smell-the-salt Drawbridge Bar.
8:30 a.m. Walk into Notting Hill Coffee (124 Second St.; 302-645-0733) for fresh espresso (or coffee in flavors you didn't even know existed) and oversize bakery treats. Take breakfast out to the sidewalk and lounge on one of the benches for best atmosphere.
10 a.m. Rent bikes from Lewes Cycle Sports (526 Savannah Rd. in the Beacon Motel; 302-645-4544), stop by Abby's Palm Bay Grille (34 Cape Henlopen Dr.; 302-644-0443) to stock up on sandwiches and head to Cape Henlopen State Park, a mile east of town ($8; 302-645-8983). Or if you choose to drive, get out and start your walking tour at the Observation Tower, the only one of those concrete towers spiking the Delaware coast -- remnants of a World War II anti-Nazi spotting network-- that you can enter and climb. From the narrow windows scattered along the spiral steps, you can see ever-wider vistas until, at the top, bay, ocean, beach and salt marsh are all revealed, along with two other towers. (However, don't use the tower as a landmark once you're back on the ground; it's rarely visible.) Unlike the neighboring beaches, which have to be re-dredged because of erosion, Cape Henlopen is actually growing, or rather, silting up. The sand of the original beachfront is clearly visible under the blanket of pine needles.
Noon Cool off with a dip in the ocean -- there's a bathhouse for changing and showering at the north swimming area, and you can rent an umbrella -- and then enjoy your picnic.
1 p.m. If you'd like to try your hand at fishing, you can surf-cast off the beaches or drop bait off the park's quarter-mile-long pier. Rent a rod and reel at the foot of the pier (302-645-6111), and buy more bug spray and sunscreen while you're at it.
3 p.m. Pack up and roll back into Lewes. Cross the drawbridge and turn into Striper Bites (Second Street and Savannah Road; 302-645-4657) for a snack and a pick-me-up. The bruschetta is a baguette topped with grilled squash, tomatoes and melted asiago topped with balsamic reduction and a drizzle of pesto -- easily enough for two.
4 p.m. Stroll the shops of old town Lewes, clustered in the area around Second Street, Market Street and Third Street. Enticements range from the antique wrought-iron chandelier and other architectural remnants in the Lewes Mercantile Antique Gallery (109 Second St.; 302-645-7900) to the estate pieces at the Jewelry Exchange (142-A Second St.; 302-644-3435); from bed linens and bath lotions at The Cottage (142 Second St.; 302-644-1544) to whimsical accessories -- birdhouses made from old railings and newel posts -- at The Stepping Stone (107 W. Market St.; 302-645-1254). Preservation Forge, a working smithy and museum (114 Third St.), has shops on either side and, on the second floor, the old-fashioned garret studio of painter Denise Dumont (302-245-6258).
5:30 p.m. At the foot of alleylike Market Street is the beached boat bar Gilligan's (302-645-7866). Enjoy the changing colors over the canal with a glass of wine while nibbling on a sun-dried tomato baguette or a portobello stuffed with artichoke.
7:30 p.m. Stick with the tapas-style grazing and walk halfway up the block to Cafe Azafran (109 W. Market St.; 302-644-4446) for a Mediterranean display of fare much more expansive than the cozy cafe would suggest: slow-roasted peppers, tapenade chicken, braised lamb shank and grilled veal sausage with white beans.
9:30 p.m. Stop into Jerry's Seafood (108 Second St.; 302-645-6611) for a nightcap and music and dance off a little of Azafran's chocolate gelato with espresso and Kahlua. Or if jazz is your choice, finish up at Las Rosa Negra (1201 Savannah St.; 302-645-1980).
9 a.m. Warm your mind and body with coffee (or tea) and scones and a comfy chair at Books by the Bay (111 Bank St.; 302-644-6571).
10:30 a.m. Brunch at the restored Victorian showplace The Buttery (Second and Savannah streets; 302-645-7755), where any one of a dozen entrees, including eggs Benedict, seafood crepes, filet mignon with eggs or an English country breakfast with bangers, comes with bread, fruit and a bloody mary, mimosa or sparkling wine for $18.95. Tempting though it may be to linger on the veranda, don't dawdle.
11:30 a.m. Catch the three-hour cruise from Fisherman's Wharf ($30; 302-645-8862). You're guaranteed to see dolphins; whales have their own ideas.
On the way home Keep that serenity thing going with a stop at the Studio on 24, the gallery and working furnace of custom and art glassblower Deb Appleby (20231 John Williams Hwy./Route 24; 302-644-4424). Take Route 9 to Route 1 south about a mile to Route 24 east; turn left and go two miles to the studio on your left. Then continue on Route 24 to Route 113 to Georgetown.
If romantic Victorian scenery is more your style, and you want to take the ferry from Lewes to Cape May, N.J., note that you now have to make car reservations 24 hours in advance. For information on fees and schedules, call 800-643-3779 or visit http://www.capemaylewesferry.com/ .
|
For those with small children, the softer surf of Lewes and the Delaware Bay is a comfortable compromise.
| 68.428571 | 0.904762 | 6.428571 |
high
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/14/AR2006061400626.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/14/AR2006061400626.html
|
Bush Upbeat on Iraq After Baghdad Visit
|
2006061419
|
President Bush, back from a surprise trip to Baghdad yesterday, said today his visit renewed his confidence that he has a viable partner in Iraq's new leadership, and he announced plans to dispatch several Cabinet secretaries and other top officials to confer with their Iraqi counterparts.
At a news conference, Bush rejected critics' calls for a swift pullout of U.S. forces from Iraq and vowed that his actions would not be driven by opinion polls showing diminished public support for the war and for his own job performance.
"My message to the enemy is don't count on us leaving before we succeed," Bush said in the Rose Garden of the White House. "Don't bet on American politics forcing my hand, because it's not going to happen."
Bush said he was inspired by his visit and "saw first-hand" the strong character and deep determination of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who last week completed his cabinet after protracted political wrangling.
Traveling with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and a small retinue of other top officials, Bush flew to Baghdad in secret Monday night, landing Tuesday afternoon local time. Much of his Cabinet and White House staff was kept in the dark about the trip, and Maliki was told of Bush's imminent arrival only a few minutes before he landed.
Bush today defended that secrecy, saying he is "a high-value target" for some enemies and that Iraq "is a dangerous place." He said that "half my Cabinet" did not know about the trip and that some secretaries were surprised to see him on a video transmission from Baghdad during a scheduled joint U.S-Iraqi Cabinet meeting yesterday. Giving advance word of the trip "would have given somebody a chance to plan," Bush said, adding that "I was happy to see [Maliki], and he was happy to see me."
Speaking to reporters barely six hours after his return, a jet-lagged but ebullient Bush said he was impressed that Maliki has solid plans to improve security, rebuild the economy and reconcile Iraqis.
"The prime minister has taken immediate action to implement a plan to improve security, and his top priority is around Baghdad," Bush said. He said a U.S.-Iraqi operation to restore security to high-risk areas in Baghdad, dubbed "Operation Together Forward," started this morning. Participating in it are 26,000 Iraqi soldiers, 23,000 Iraqi police and "over 7,200 coalition forces," he said.
"Iraqi troops will increase the number of checkpoints, enforce a curfew and implement a strict weapons ban across the Iraqi capital," Bush said.
He cautioned that violence in Iraq is likely to continue despite the blow dealt to the insurgent group, al-Qaeda in Iraq, by a U.S. airstrike last week that killed its leader, Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
"I hope there's not an expectation from people that all of a sudden there's going to be zero violence," Bush said. "In other words, that's just not going to be the case."
To help Maliki in his plans to revitalize the Iraqi economy, Bush said, he has directed the secretaries of commerce, agriculture and energy to travel to Iraq "as soon as possible" to meet with their Iraqi counterparts. He said he also has directed the Treasury Department to send a team to Iraq to help develop a finance system "that is accountable and transparent." He said Treasury officials would travel around the world to secure support for the Maliki government and encourage governments that pledged aid to Iraq "to pay up."
|
President Bush, back from a surprise trip to Baghdad yesterday, said today his visit renewed his confidence that he has a viable partner in Iraq's new leadership, and he announced plans to dispatch several Cabinet secretaries and other top officials to confer with their Iraqi counterparts.
| 13.921569 | 1 | 51 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061301449.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061301449.html
|
Liberal Activists Boo Clinton
|
2006061419
|
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) drew boos and hisses from an audience of liberal activists yesterday as she defended her opposition to a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq, and later she received an implicit rebuke from Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) for failing to acknowledge that her support for the war was a mistake.
Clinton's and Kerry's appearances at the Take Back America conference at the Washington Hilton put on vivid display the Democratic Party's divisions over the foreign policy issue that dominates this year's midterm elections, and the two possible 2008 presidential candidates offered a preview of the debate that could dominate the battle for the party's nomination.
Clinton and Kerry supported the 2002 congressional resolution authorizing the Iraq war. Kerry recently renounced that vote, but Clinton has never done so. She finds herself in opposition to a majority of Democratic activists and is the target of passionate criticism from some of them.
Clinton won repeated applause through most of her speech, which dealt at length with domestic issues but also sharply criticized President Bush's handling of the war. But the audience turned against her when, in what she called a difficult conversation, she restated her long-standing position about timetables for withdrawing U.S forces.
"I have to just say it," she began. "I do not think it is a smart strategy either for the president to continue with his open-ended commitment, which I think does not put enough pressure on the new Iraqi government, nor do I think it is smart strategy to set a date certain. I do not agree that that is in the best interest of our troops or our country."
Clinton finished on a more positive note, with an exhortation about winning the November elections that brought audience members to their feet cheering. But within minutes, as she worked the rope line on her way out of the hotel ballroom, she was the target of protesters, who chanted "Bring the troops home" and "Stop the war."
Later, after Clinton's departure, Kerry delivered a fiery denunciation of the war that was continually interrupted with cheers and applause, and he repeated his call for "a hard and fast deadline" for withdrawing troops. At one point, Kerry, the Democrats' 2004 presidential nominee, appeared to be directing his comments at the woman who leads early national Democratic polls for 2008.
"Let me say it plainly," Kerry said. "It's not enough to argue with the logistics or to argue about the details or the manner of the conflict's execution or the failures of competence, as great as they are. It is essential to acknowledge that the war itself was a mistake, to say the simple words that contain more truth than pride. We were misled. We were given evidence that was not true. It was wrong, and I was wrong to vote for that Iraqi resolution."
Kerry struggled throughout the 2004 campaign to square his vote for the resolution and his later opposition to an $87 billion funding bill for the troops. As if to drive home the point that he thinks Clinton and others who share her views are in a similarly untenable position, he told the audience yesterday: "One of the great lessons of life is that you cannot change the future if you're not honest about the past. And we cannot have it both ways in the war in Iraq."
Spokesman David Wade said Kerry's remarks were not directed specifically at Clinton.
Even before Clinton arrived for her speech, it was clear that she faced a potentially hostile audience. Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America's Future, the conference's sponsor, admonished the audience to be friendly to the morning speakers. "We owe them our courteous attention," he said. As the audience waited for Clinton to arrive, some passed out anti-Clinton literature to reporters.
The Campaign for America's Future, a leading liberal group, has battled with centrist Democrats over the direction of the party.
Clinton and Kerry spoke just as the news was breaking about Bush's secret trip to Baghdad. Administration officials have seized on the formation of the new government in Iraq and the killing last week of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, to mount an offensive to turn around public perceptions about the war that threaten to damage Republicans in the November elections.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who called the war a "grotesque mistake," challenged the administration's claims of progress during her appearance at the conference.
"As we talk about a new direction for America, I think one place that it is very clear that we need a new direction is in the war in Iraq," she said.
Pelosi joined Kerry in calling for a timetable to pull out the troops, saying she supports a plan outlined earlier by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.).
One Clinton adviser dismissed questions about whether the senator had sought to draw dissents from the crowd as a way to burnish her credentials as a strong-on-national-security centrist. "She had enough respect for her audience not to pander or duck the issue," said strategist Howard Wolfson.
|
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) drew boos and hisses from an audience of liberal activists yesterday as she defended her opposition to a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq, and later she received an implicit rebuke from Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) for failing to acknowledge that...
| 17.40678 | 0.983051 | 57.016949 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/mexicovotes/2006/06/the_assassination_saga_checkin.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061419id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/mexicovotes/2006/06/the_assassination_saga_checkin.html
|
The 'Assassination' Saga; Checking the Tea Leaves
|
2006061419
|
Q&A Alert: Campaign Conexión will host its first guest commentator a little later today: Jorge Castañeda, who served as secretary of foreign affairs at the start of Vicente Fox's term, will join us at 1:30 p.m. to entertain your questions. You can start firing away now.
And now back to the campaign. Tuesday was a tough morning for the presidential candidates to break onto the front page (PDF) with World Cup soccer and local Mexico City elections dominating news coverage.
The presidential campaign story that did make it onto Page 1 was more on the assassination/not-an-assassination scandal. El Universal got the scoop with details on telephone calls that appear to support allegations that businessman Carlos Ahumada masterminded a phony attempt to assassinate his wife (no, this is not a typo).
This story started last week as a bubbling financial scandal -- Ahumada was all set to release video tapes that he said would show pals of Andres Manuel López Obrador accepting payoffs.
That morning, someone shot up the SUV that Ahumada's wife and children were riding in. She initially said the incident was so terrifying, she decided not to release the tapes. But now investigators are probing whether this was all a setup, a twist that could put a dent in AMLO's popularity and boost his leading opponent, Felipe Calderón.
El Universal got copies of Ahumada's jailhouse calls. You can listen to the audio tapes here. But be forewarned, the calls include some profanities in Spanish.
The good thing about polls (or encuestas, in Spanish) is that there's something for everyone. That's especially the case in the final three weeks of the presidential campaign here to succeed Fox.
After dominating the polls for nearly two years, AMLO, candidate of the leftist Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD), fell behind last spring. Analysts blamed his dip in the polls on his arrogance (skipping the first debate) and failure to answer tough ads by Calderón, the candidate of the conservative National Action Party (PAN).
But over the past two weeks, the race has tightened to a virtual tie. Some surveys say Calderón helped himself in last week's two-hour debate, showing a polish and command of substantive policy matters. But such results still fall within the margin of error.
Milenio, a left-of-center paper, covered the top half of its tabloid front Tuesday with its poll results, not surprisingly giving a comfortable lead to López Obrador.
The U.S.-based La Opinión, conducted its survey in the three days following last week's debate and also gives Calderón a narrow edge. In the broader sense, the Financial Times reads the tea leaves in Latin America and concludes things are looking up for moderates.
This year's presidential contest almost had an independent candidate in the race -- Jorge Castañeda, a well-known intellectual and former Mexican cabinet member, announced in 2004 that he planned to challenge Mexican law requiring candidates run on a party ticket.
In October 2005, the Washington-based Inter-American Commission on Human Rights recommended Castañeda be allowed to pursue his candidacy, but the Federal Electoral Institute rejected the recommendation, saying it could not rewrite the law.
Since then, Castañeda has been visible on the talk show circuit and busy writing for academic journals. He has been highly critical of the leftward shift in the region, singling out Venezuela's Hugo Chávez and Bolivia's Evo Morales.
He is the author of "Utopia Unarmed: The Latin American Left After the Cold War" and "Compañero: The Life and Death of Che Guevara."
Here's some homework for tomorrow's chat with Castañeda. The discussion is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. ET, but you can submit your questions now.
By washingtonpost.com | June 14, 2006; 9:00 AM ET | Category: Campaign Conexión Previous: Antojitos: Look Out Al Capone | Next: From The Post: Migration a Non-Issue
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cgi-bin/mt/mtb.cgi/7810
Hello. Your site is great.
Please visit my site. ring tones
Posted by: Jannis | June 20, 2006 09:20 PM
qnyzk jnwla amrlvfcw jrqzouldp ojybdvnf tisryf ogdnsbjxe
Posted by: vamiof kmacszx | July 9, 2006 05:52 PM
dlmfnxe yrdbmtqh ealfszr tgvnwpo etgd sjfkt lksepoxt [URL]http://www.jpsg.nqfuldt.com[/URL] aopqum eugzktbyi
Posted by: broexkth okgpznxus | July 9, 2006 05:53 PM
plikbeyn molsptgbk faixubozk mzbiyavdo qslaxp wmhtzjxd taxdiqmgs
Posted by: hynlxdbsm wfvkbneo | August 4, 2006 01:32 PM
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
|
Visit www.washingtonpost.com/ for continuing coverage of Mexico's July 2, 2006, presidential election. Washington Post reporter Ceci Connolly blogs about the election from Mexico City.
| 33.724138 | 0.724138 | 0.862069 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061301702.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061301702.html
|
Searchers Try to Reconstruct Publisher's Fateful Journey
|
2006061419
|
As efforts to find the body of Annapolis publisher Philip Merrill stretch into a fourth day, investigators are re-creating his final hours in hopes of speeding a search that combines sonar technology with a sailor's sense of the Chesapeake Bay.
From the moment Merrill set out from his Severn River home Saturday, alone on the Merrilly on a windy afternoon, he subjected himself to risks that for a man alone -- even in a 41-foot, high-performance sailboat -- were substantial, sailors and meteorologists say.
Merrill entered the bay as winds reached 15 to 20 knots, or 17 to 23 miles an hour, strong enough to create three-foot whitecaps and, on land, cause small trees to sway, said National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration meteorologist Dennis Feltgen.
But according to authorities, the Merrilly was big enough to weather such conditions and built to make single-handed sailing easier. And for its captain, who had been on boats since he was 7, the stiff breeze was ideal. Merrill's family believes he headed east, the wind at his back, on a favorite cruise to Kent Island, where he would typically turn around and return, a round trip of 18 miles.
But the wind on the way over may have made the Merrilly susceptible to what sailors call an "accidental jibe," in which a slight shift in the wind catches the main sail of the boat, causing the boom, which runs along the bottom of that sail, to swing abruptly across the boat and hit anyone in its way.
"The wind in that sail is just so powerful. . . . It's coming at you at such a great speed. And the bigger the boat, the bigger the boom coming at you," said Ruth Wood, president of the BoatUS Foundation for Boating Safety and Clean Water, based in Alexandria.
That, the theory goes, could have knocked Merrill overboard, leaving him unable to get back aboard.
"When you're alone, you might be able to [swim] back to the boat, but getting back onto the boat, especially one like Mr. Merrill's, which was very large . . . getting back on deck is impossible without steps or something to pull your body back up," Wood said. "And when the water's so cold, you lose your strength."
Authorities believe that Merrill was not wearing a life jacket, which in safety experts' view was a key error. "Not only could it save your life, it's added hypothermia protection," Wood said.
In 1988, Richard Conlon, a Capitol Hill aide, was sailing on the bay when a sail became entangled. Trying to work it free, Conlon was hit by the boom and fell overboard. Even though his wife was on the boat with him when he fell, it took two days to find his body.
Ellison Burton, 77, the former commodore of the Parklawn Sailing Association on the West River in Anne Arundel County, was with his brother on a 37-foot boat on the Severn in 1981 when "the boom swung over, hit me in the left temple, threw me . . . about five feet out," he said. "I was bleeding from a gash on my head, and the boat is moving away from me. I could see it was futile to try to catch up." He was rescued by a family passing by.
The 40-year sailing veteran does not sail alone. "For me, it wouldn't be prudent," he said.
|
As efforts to find the body of Annapolis publisher Philip Merrill stretch into a fourth day, investigators are re-creating his final hours in hopes of speeding a search that combines sonar technology with a sailor's sense of the Chesapeake Bay.
| 15.333333 | 1 | 45 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061301367.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061301367.html
|
Fraudulent Katrina and Rita Claims Top $1 Billion
|
2006061419
|
The government doled out as much as $1.4 billion in bogus assistance to victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and was hoodwinked to pay for season football tickets, a tropical vacation and even a divorce lawyer, congressional investigators have found.
Prison inmates, a supposed victim who used a New Orleans cemetery for a home address, and a person who spent 70 days at a Hawaiian hotel were able to wrongly get taxpayer help, according to the Government Accountability Office.
Agents from the investigative arm of Congress went undercover to expose the ease of receiving disaster expense checks from the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
The GAO concluded that as much as 16 percent of the billions of dollars in FEMA aid to individuals after the two hurricanes was unwarranted.
The findings are detailed in testimony that is scheduled to be delivered at a hearing today by the House Homeland Security subcommittee on investigations.
To dramatize the problem, the GAO provided lawmakers with a copy of a $2,358 U.S. Treasury check for rental assistance that an undercover agent got using a bogus address. The money was paid even after FEMA learned from its inspector that the undercover applicant did not live at the address.
"This is an assault on the American taxpayer," said Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Tex.), chairman of the subcommittee that will conduct the hearing. "Prosecutors from the federal level down should be looking at prosecuting these crimes and putting the criminals who committed them in jail for a long time."
FEMA spokesman Aaron Walker said yesterday that the agency, already criticized for its poor response to Katrina, makes its highest priority during a disaster "to get help quickly to those in desperate need of our assistance."
"Even as we put victims first, we take very seriously our responsibility to be outstanding stewards of taxpayer dollars, and we are careful to make sure that funds are distributed appropriately," he said.
FEMA said it has identified more than 1,500 cases of potential fraud since Katrina and Rita, and has referred those cases to the Homeland Security inspector general. The agency said it has identified $16.8 million in improperly awarded disaster relief money and has started efforts to collect the money.
The GAO said it was 95 percent confident that improper and potentially fraudulent payments were much higher: between $600 million and $1.4 billion.
The investigative agency said it found people lodged in hotels often were paid twice, because FEMA gave them individual rental assistance and paid hotels directly. FEMA paid California hotels $8,000 to house one individual -- the same person who received three rental assistance payments for both disasters.
FEMA paid another individual $2,358 in rental assistance, while at the same time paying about $8,000 for the same person to stay 70 nights at more than $100 per night in a Hawaii hotel.
FEMA also could not establish that 750 debit cards worth $1.5 million even went to Katrina victims, the auditors said.
Among the items purchased with the cards were five season tickets to New Orleans Saints professional football games and a divorce lawyer's services in Houston.
"Our forensic audit and investigative work showed that improper and potentially fraudulent payments occurred mainly because FEMA did not validate the identity of the registrant, the physical location of the damaged address, and ownership and occupancy of all registrants at the time of registration," GAO officials said.
FEMA paid millions of dollars to more than 1,000 registrants who used names and Social Security numbers belonging to state and federal prisoners for expedited housing assistance. The inmates were in Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia and Florida.
To demonstrate how easy it was to fool FEMA, the GAO told of an individual who used 13 different Social Security numbers, including the person's own, to receive $139,000 in payments on 13 separate registrations for aid. The payments were sent to one address.
|
Complete Coverage on Hurricane Katrina and Rita including video, photos and blogs. Get up-to-date news on the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and Rita, news from New Orleans and more.
| 19.578947 | 0.657895 | 1.236842 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061301664.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061301664.html
|
Alberto Turns Out to Be Splash in the Panhandle
|
2006061419
|
HORSESHOE BEACH, To live in the path of a forecast hurricane these days is to be bombarded by dire Katrina-inspired exhortations, and as Tropical Storm Alberto moved toward this small, low-lying town of shrimpers and crabbers, there was the usual ominous noise.
The National Hurricane Center issued a hurricane warning, which echoed ceaselessly from televisions. Gov. Jeb Bush urged caution, the county ordered an evacuation and emergency management leaders convened a City Hall meeting to encourage people to leave.
And after all the scary buildup, many and maybe most of the people here said: Nah, we're staying.
The center of Alberto made landfall in the Big Bend area about noon on Tuesday, bearing winds of about 50 mph. The rain came in lashes, and gusts swayed the Spanish moss that drapes the cypress trees. A few power lines were toppled. Water surging in from the Gulf of Mexico made several streets impassable.
But the storm, which never reached hurricane strength, proved to be no more than a mild inconvenience for most people in its way, and the holdouts savored their instincts for survival.
"Well, I got faith in God, and I looked to God to see me through," said Marjorie Neeley, 79. She spoke from her front porch as the floodwaters, which had reached some nearby yards but never hers, began to recede.
She had rejected not only the official evacuation pleas, but those of her daughter, Sandra Mills, 47; great-grandson Justin, 8; and a Dixie County emergency official who turned up on her porch as the water was rising Tuesday morning
"Grandma said she wasn't going nowhere," Justin said.
"I tried to get her to leave, but she said no, so we just rode it out together," Mills said. But before they did, "I told her to think about my life and Justin's life."
Scott Garner, chief of emergency management for the county, estimated that only 30 percent of residents in Dixie's coastal communities, which include Horseshoe Beach, complied with the evacuation order. About 50 people went to shelters.
"All we can do is get the word out there and let them make their own decisions," he said.
Despite the scientific authority of the forecasters and the sway of state and local leaders who have made hurricane preparation a priority, many in this enclave, as well as elsewhere along the nation's hurricane-threatened coasts, prefer to make the evacuation decision based on personal storm experience and meteorological insight.
|
Complete Coverage on Hurricane Katrina and Rita including video, photos and blogs. Get up-to-date news on the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and Rita, news from New Orleans and more.
| 13.131579 | 0.605263 | 0.605263 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061301469.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061301469.html
|
Rep. Mollohan Admits Errors in Disclosure
|
2006061419
|
Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-W.Va.), under federal investigation for blending his commercial investments with his duties as a congressional appropriator, acknowledged yesterday that he misstated more than a dozen transactions on his financial disclosure forms.
The 12-term lawmaker said he recently discovered "a limited number of inadvertent errors" in his public reports from 1999 through 2004. He said he has amended those forms "to correct any inaccurate impressions about my finances." He also released a chronology to explain how his assets grew from no more than $565,000 in 2000 to at least $6.3 million in 2004, primarily through heavily leveraged real estate transactions.
Mollohan resigned earlier this year as the ranking Democrat on the House ethics committee after a federal probe was begun into his personal finances. The investigation started soon after the National Legal and Policy Center, a small, conservative research institute in Virginia, turned over 500 pages of documents to the FBI in March. The NLPC alleged that the documents showed that Mollohan engaged in nine years of false reporting and the appearance of impropriety in his business contacts with federal contractors.
Mollohan strongly denied any wrongdoing. "NLPC is dead wrong in implying that I have improperly benefited from my office," Mollohan said yesterday.
"The group also has ignored that we received a sizable inheritance, took on considerable financial risks and had the good fortune to be investing in a rising real estate market," Mollohan said. "It is those factors that are responsible for the increase of our assets."
The NLPC noted that one recent change in Mollohan's filing that the congressman did not highlight yesterday was a $35,000 loan in 2004 from Laura K. Kuhns and her husband. Kuhns, a former Mollohan aide, has invested in real estate with Mollohan and also heads a West Virginia foundation that benefits from appropriations targeted to the group by the lawmaker. The congressman's filing in 2005 indicates that he repaid the loan in full.
Mollohan's review of his reports, sparked by the federal probe, found many other errors as well.
He and his wife together have a 50 percent stake in a company that owns condominiums in a Foggy Bottom building. For 2000 to 2002, Mollohan said he understated his income from that company twice and overstated the income once -- in each case by several thousand dollars -- and amended his reports accordingly.
He also failed to report $2.3 million in loans that he took out to benefit the business, Remington Inc., from 1999 to 20002. Mollohan said that he did not have to disclose the loan under a strict interpretation of House rules but that "in an abundance of caution" he decided to do so. He also amended his public record to include a note receivable from Remington in 2003 of between $1 million and $5 million.
Mollohan added to his 2001 report his wife's purchase for $37,461 of a one-third interest in a company that owns the Ramada Inn in Morgantown, W.Va. She bought the share from Mollohan's brother. Mollohan and his sister own the other two-thirds of the firm, which had been owned by their now-deceased father, former congressman Robert H. Mollohan.
In 2003, Mollohan said he understated the size of a $1.5 million construction loan from Central Carolina Bank as "up to $1 million." The next year he said he misstated several dates on which he took out loans to buy property in North Carolina, and he also incorrectly listed the amounts of some of those loans.
In North Carolina, the Mollohans invested in four lots on Bald Head Island with Kuhns and her husband and also built neighboring beachfront houses there. Kuhns heads the Vandalia Heritage Foundation, which focuses on refurbishing real estate in Mollohan's district and uses money that Mollohan has earmarked for the purpose.
One of the lots was sold in January and the three others have been contracted for sale, Mollohan said in a statement. Mollohan has also said that he is selling his beachfront home in order to reduce his debts.
In his latest financial disclosure report, Mollohan said he values 12 separate properties at about $6.6 million and he added that they have mortgages of more than $4.4 million.
|
Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-W.Va.), under federal investigation for blending his commercial investments with his duties as a congressional appropriator, acknowledged yesterday that he misstated more than a dozen transactions on his financial disclosure forms.
| 18.837209 | 1 | 43 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060901775.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060901775.html
|
Strapped States Try New Route, Lease Toll Roads to Foreign Firms
|
2006061419
|
ELKHART, Ind. -- Its official state motto is "the crossroads of America." Yet Indiana is about to turn over its entire toll road for the next 75 years to two foreign companies, making it more expensive to drive.
The decision to hand the Indiana Toll Road to an Australian and Spanish team for $3.8 billion at the end of this month has blown up into one of the biggest brawls here in a generation. It has unsettled the state's politics in the months before the November elections, pitting a governor who was President Bush's first budget director against the people of northern Indiana, which the highway passes through.
The decision also places Indiana at the leading edge of a nascent trend in which states and local governments are exploring the idea of privatizing parts of the United States' prized interstate highway system. The idea goes beyond projects, such as Northern Virginia's Dulles Greenway, in which states have turned to private companies to build or widen toll roads. Now, they are considering selling or leasing some of the best-known and most-traveled routes across America.
The trend started 1 1/2 years ago, when Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley (D) pushed through a 99-year lease of the Chicago Skyway, nearly eight miles of elevated highway across the South Side, for $1.8 billion.
Since then, a New Jersey lawmaker has proposed selling a 49 percent interest in the New Jersey Turnpike and the Garden State Parkway. New York Gov. George E. Pataki (R) is trying to persuade the legislature to let investors rebuild or replace the Hudson River's Tappan Zee Bridge. In Houston, Harris County officials are studying leasing 57 miles of toll roads.
Locally, Virginia transportation officials announced last month that they would lease a debt-ridden toll road outside Richmond, the Pocahontas Parkway, to a private firm for $522 million.
Half a century after President Dwight D. Eisenhower persuaded the nation to build the interstate highway system, the allure of privatization is a rethinking of the relationship between the government and its roads. It reverses the view of highways as a public responsibility, ingrained since the first half of the 19th century, when states took over roads, bridges and canals that had gone bankrupt in private hands.
The Bush administration advocates the new view. "We are like a poker game," Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta said in an interview. "We are inviting more people to the table and saying, 'Bring money when you come.' " Such eagerness for private investment stems from the financial strains on an overburdened highway system at a time when the White House and the Republican-controlled Congress want to curb domestic spending. The interstate system is decaying, and traffic congestion has worsened. Inflation in the price of building and improving roads is rampant.
Most significantly, money from federal and state gasoline taxes that pay for roads are falling further behind the need, with no political appetite in an era of record gas prices to increase the rates. According to U.S. projections, the part of the federal Highway Trust Fund devoted to roads is to run out of money for the first time in its history in 2009.
In response, the administration persuaded Congress last summer to take steps to make it easier for the private sector to finance new roads -- and take over existing ones. Lawmakers removed several legal barriers to charging tolls on interstates and gave private investors new access to tax-free bonds for transportation projects.
Mineta has been urging U.S. financial institutions to get involved. "This type of dialogue really didn't exist two years ago," said Mark Florian, a managing director at Goldman Sachs Group Inc., which was paid $19 million to negotiate the Indiana deal and has discussed similar possibilities with officials in more than 35 states.
Still, skepticism abounds: Will companies take good care of highways? Will toll roads become too expensive to drive? Will investors pluck profitable routes, leaving others to crumble? What will happen to public toll-road workers -- including 600 in Indiana who have been promised interviews by the new operators, but not the same job?
|
ELKHART, Ind. -- Its official state motto is "the crossroads of America." Yet Indiana is about to turn over its entire toll road for the next 75 years to two foreign companies, making it more expensive to drive.
| 18.045455 | 1 | 44 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/14/AR2006061400823.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/14/AR2006061400823.html
|
Southern Baptists Refuse to Back Pullout
|
2006061419
|
GREENSBORO, N.C. -- There will be no Southern Baptist exodus from the nation's public schools _ at least for now.
Leaders of the nation's largest Protestant denomination Wednesday refused to support a resolution that would have urged the denomination to form an "exit strategy" for pulling Southern Baptist children from public schools in favor of home schools or private Christian schools.
The proposal, offered by Roger Moran of Troy, Mo., and Texas author Bruce Shortt, came as many of the nation's 16.2 million Southern Baptists are concerned about how classrooms are handling subjects such as homosexuality and "intelligent design."
Instead of putting the exit strategy before delegates to the SBC's annual meeting, the denomination's resolutions committee called on members to "engage the culture of our public school systems" by exerting "godly influence," including standing for election to local school boards.
Those ideas were part of a more moderate resolution titled "On Engaging the Direction of the Public School System" that was overwhelmingly approved Wednesday at the final session of the meeting. Delegates also approved a resolution urging school districts to accommodate parents and churches wishing to provide off-campus biblical instruction during the school day.
Moran called the two resolutions "a good start" and "one more sign we're moving in the right direction."
The public schools issue has been simmering for several years. A resolution similar to the one offered by Moran and Shortt failed to pass two years ago. Delegates at last year's annual meeting approved a resolution urging parents and churches to "to exercise their rights to investigate diligently the curricula, textbooks, and programs in our community schools."
"We are commanded biblically to train our children in the nurture of the Lord," said Moran, who sits on the SBC's executive committee. "The public schools are no longer allowed ... to even acknowledge the God of the Bible."
Moran, who owns a company that makes construction supplies, is a father of nine children, ages 18 months to 18 years. All have been home-schooled or attended Christian schools, he said.
The proposal from Moran and Shortt, author of "The Harsh Truth About Public Schools," complained that curricula teaching "the homosexual lifestyle is acceptable" are being implemented in public schools. It also criticized a federal court ruling last year that banned a Pennsylvania school system's classroom mention of "intelligent design" _ the notion that life is so complex it must have been created by a higher intelligence.
The resolution approved by the SBC committee refers to the Pennsylvania decision, but also goes out of its way to "affirm the hundreds of thousands of Christian men and women who teach in our public schools."
But Robert Parham, executive director of the Baptist Center for Ethics in Nashville, Tenn., and a frequent critic of the SBC leadership, said the compromise resolution "reinforces the negative attitudes that Southern Baptists have about public schools."
"A few words don't whitewash the leadership's agenda," he said, explaining that Baptist leaders often send their children to Christian academies or home-school them, and support "an anti-public school perspective."
Also Wednesday, the SBC unofficially barred members who drink alcohol from serving as trustees or members of any SBC entity.
The ban, part of a larger anti-alcohol resolution that was easily approved by delegates, was proposed by Jim Richards, executive director of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention. While stopping short of officially preventing drinkers from serving, it "urges" that no one be elected or appointed to SBC offices if that person is "a user of alcohol."
"Use of alcohol as a beverage can and does impede the message of Jesus Christ" that Southern Baptists are trying to spread, Richards said.
|
GREENSBORO, N.C. -- There will be no Southern Baptist exodus from the nation's public schools _ at least for now.
| 32.130435 | 1 | 23 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/14/AR2006061400282.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061419id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/14/AR2006061400282.html
|
Gay Bishop Says He's 'Not an Abomination'
|
2006061419
|
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The first openly gay Episcopal bishop said at a packed church hearing Wednesday that he is "not an abomination," as he pleaded with the denomination not to bar gays from the office of bishop, even temporarily, for the sake of Anglican unity.
If Episcopalians "see Christ in the faithful lives of our gay and lesbian members," they should have the courage to say so, no matter the potential consequences, said Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.
"I am not an abomination before God," he told the Episcopal General Convention. "Please, I beg you, let's say our prayers and stand up for right."
But Bishop Robert Duncan, who leads a network of conservative Episcopal dioceses that opposed Robinson's consecration, told those at the hearing that the denomination is attempting an impossible task, "which is to hold together the conserving and progressive wings of our church."
"We've reached a moment where it is very difficult, indeed I think we've reached an impossible moment, in holding it together," said Duncan, of the Diocese of Pittsburgh.
The convention will vote over the next few days whether to meet demands from Anglican leaders to impose a moratorium on electing gay bishops and express regret for the turmoil caused by Robinson's 2003 consecration.
The Episcopal Church is the U.S. arm of the 77 million-member Anglican Communion, the global association of churches that trace their roots to the Church of England. The majority of overseas Anglicans believe the Bible prohibits same-sex relationships, and they want the Americans to follow that teaching or leave the communion.
If Anglican leaders dislike the outcome of the General Convention, which runs through June 21, the communion could break apart. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the Anglican spiritual leader, has repeatedly expressed concern about the future of the fellowship.
"We cannot survive as a communion of churches without some common convictions about what it is to live and to make decisions as the Body of Christ," he wrote in a message to the General Convention, which runs through June 21.
Wednesday night's hearing was organized by a committee crafting the Episcopal response to the crisis. The main proposal before delegates does not contain a moratorium on future gay bishops. Instead, it asks dioceses to "exercise very considerable caution" in electing leaders. However, delegates can revise or reject the legislation.
People began standing in line more than an hour before the hearing began to make sure they could get inside. Delegates and visitors filled the vast hotel ballroom to its 1,500-person capacity, while an overflow crowd outside listened on speakers as delegates took turns commenting on how the church should proceed.
Many expressed concern about the church's place in the Anglican family, while others said it would go against God to put restrictions on gay clergy.
|
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The first openly gay Episcopal bishop said at a packed church hearing Wednesday that he is "not an abomination," as he pleaded with the denomination not to bar gays from the office of bishop, even temporarily, for the sake of Anglican unity.
| 10.653846 | 1 | 52 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061301386.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061301386.html
|
No Breeze Required
|
2006061319
|
There's probably no image that more typifies American patriotism -- now in peak season, with today being Flag Day -- than the Stars and Stripes waving in the wind. Unfortunately, getting that magical effect takes work. You have to hoist the flag up a pole, handling it ever so gingerly, and then, of course, you need a breeze.
Richard Levy of Bethesda is a prolific inventor who has produced what he calls the world's first self-waving flag. You may know Levy, even if you don't realize it. His somewhat unusual mind is behind about 200 toys for adults and kids, including the mega-hit Furby, which he co-created.
Called "The Wave Stars and Stripes," Levy's flag looks deceptively simple in the box. But press a button and -- voilà! -- the banner undulates gracefully, as if Mother Nature herself had descended on your desk and powered up a gust. In the background, take your pick of patriotic anthem: "The Star-Spangled Banner," "My Country, 'Tis of Thee" or "The Stars and Stripes Forever."
For Washington, it's the ultimate office toy. And it's showing up in some high-profile offices here.
Levy has sent the flag to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), among others.
"Letters have started to come back," Levy said, including personal missives from Rumsfeld and Lieberman. In exchange for the gift, Rumsfeld said he would make a donation to honor those killed in the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.
His outreach has worked. The product has only just hit stores and it's already got fans. When a reporter tried to reach former ambassador Richard H. Solomon, president of the U.S. Institute of Peace, his assistant initially referred the inquiry to the press office. But then she found out what the call was about.
"Oh, you're calling about our little wavy flag? Hang on," she said.
Moments later, Solomon was on the line, expressing his love for his self-waving flag.
"Visitors, whether American or foreign, walk in and we have a talk about world affairs, and as they're walking out I say, 'Oh, by the way, just press that button.' And they all break up," Solomon said.
"Some people might find flag-waving a little over the top, but most people respect the flag, and it's an unusual way, and a lighthearted way, to show it," he said.
The Wave flag idea came to Levy from California inventor Ron Milner, who co-created the Atari 2600, the hugely popular 1975 video-game console.
"I loved the idea," Levy said.
Milner sent Levy a mockup made in a plastic flowerpot. The finished product uses an ingenious system of rotating coils sewn into channels in the flag (now patented). It can be squeezed or crushed and will pop right back open and wave again.
Two years ago, Levy shared the flag idea with SRM Entertainment Ltd., a manufacturer of electronic toys outside Philadelphia. SRM President Stephen R. Mickelberg said he knew it was a winner right away and agreed to manufacture it.
The flag was unveiled at the International Toy Fair in New York in February, and SRM has sold it to Toys R Us, Kmart and CVS nationwide, no small feat for a new product. Mickelberg said it is too early to say how sales have been, but he is hopeful, based on retailers' initial reactions. It sells for $19.99, batteries included, he said.
"Obviously, we're hoping it'll be a strong product for the Fourth of July," said Erin Pensa, a spokeswoman for CVS Corp., who added that competition is stiff even to get patriotic merchandise on the shelf. She said many items vie for retailers' attention in a brief season.
Levy has not missed a marketing opportunity. He has a Web site that shows the flag in action ( http://www.thewaveflag.com/ ). He put a flag trivia quiz on the box. And he touts his attention to detail -- such as the decision to make the toy in China but to have the flag made by Valley Forge Flag Co. in Pennsylvania.
"We would never put a foreign-made flag on the thing, for goodness' sake," he said.
Levy is a self-described patriotism nut and counts this as his third patriotic toy. His first was a snap-together puzzle of the statue at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Then, after 9/11, he created a board game called "Spirit of America."
Levy recognizes that the technology behind the Wave flag has other applications beyond the patriotic. He is working on a version that displays NASCAR banners and another using college flags and fight songs. Another idea Levy wants to pursue is baby gifts for hospital shops that say "It's a Boy" or "It's a Girl" on a waving flag that plays a lullaby.
"We're in a fashion industry -- never get caught with your trends down," Levy said. "The retailers want something new every year."
A video of the waving flag can be found at www.washingtonpost.com/fedpage.
|
Get the latest US government news on recent federal affairs. Up-to-date information and analysis of federal legislation and contracts. Search for government job openings and career information.
| 29.555556 | 0.472222 | 0.472222 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061300267.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061300267.html
|
Karl Rove Won't Be Charged in CIA Leak Case
|
2006061319
|
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has told White House aide Karl Rove that he does not expect to seek charges against him in connection with the CIA leak case, Rove's lawyer said today.
In a statement this morning, Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, said that Fitzgerald "has formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges" against Rove.
"In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation," Luskin said in the statement. "We believe that the Special Counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct."
In a brief phone interview, Luskin said that Rove was "delighted, obviously. . . . We've always said he [Rove] did everything he could to cooperate" with the investigation being conducted by Fitzgerald. "At the end of the day, he made a determination on the evidence."
An indictment of Rove, the president's closest adviser and Deputy Chief of Staff, would have been devastating to an administration already on the political ropes and probably would have had significant repercussions in the upcoming mid-term congressional elections, in which the GOP continues to labor against images of a corrupt Congress.
Uncertainty about Rove's fate in the probe had been hanging over the White House for months.
Fitzgerald's office declined to comment this morning. The decision not to indict Rove leaves I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby as the only accused person in the CIA-leak case. Libby has been charged with perjury, making false statements and obstruction of justice. No one has been charged with the actual leak.
Fitzgerald began his investigation 2 1/2 years ago, looking into whether any administration officials knowingly disclosed the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame in an effort to discredit her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, Jr.. The former diplomat had been sent on a CIA mission to investigate whether Iraq had sought nuclear weapons material from the African nation of Niger.
Wilson reported back that the charge could not be proved, but Bush nevertheless asserted in his 2003 State of the Union address that intelligence existed that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa. After Wilson went public with his allegation a few months later, an embarrassed White House was forced to concede that the Africa claim was not based on solid enough evidence.
Fitzgerald, sources have said, was exploring whether Rove testified falsely in February 2004 when he failed to disclose that he told a Time magazine reporter about Plame's CIA role seven months earlier.
In subsequent grand jury appearances, Rove essentially argued that he did not recall the conversation with the Time reporter, Matthew Cooper, until a few months after he first testified, when his attorney found a 2003 e-mail Rove had written to then deputy national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley.
This statement today was topic number one on the morning news shows.
"The fact is this, I thought it was wrong when you had people like Howard Dean and [Sen.] Harry Reid presuming that he was guilty," Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman told Fox News Channel's "Fox and Friends" show Tuesday morning.
"He doesn't belong in the White House," Dean said. "If the president valued America more than he valued his connection to Karl Rove, Karl Rove would have been fired a long time ago," said the Democratic Party chairman, speaking n NBC's "Today" show. "So I think this is probably good news for the White House, but it's not very good news for America."
Speculation about Rove's fate has hung over the White House for months, fueled by repeated appearances by Rove before the Federal grand jury investigating the CIA leak.
One Website even reported without attribution that Fitzgerald had already obtained a secret indictment against Rove.
|
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has told White House aide Karl Rove that he does not expect to seek charges against him in connection with the CIA leak case, Rove's lawyer said today.
| 21.4 | 1 | 35 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061301417.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061301417.html
|
Crackdown Announced for Baghdad
|
2006061319
|
BAGHDAD, June 13 -- Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's month-old government rolled out its first major initiative against violence on Tuesday, announcing tighter crackdowns in the capital city in an attempt to combat killings and kidnappings.
The plan imposes curfews from roughly dusk to dawn each day and prohibits cars from moving on the streets for four hours during midday on Fridays, when many Muslims attend prayers in mosques. Residents will not be allowed to carry guns outside their homes, and more patrols and checkpoints are planned to raise the visibility of the military.
"People are carrying guns in the streets. How do we know if they are terrorists?" Maj. Gen. Abdul Aziz Muhammed-Jassim, operations director of the general command of the Iraqi forces, said at a news conference at the Defense Ministry on Tuesday.
In the past week in Iraq, 203 civilians have been killed along with 78 insurgents, according to the Defense Ministry. In Baghdad alone, U.S.-led forces have conducted more than 1,100 patrols and set up 1,200 checkpoints to contain the violence.
Police patrols Tuesday found 16 bodies in Baghdad, evidence of the continuing sectarian violence between Shiites and Sunnis that threatens the viability of the new government, according to Col. Saad Abdul Karim of the Interior Ministry operations room. Four of the bodies, found in the eastern Baghdad neighborhood of Baladiyat, were those of men 30 to 40 years old. Some showed marks of torture and bullet holes in their skulls, Karim said. Police found five others -- handcuffed, blindfolded and shot in the head and chest -- near the Baghdad Gate north of the capital.
In the northern city of Kirkuk on Tuesday, a series of suicide car bombings that targeted Iraqi police killed 20 people and wounded dozens more.
The new plan, called "Advancing Forward Together,'' does not involve an increase in troops in the city, according to Maj. Gen. Mahmoud Wailli of the Interior Ministry. But it is intended to be more comprehensive than previous efforts, with economic incentives such as making gasoline easier to obtain and plans for "beautifying" a city full of buildings blasted by bombs and guns, officials said.
More than 61,000 members of the U.S.-led forces and the Iraqi army and national police are based in Baghdad, said Lt. Col. Jonathan Withington, a U.S. military spokesman. That number does not include local Iraqi police.
Other military officials have said recently that the current force would likely remain the same until the government begins to function.
Although some news reports trumpeted the security crackdown, it appeared the measures were a tightening and refinement of existing measures. For years, checkpoints and curfews have restricted movement in Baghdad. Many residents have welcomed a greater number of checkpoints lately for the protection they bring against the many armed men roaming the city.
Under the new plan, curfews that started at 11 p.m. or midnight will begin at 8:30 p.m. Residents may still keep as many as two weapons in their homes but cannot take them outside, Iraqi officials said.
Shammari reported from Baqubah. Correspondent Ellen Knickmeyer and special correspondents Naseer Nouri, K.I. Ibrahim and Omar Fekeiki in Baghdad and other Washington Post staff contributed to this report.
|
BAGHDAD, June 13 -- Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's month-old government rolled out its first major initiative against violence on Tuesday, announcing tighter crackdowns in the capital city in an attempt to combat killings and kidnappings.
| 14.395349 | 1 | 43 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061301338.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061301338.html
|
Webb Wins Democratic Nomination In Virginia
|
2006061319
|
Virginia Democrats yesterday chose Vietnam War hero James Webb to challenge Sen. George Allen (R), siding with their party's national leadership, which had declared the former Republican to be the only candidate with a chance to beat Allen in November.
Webb's support from Democratic senators such as 2004 presidential nominee John F. Kerry (Mass.) swamped the textbook campaign of his opponent, former lobbyist Harris Miller, who used $1 million of his own money to question Webb's commitment to the Democratic Party's core principles.
In other primaries, Democrat Andrew Hurst, a lawyer, defeated Ken Longmyer, a retired Foreign Service officer, for the chance to run against Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R) in the Nov. 7 general election. Republican Tom O'Donoghue, a military veteran, beat Mark Ellmore, a mortgage broker, and will run against Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D).
Webb, who was outspent 3 to 1, tapped into national anger over the Iraq war and a desire among Democrats to reach out to moderates who have drifted to the Republican Party over social issues and national security. Webb captured almost two-thirds of the vote across the populous suburban counties in Northern Virginia.
"In too many cases, our leaders are not equal to the challenges they face," Webb said to a screaming crowd at the Crystal City Hilton as he accepted the nomination and promised new leadership in Washington. To Allen, he said: "I wonder, George, what leadership? It's not leadership to follow this administration blindly 97 percent of the time."
The springtime squabble between Democrats produced a near-record low turnout that a state election official described as "dismal." Polling places across Virginia reported being empty for long stretches, even though voting was open to all of the state's 4.5 million registered voters.
Webb now faces the challenge of raising millions of dollars in an attempt to oust Allen, a popular ex-governor who is considering a bid for the presidency in 2008. Allen has more than $7.5 million in the bank and a long history of winning in a state that usually votes for Republicans in federal contests.
Allen, the son of a beloved Washington Redskins coach by the same name, became a darling among conservatives as governor in the mid-1990s, when he abolished parole, toughened education standards and changed the welfare system. He left office in 1997 with strong approval ratings and beat incumbent Charles S. Robb (D) in the 2000 Senate race.
Allen's campaign manager, Dick Wadhams, said the Republicans look forward to running against a "very fractured, divided Democratic Party" and "having John Kerry . . . campaign with Mr. Webb."
But Allen is running for reelection in the midst of national frustration with congressional corruption scandals, the war in Iraq and rising gas prices. Webb vowed to make Allen answer for those issues as an insider and a Bush administration loyalist.
It was just that contrast that national Democratic leaders hoped to stoke. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said Webb made a powerful connection with voters.
"He's an original, and that makes a difference to people," Schumer said after Webb's victory.
|
Virginia Democrats yesterday chose Vietnam War hero James Webb to challenge Sen. George Allen (R), siding with their party's national leadership, which had declared the former Republican to be the only candidate with a chance to beat Allen in November.
| 13.695652 | 1 | 46 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061301731.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061301731.html
|
Set to Verse: Donald Hall Is New Poet Laureate
|
2006061319
|
Donald Hall is to be the nation's new poet laureate, Librarian of Congress James Billington will announce today. And like many of his recent predecessors, the 77-year-old Hall intends to make his position more than an honorary one.
"It's an opportunity to plug poetry," Hall said. "Other laureates have done a good job, and I'm trying to figure out what I should do."
The New Hampshire resident has published 15 books of poetry in his six-decade writing career, most recently "White Apples and the Taste of Stone: Selected Poems 1946-2006," which includes what Ted Kooser, the current poet laureate, yesterday called "two of my favorite poems" -- "Names of Horses" and "Maple Syrup."
Other poets and critics cite a complex, book-length poem called "The One Day" -- published in 1988 but composed over 17 years -- as Hall's greatest achievement.
"In a sense, it is the last masterpiece of American modernism," said National Endowment for the Arts Chairman Dana Gioia, noting that as such, it is unlike the bulk of Hall's generally more accessible work. David Lehman, reviewing "The One Day" in The Washington Post, called it "loud, sweeping, multitudinous, an act of the imperial imagination," and cited a climactic line suggestive of the poet's fundamental take on life:
"Work, love, build a house and die. But build a house."
But Hall is perhaps best known for the edgy, anguished poetry and nonfiction he has written about death and love -- specifically, the early death from leukemia, in 1995, of his beloved wife and fellow poet, Jane Kenyon. This work includes "Without," a book of poems, published in 1998, and "The Best Day the Worst Day: Life With Jane Kenyon," a memoir that came out last year.
He and Kenyon met in 1969 at the University of Michigan, where he taught for many years and where she was his student. In 1975, not long after their marriage, they decided to give up his tenured position and move into his grandparents' 1803 farmhouse in Wilmot, N.H. They devoted themselves to writing and each other, and Hall's work evolved as he reconnected with his grandparents' world.
"Contentment is work so engrossing that you do not know that you are working," Hall once wrote, and rural New England life seemed to foster contentment. Kenyon gained confidence as a poet. Hall supplemented his own poetry with a wide range of more reliably income-producing genres, among them essays, memoirs, textbooks, short fiction, plays and children's books.
"He's one of the last people around living the full life of the man of letters," said critic Sven Birkerts yesterday. But he's now doing it alone: Kenyon's death at 47 opened what Birkerts called a "vein of pain."
"His writing about Jane Kenyon has been striking -- and helpful to many people," said Hall's friend Liam Rector, a poet who directs graduate writing seminars at Bennington College. "There's a bloody-mindedness in him that looks unflinchingly at his subjects."
What would his wife have thought of him being dubbed poet laureate?
|
Donald Hall is to be the nation's new poet laureate, Librarian of Congress James Billington will announce today. And like many of his recent predecessors, the 77-year-old Hall intends to make his position more than an honorary one.
| 14.355556 | 1 | 45 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/12/AR2006061201009.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/12/AR2006061201009.html
|
Fast Learners Benefit From Skipping Grades, Report Concludes
|
2006061319
|
Few educators these days want to go back to the early 19th century, when often the only opportunities for learning were one-room schoolhouses or, if you were rich, private tutors. But a report from the University of Iowa says at least those students had no age and grade rules to hold them back.
What was lost in the 20th century was "an appreciation for individual differences," scholars Nicholas Colangelo, Susan G. Assouline and Miraca U.M. Gross conclude in the report, "A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back America's Brightest Students." Now, the report says, "America's school system keeps bright students in line by forcing them to learn in a lock-step manner with their classmates."
The report is part of a national effort to move gifted-education programs away from keeping students in the same grades and giving them extra, enriched classes and projects. It is better, the report says, to let third-graders capable of fifth-grade work go to fifth grade. Or break out of the grade system altogether.
Some programs that serve children of all abilities, like the Montessori method for elementary schools, resist organizing grades by age and let all students choose what to learn. The acceleration advocates would prefer a case-by-case approach, letting each child reach the appropriate level, even if it means 10-year-olds in high school.
The Iowa report contradicts the widespread belief that skipping grades or heading for college at age 15 risks social trauma and psychological harm. Accelerated students are often more comfortable with students at higher levels of learning and seek out older students when denied a chance to skip grades, the report says.
James Kulik, director of the office of evaluations and examinations at the University of Michigan, said, "No other arrangement for gifted children works as well as acceleration." But many school administrators, influenced by claims that low-achieving students are hurt by tracking systems that confine them to lower-level classes, have resisted grade-skipping, Kulik said.
UCLA professor Jeannie Oakes, a leading opponent of tracking, said she agreed with the Iowa report's case-by-case approach. If a sixth-grader understands advanced mathematical concepts, she said, "the solution is to send that child to high school," not to put the child in a class with other bright sixth-graders and just call it accelerated, even if it isn't.
|
Few educators these days want to go back to the early 19th century, when often the only opportunities for learning were one-room schoolhouses or, if you were rich, private tutors. But a report from the University of Iowa says at least those students had no age and grade rules to hold them back.
| 7.9 | 1 | 60 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061300613.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061300613.html
|
Southern Baptists Elect Page As President
|
2006061319
|
GREENSBORO, N.C. -- The Southern Baptist Convention elected Frank Page its new president Tuesday, choosing a pastor who had said that it would take a "miracle" for him to win and heralding a new direction for the denomination.
Page's surprising win over two higher-profile candidates follows years of tightly scripted politics and intolerance for internal dissent. He called his victory evidence that Southern Baptists believe "we could do together a lot more and a lot better than what we can do separately."
"I'm a little taken aback by this," Page said. "Because I have not been known across the nation, ... I truly believe (the election) is God's people saying we want to see broadened involvement."
Winning just over 50 percent of the vote on the first ballot, Page bested Ronnie Floyd, a megachurch pastor from Springdale, Ark., and Jerry Sutton, pastor at Two Rivers Baptist Church in Nashville, Tenn., and currently the SBC's first vice president.
The 53-year-old Page is pastor at First Baptist Church in Taylors, S.C., a small, upstate community north of Greenville. During his campaign, he emphasized the importance of giving to the Southern Baptists' cooperative program, in which autonomous congregations pool money to fund overseas and domestic missions. That seemed to strike a chord with delegates to the SBC's annual meeting.
In the years since moderates stopped participating in SBC politics, candidates for the SBC presidency have typically run unopposed or faced only token opposition. But this year, concerns about stagnating memberships, declining baptism rates and the future of the cooperative program led to the first contested presidential race in recent memory.
Johnny Hunt, a pastor from Woodstock, Ga., was the leadership's choice for president but unexpectedly dropped out of the race in late April. He was replaced by Floyd, head of the First Baptist Church in Springdale, Ark., and the nearby Church at Pinnacle Hills.
Then Page entered the race, leading a group that criticized the low levels of cooperative program giving at Floyd's churches. Page's church, by contrast, gives 12 percent of its undesignated offerings to the program.
Many smaller Southern Baptist congregations see the cooperative program as a crucial collective effort for the denomination and the best way for them to carry out influential missionary and evangelistic work.
Rallying around Page were a group of younger pastors and others who have felt marginalized by an older generation that led the conservative takeover of the SBC in the 1970s and 1980s. Some have dissented on theological issues like whether strict Calvinists and charismatic Christians should be welcome in the denomination, while at least one has been reprimanded for airing concerns on his Internet blog.
But Page said he didn't believe he owed his election to any one group.
"I owe no allegiance to anyone _ that's why I didn't think I'd win," he said. "I'm just a normal pastor of a somewhat normal church."
|
GREENSBORO, N.C. -- The Southern Baptist Convention elected Frank Page its new president Tuesday, choosing a pastor who had said that it would take a "miracle" for him to win and heralding a new direction for the denomination.
| 13.372093 | 1 | 43 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2006/06/americas_most_prominent_soccer.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061219id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2006/06/americas_most_prominent_soccer.html
|
America's Most Prominent Soccer Hater, Reporting for Duty
|
2006061219
|
With the World Cup hoopla at full force, I figured it was time for me to do my part for the cause. So when my friend Markus Guenther, Washington correspondent for a chain of German newspapers, proposed to publish a series of interviews with me on why Americans hate soccer, I was happy to help. I didn't know the stories would dub me "America's Most Prominent Soccer Hater," right up at the top in bold black headline type, but, well, there we are and here it is.
Here's the interview, as it has appeared in the Stuttgarter Nachrichten, the Westdeutscher Allgemeine and a slew of other German papers:
Q: Mr. Fisher, why do you hate soccer?
A: I don't hate soccer, I simply consider it a sport that is fun for kids to play, but lacks the complexity and drama that make for a great spectator sport. In America, interest in soccer is very high for children under 10 and then drops off gradually as kids get older, and by the time Americans reach adulthood, they generally have no further interest in the game. Q: But it is unfair to bring up hooligans and riots in stadiums whenever soccer is mentioned. Soccer is also a widely popular sport for children and young people, even in the USA. A: Yes, soccer is very popular as a participatory sport for kids in our country, and has been for three decades. But the sport has failed again and again to cross over into popularity either on television or at the stadium. The college game draws very few spectators and the professional league here is forever on the brink of collapse. We tend not to be interested in sports that attract hooligans and riots. In America, spectator sports tend to be family events, with a wholesome emphasis on community. People go out to a ballgame with children or with friends and the game is but one piece of a larger communal event, with cookouts, music, and cheering, as well as the fan's involvement in the personalities and prospects of a favorite team. Q: Isn't soccer much more exciting than baseball, where the players spend most of the time just standing around bored? A: Oh goodness no! There is no more exciting or tense game than baseball. Baseball is the only sport in which statistics over the course of more than a century of play can be compared directly, allowing fans to know instantly how today's players rate against those of decades ago. In every play in baseball, every player is on the move, calculating the likelihood of a ball being hit to a certain place. Baseball is very much a game of mathematics--of angles and percentages---and of intricate strategy. Soccer, by comparison, is a blunt instrument, a simple game that depends more on stamina and strength than on the eye-hand coordination, mental gamesmanship and unique combination of grace and power that baseball demands. Every comparison that I've seen concludes that the single most difficult task in all of sports is hitting a baseball thrown at 95 miles an hour. Q: You once said that soccer is the favorite sport of Osama bin-Laden. Did you intend to compare all soccer fans in the world with terrorists? A: That is certainly an overly dramatic exaggeration on my part, but there is a serious point behind it: Soccer's popularity in much of the world is sadly tied up with the most disturbing face of nationalism, and so when Americans see soccer fans waving national flags and chanting vile slogans against other nations, we are reminded of the horrors of terrorism and the unfortunate abuse of sports by terrorists and by nations. For many Americans, the rowdiness and nationalistic fervor surrounding soccer reminds us painfully of the Munich Olympics or the petty cancellations of the Olympic Games by the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War. Q: In the USA, soccer is very popular as a youth sport. Millions of boys and even girls play soccer in American schools and clubs. Why hasn't soccer made it as a professional or TV sport in the USA? A: As I noted earlier, soccer's failure to make the leap from children's game to big-time spectator sport is primarily a reflection of American fans' desire for a level of complexity and drama in their games that soccer cannot support. We tend to like sports that can accommodate stories about players, coaches and other personalities. Soccer, as a largely anonymous sport, doesn't fit. The game simply doesn't work on television because the field is so enormous that the players appear to be tiny. Fans therefore cannot form powerful emotional connections with their play.
Q: Soccer in the US is also growing through the immigration of central and south Americans. Will soccer ever meet or surpass baseball, basketball or football in popularity? A: No. Most Latin American immigrants to the United States are baseball fans--even more so than many Americans, and baseball is quickly becoming a more Latin sport, both in the ethnic backgrounds of the players and in the composition of the fan base. Indeed, this year's first World Baseball Classic demonstrated baseball's increasingly strong following not only in central and south America, but in Korea, Japan and China. Many immigrants from Latin countries do play soccer here, and many follow their home country's national team. But their children who are raised here end up with only a passing interest in professional soccer. They may play soccer, but they want to follow American sports.
Q: The best result a US team ever achieved in the World Cup was when the 1930 team reached the semi-finals. Is it possible that Americans do not like soccer mainly because the US team has not yet been successful at the international level?
A: Certainly a U.S. team's success in the World Cup would boost the sport's ability to win TV coverage and notice from Americans, most of whom have no idea that the World Cup exists, let alone that it is occurring this month. But most Americans have no clue who is on the U.S. team or even that there is a U.S. team, so the past performance of that team is irrelevant. It's very nice for soccer-loving countries to have their little tournament, but to call it the World Cup is rather arrogant and overblown.
Q: How will the US team do this time?
A: I have no clue. I couldn't tell you the name of a single player. And more important, neither I nor 99 percent of Americans cares. Please enjoy your tournament!
(As the great--and, unfortunately, utterly apocryphal--legend of Uncle Don would put it, "There, that oughta hold the little b------s!")
By Marc Fisher | June 12, 2006; 7:18 AM ET Previous: Virginia Senate: Low Blows and the Hook(nose) | Next: Phil Merrill and the Vanishing Iconoclastic Publishers
Well stroked, Marc! When they come around in four years you might mention:
1. If soccer were really worth anything, Dan Snyder would already own it.
2. They need to widen the nets so that there can be more scoring. 1-0 is nothing.
3. The "continuous play" (if you can call it play) makes it impossible to go to the bathroom or get a cold Budweiser.
4. The fake theatrics, falling down, shin-grabbing, and wincing is a product of managed economies where the government doles out favors. Competitive economies are about play-on.
5. The silly red-card, yellow-card stuff is denigrating. No one should be allowed to treat another human being in that fashion.
Posted by: Kalorama Kat | June 12, 2006 8:51 AM
1) Your not liking soccer is totally within your rights.
2) Sporting hooliganism in THIS country is perhaps LEAST associated with soccer, based on recorded fan behavior.
3) Again, you're free to like baseball and not like soccer. It's simply a matter of taste.
4) Take bin Laden out of your response and you're still being "overly dramatic." We (Americans) did not watch any of this weekend's World Cup games and hear echoes of genocide, unless we were paranoid, xenophobic or idiots. We watched sports.
5) Latin American immigrants baseball fans? Hello? Look in your own backyard. Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala -- all soccer-crazy nations. That is to say nothing of all the European, non-Latin Caribbean and African immigrants and refugees in the U.S. Ask the 400,000 Ethiopians in the D.C. area what a baseball is sometime.
6) MLS is a stable and growing league. Most of today's teenagers do not remember a time without it, or when the U.S. was not a regular participant in the World Cup. Pro soccer is now an American sport, like it or not.
I don't pretend to know that soccer will be the biggest sport in the States in 20 years, nor do I care whether you or anyone else who doesn't like soccer changes their mind.
But I think you've got a lot of this story wrong.
Posted by: blinkscots | June 12, 2006 9:41 AM
You wrote: It's very nice for soccer-loving countries to have their little tournament, but to call it the World Cup is rather arrogant and overblown.
Now, over 180 countries participate in qualifying to attempt to make it to the World Cup tournament. To assume that it shouldn't be the "World Cup" because the US isn't involved or favored to win, well, THAT, would be arrogant and overblown.
It's amazing to me that you could even write the above sentence. You just reinforced the arrogant American stereotype to the German media. Nice work.
Posted by: ps | June 12, 2006 9:51 AM
Calling the World Cup such is arrogant and overblown because anything not involving the mainstream American isnt a world affair?
I propose we stop calling the World Series such, since clearly it involves only teams in two contries with players from myabe 15 or 20.
And if I'm not mistaken, the World Cup is watched by about 2 billion people, give or take a half billion. What does the World Series draw? maybe 20 or 30 million in a good year?
Posted by: Aaron Willis | June 12, 2006 9:56 AM
Soccer is overly nationalistic? Did you remember the "U-S-A" chanting 'hooigans' at recent olympic games?
I agree that soccer is less than exciting for most Americans, but your tone that if Americans don't like it that it is somehow deficient really falls in line with Americans' arrogance on the world stage these days.
You don't have to love it, but how about a little more respect for the world's most popular sport?
Posted by: Mandro | June 12, 2006 9:59 AM
1. One NFL owner has realized that soccer is the real deal, Malcolm Glazer of the TB Buccaneers owns Manchester United, which has greater profits than do the Redskins. 2. A great game does not require a goalscoring explosion? Ever heard of no hitter in baseball, alot of runs there huh? 3. Plan ahead. Or maybe our short American attention span necessitates breaks in play every 8 seconds. 4. Embellishing fouls and economics clearly have nothing to do with one another. Apparently you and arrogance do. 5. What exactly is dehumanizing about cards? I suppose a manager in baseball getting eected is too.
Posted by: Aaron Willis | June 12, 2006 10:03 AM
blinkscots, ps, and Aaron Willis--
Are you Germans or Europeans or something? How can you bring yourselves to stick up for soccer (sometimes mistakenly called "football") and this silly sham of a "World" cup? You need to go to a Nats game and see what athletics is about. Most of us Latin American immigrants actually come to America to get away from soccer.
Posted by: Raoul Martinez | June 12, 2006 10:03 AM
This is the most idiotic thing I have ever read. How can you be so ignorant to say that calling the tournament "the World Cup" is arrogant and overblown? We call our baseball championship series "the World Series" and there are two countries participating.
More Americans care about this than you think. I am a huge American sports fan. O's, Ravens, and Terps are the teams I support until death, but I'll be cheering on the U.S. as hard I was cheering on the Ravens in the 2001 Super Bowl. I don't know anyone that is not interested in the game today. Who are these people that don't have an interest in this game? You must not know any sports fans.
Posted by: Chris | June 12, 2006 10:08 AM
It is too early in the morning for this. Is it satire or not? I can't tell.
Posted by: b | June 12, 2006 10:09 AM
I know Fisher was winding folks up with some of his comments -- maybe all, I don't know. So I'm not even touching the "little affair" stuff.
As for Raoul, I'm as American as beating Mexico in the World Cup.
Posted by: blinkscots | June 12, 2006 10:13 AM
You're an idiot. If you can't see the complexity of soccer, you're not watching the game. It's painful for me to know that an ignoramus like you gets paid for NOT knowing about sports.
Posted by: Tom | June 12, 2006 10:21 AM
Oh, please, Marc! This is too easy; and if it weren't for the inappropriate remarks about terrorism one could think the dripping irony was intentional:
"In America, spectator sports tend to be family events, with a wholesome emphasis on community." A community of folding chair-throwing players and beer-throwing fans, then?
"...combination of grace and power that baseball demands" Power of the Barry Bonds style, I assume.
"nationalistic fervor" Yeah, I guess those "USA" chants at the 1980 Olympic Hockey Final were really meant to spell: United Soviet Allstars.
"...to call it the World Cup is rather arrogant and overblown." You mean as opposed to calling a few games between two cities the "World Series." Oh, wait -they're not cities, actually, but teams that get randomly relocated to the highest bidder in a cartel-like organization. With emphasis on wholesome community and competition and all, of course.
And the fact that you
Posted by: cpwdc | June 12, 2006 10:23 AM
"People go out to a ballgame with children or with friends and the game is but one piece of a larger communal event, with cookouts, music, and cheering, as well as the fan's involvement in the personalities and prospects of a favorite team."
Go to a DC United game, check out the cook outs in Lot 8. I guarantee there is more music and cheering at a DC United game, produced by the fans btw and not piped in.
"a simple game that depends more on stamina and strength than on the eye-hand coordination"
um yes by definition since other than the goalkeeper it is illegal to use your hands in soccer.
Winners of the NBA finals are "World Champions" how many foreign teams do they beat? Baseball's "World Series", how many foreign teams are involved? Yet these days the US can't seem to win any of the international basketball or baseball tournaments which involve foreign teams.
One word for you: idiot
Posted by: Tweaked | June 12, 2006 10:26 AM
By the way, twenty years ago soccer being more popular than hockey would have been absurd. Now, hockey is on the OLN and soccer is on ESPN. Even ARENA FOOTBALL is more popular than hockey. I'm not saying that soccer is going to beat out American football or basketball, but it is surely gaining on baseball.
By the way, my grandfather would have bet his last dime that no sport would ever overtake baseball, but now it is sitting precariously in third place. Incremental change has a way of surprising blowhard ideologues like the Marc Fisher.
Posted by: Troy | June 12, 2006 10:26 AM
I just submitted a clean comment and a box prompted me that it was being held for approval by the blog owner (Marc Fisher). I'll be very disappointed if he is stiffling comments that he does not agree with
Posted by: Anonymous | June 12, 2006 10:31 AM
Perhaps it would help folks understand if you more clearly labelled your writing as satire?
For example, I found your comment, "It's very nice for soccer-loving countries to have their little tournament, but to call it the World Cup is rather arrogant and overblown" to be a rather clever poke at folks in the U.S. who call the U.S. baseball championship "The World Series" without ever inviting the Japanese, the Cubans, or any other countries where "our" national pastime is especially popular.
Posted by: Pablo | June 12, 2006 10:36 AM
But is it satire? I'm inclined to believe that Fisher believes about every word that he spouts.
Posted by: Aaron Willis | June 12, 2006 10:41 AM
Thus is the complexity of my relationship with Marc Fisher. Sometimes I read your stuff and think "Right on brother!" Then other times I read things like your opinions on dogs and soccer and think "Idiot!" Maybe we should go to couples counseling or something to work on this.
Posted by: joe | June 12, 2006 10:43 AM
I'm normally in agreement with Marc on the things he writes about, but this just blows me away. I, too, can't tell if this is satire. But if it isn't, I'm thoroughly disappointed in Marc. However, I'm very proud and stand alongside the true sports fans that have defended soccer from the baseless comments/accusations made by Marc. Good work, guys.
Posted by: Michael | June 12, 2006 10:46 AM
That has to be satire. I pray it is. PLEASE let it be satire.
Posted by: Chris K | June 12, 2006 10:49 AM
Leave the soccer bashing to morons like Kornheiser and go back to bashing Bobby Haircut and Peter Angelos.
Posted by: Matt | June 12, 2006 10:50 AM
You're a jackass - stick to sports you know about and don't run your ignorant piehole on ones you don't understand
Posted by: American Patriot | June 12, 2006 10:53 AM
About 500 Million people around the world will watch the World Cup Final. About 70 Million people watched the Super Bowl. American Football is not accepted as a Sports in the Olympics.
Posted by: RS | June 12, 2006 10:56 AM
The problem here is, when it's good satire by a skilled writer, then it is clear that it is satire. Not the case here.
Posted by: ugh | June 12, 2006 10:57 AM
thats like Bush calling Katrina "a little rain shower" good job!
Posted by: EdB | June 12, 2006 10:59 AM
"Calling the World Cup such is arrogant and overblown because anything not involving the mainstream American isnt a world affair?"
Well, really of 18 World Cups 16 have been held in Latin America and Europe. Soccer is more popular and has more of a following in the United States than in China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Iran, Thailand, Egypt and so forth. It is not a matter of USA vs the people who enjoy soccer. It's a matter of hyperbolic European and Latin American sports fans ignoring the reality of 1.5 billion Chinese, 1.3 billion Indians and the majority of people in the largest countries in the world.
Posted by: mark | June 12, 2006 11:01 AM
Well done Mark. Soccer is like a very, very, very slow and boring version of hockey.
Posted by: LoganCircleLou | June 12, 2006 11:01 AM
Hey, Aaron Willis, it's not just him. Marc needs to look up who Lamar Hunt is.
You know, AFL Lamar Hunt
Kansas City Chief's - owned by Lamar Hunt
aka Columbus Crew - owned by Lamar Hunt Kansas City Wizard's - owned by Lamar Hunt FC Dallas - owned by Lamar Hunt Lamar Hunt US Open Cup
Posted by: American Patriot | June 12, 2006 11:02 AM
As a lover of the game, I usually tune out drivel such as this (ie, middle aged white American guy writing about how boring soccer is, etc etc). That said, two points to be made: one, the only thing more boring than soccer (at least according to the writer) has to be articles/stories from such writers. Secondly, as per the Kos blog in Sunday's Post, 90% of Latinos in the US cited soccer as their favorite sport (maybe collecting your data at Yankee stadium threw your statistical analysis off). In sum, please keep tuned into the Golf Channel, NASCAR, and the 4 hour Brewers-Royals game and enjoy. I'll continue to love the game in all its glory.
Posted by: bored about soccer is boring stories | June 12, 2006 11:09 AM
It's less than an hour before the States kick off their World Cup campaign. Nothing, not even this nonsense, is going to wipe the excited smile off my face. And at least I'm living in England right now, where football is anywhere and everywhere, which just reminds me why I love the game in the first place. Go US! :)
Posted by: Mir | June 12, 2006 11:11 AM
Obviously this is supposed to be funny. But it's still a display of extreme ignorance about a game that's enjoyed by way more people than the entire American population. You say spectators sports in America tend to be "family oriented with a wholesome emphasis on community". That has to be joke. Family-oriented with all the beer drinking, cursing, players fighting fans, players tossing chairs into the stands...If anything American spectators sports are anything but family oriented.
And where does America get off calling an intra-country competition "The World Series", calling the super bowl champions (an entirely national event) "World Champions"?
Posted by: Bart | June 12, 2006 11:11 AM
I guess this must be a satire..guess all forms of sports have its own drama and excitement. I think World cup soccer (football) is deifnitely the most exciting 'little' tournament in soccer
Posted by: AJ | June 12, 2006 11:12 AM
Why some people confuse loving soccer/football with being not patriot enough?, what's wrong with being American and loving this sport?, really, what a sheer ignorance!!. Are we afraid we can't dominate this sports and therefore, we whine and make inaccurate statements? ("soccer is the favorite sport of Osama bin-Laden"). Come on Marc, I hope this is a joke, where is your can-do spirit?, I would say to all my fellow americans, buckle up, shut up and learn how to play it and don't be a wuss, you don't like it?, then move on. There is room for everybody and every sport in this country and it's got nothing to do with patriotism.
Posted by: Americano | June 12, 2006 11:18 AM
Hahaha, this guy Raoul posted a comment saying "Most of us Latin American immigrants actually come to America to get away from soccer".......are you sure it doesn't have anything to do with starting a new and better life for your family? Or is soccer really THAT big that it has run you out of your country? Get a life!
Posted by: Justin Nall | June 12, 2006 11:21 AM
I don't blame him for trying. I'm not sure anyone could really have pulled off satirizing the anti-soccer warriors effectively. Like satirizing Bush apologists, it is too difficult a task; the line between what they actually do argue and what is so absurd as to not be funny is so small that it might as well not be there.
Posted by: b | June 12, 2006 11:21 AM
Oh this is typical. How the heck is soccer supposed to go mainstream in this country when media-types - who help dictate coverage, commentary and opinion on the game, especially for the uninformed or casual fan - don't give it a chance?
And for all those who bash the beautiful game, just see the highlights of the just-concluded Australia-Japan match today. Breathtaking finish. And GO USA!
Posted by: Ryan G | June 12, 2006 11:25 AM
Ok the experiment worked here's the break down...
slobbering soccer fans during business hours on a Monday 35 comments in 4 hours
Possibly racist campaign literature--32 comments in 3 days
Jail break in local neighborhood--6 comments in 4 days
problems at mental hospital (maybe where the soccer fans are coming from)--15 comments in 5 days
local story about schools--18 comments in 6 days
Posted by: Chris | June 12, 2006 11:28 AM
That comment posted by 'mark' about ignorance is, well, ignorant. First, Japan hosted the last World Cup. Second, if soccer fans were indeed ignoring China and India- how exactly would you call Chinese and Indian representation in baseball?
Posted by: Anonymous | June 12, 2006 11:29 AM
You speak about kids losing interest in Soccer as they grow up. It is interesting to note that the vast majority of my friends between the ages of 19-28 do not care at all about the Nats or the Orioles. In fact none of our conversations ever revolve around those teams. Face it baseball is boring unless your drunk..No one goes to baseball games without drinking! Soccer amongst the youth is everywhere! I have never heard any kid at all ever spurt out baseball numbers like in the past. Things have changed, face it.
Posted by: JM | June 12, 2006 11:30 AM
Baseball isn't as exciting as watching paint dry or grass grow. Soccer takes athleticism. Baseball takes steroids. Soccer takes skill and strategy. Baseball takes an opposable thumb to swing a bat or throw a ball. In soccer, there is movement and action and excitement. In baseball, there are a bunch of guys standing around while nothing happens. Soccer might be low scoring, but you never see a fat soccer player scratching his crotch and spitting tobacco juice while the fans have fallen asleep. Hitting a baseball isn't the most challenging thing in sports - it's staying awake through a baseball game.
Posted by: Baseball is more exciting? | June 12, 2006 11:31 AM
Mr. Fisher, you should have made it clear in your interview with the German newspaper that you do not speak for the general American public. Your remarks were insulting and poorly designed. It would seem to the discerning reader that you were intentially baited to provide a ridiculous and easily characterized American perspective on a world sport that you know nothing about and rose selfishly to the cause. I wish you hadn't been so eager to unthinkingly identify Americans as worthy candidates of the normal foreign prejudice.
Posted by: Nate | June 12, 2006 11:32 AM
"In America, spectator sports tend to be family events, with a wholesome emphasis on community."
Marc - You've never been to or seen a Philadelphia Eagles game, have you? Or for that matter, the end zone at a Ravens game. More hooligans there than I've seen at soccer.
Heck, the biggest "family" event I've been to recently was a NASCAR race.
Posted by: GB | June 12, 2006 11:33 AM
Sorry Fisher, you're so off-base here its laughable. Soccer is the most popular sport on the planet, and is growing hugely in the USA. My entire office, all intensely following the Cup and soccer leagues year round. ABC's broadcast of the England-Paraguay game on Saturday beat out Braves Baseball in Atlanta, and thats not even including the many who were watching on the Spanish stations. My personal story is probably your worst nightmare, though is hardly uncommon: grew up a big O's/Bullets/Skins fan and played soccer at recess in the 80s, 90s - discovered the English league and international soccer though and never looked back, have been a huge fan and will be for the rest of my life (24 years old now). Most of my generation, though may not as hardcore as myself, remain familiar with the game and lack this visceral hatred and ignorance spewed by dinosaur writers like yourself. Immigrants today have less reason to discard their preferred sport (soccer) than in the past due to the availability of seeing their favorite teams on cable television, and the number of americans and other immigrants playing weekends and weeknights. Keep your head in the sand though, pitiable as it may be.
Lets Go USA! Czechs will be a stiff first test.....
Posted by: Will | June 12, 2006 11:35 AM
As a football loving englishman can I say to all Americans PLEASE stay away from football (soccor) you dont want it and we dont want you!
Posted by: ian | June 12, 2006 11:35 AM
Pretty stupid stuff. I feel kind of embarrassed for the writer
Posted by: Bob | June 12, 2006 11:36 AM
Some of Marc's comments were probably intentionally over the top. I mean, "family atmosphere at U.S. sporting events"? (Go to a Philadelphia Eagles game filled with 70,000 drunken working-class lunkheads, and the "family" you'll think of will be the Mansons.) I like soccer, admittedly not as much as baseball, but then again I wasn't born and raised with it.
Oh, and I wouldn't generalize all Latin Americans who come to the U.S. as being baseball fanatics. There are many Latin cultures where baseball is foreign, and a lot of those groups are in the Washington area. (Which probably explains why the Nationals don't have their games on Spanish-language radio, as is the case in New York and even Philadelphia.)
Posted by: Vincent | June 12, 2006 11:37 AM
Chris - first off, just because you come up with some numbers it's not an experiment. But for the argument's sake I'll just pretend it is.
What those numbers indicate are two things: One, soccer fans care about the game. Two, non-soccer fans like you apparently don't even care enough about serious stories to post more comments elsewhere.
So why don't you get some civic engagement.
Posted by: cpwdc | June 12, 2006 11:37 AM
Japan and Korea co-hosted in 2002. The USA in 1994. I am well-informed, not ignorant. I stand with what I said. Soccer is very popular in Europe and Latin America. It is far more popular in the USA than in China or India or many other countries. I am not making any point about any sport other than soccer.
Posted by: mark | June 12, 2006 11:38 AM
Fisher - you have done Americans a disservice. Most Americans are simply indifferent to soccer/futbol due to ongoing lack of exposure, which is understandable. Few hate it. I don't think I've ever met anyone who does. Why try to explain to foreign journalist that we do? You're obviously trying to be that wacky, hyper-opinionated American journalist getting your two cents in at a time when soccer takes center stage. Hopefully the German readers, and others that read your baiting, poorly thought out ramblings, choose to ignore them as many American choose to simply - and unwisely in my opinion - ignore a beautiful event like the World Cup.
Posted by: DubTee Silver Spring | June 12, 2006 11:42 AM
"Are you Germans or Europeans or something? How can you bring yourselves to stick up for soccer (sometimes mistakenly called "football") and this silly sham of a "World" cup? You need to go to a Nats game and see what athletics is about. Most of us Latin American immigrants actually come to America to get away from soccer.
Posted by: Raoul Martinez | June 12, 2006 10:03 AM "
Hey Raoul, something tells me you are not what you pretend to be: a latin american immigrant, not with that name, are you for real?, I mean, you can fool gringos but I don't buy it, where are you from?. Who in heavens told you we actually come to the US to run away from football? (sorry fellas but "soccer" doesn't exist in my vocabulary despite of what you say). Seriously Raoul, I need an explanation because unless you can't see countless mexicans, peruvians, bolivians, salvadorans, ecuadorans, paraguayans, etc. enjoying a good match in this area, I am afraid your idea of reality is just a little too much distorted. You want so see athletics?, try running and handling the ball 45 minutes non-stop with a 15 min. break then charge full bore for another 45 more and I am not mentioning the steriod issues with the MLB which you don't see that much in "soccer". Come on Raoul (or Raúl?), talk to me.
Posted by: perucho immigrant | June 12, 2006 11:47 AM
Actually I post frequently on other sites--apparently I struck a nerve though...
We are up to 50 slobbering soccer fans and counting.
ps. it does count as an experiment if the results are measured and interpreted rigorously. Most traffic studies are performed in this exact way.
Posted by: Chris | June 12, 2006 11:52 AM
Soccer is a boring game, Marc says, more boring than baseball (STATISTICS!!--Whee!!).
-No commercials. The Superbowl is an hour of action, but it's also 2 hours of T------ Sauce and, if we're real lucky, J Timberlake and friend (ah hem). Baseball has nine breaks and a few pitching changes. Perhaps Marc and the average American are products of the advertising era--it just ain't the Superbowl without that cola ad. Soccer is the least commercially prostituted sport. Period. And that's a good thing. Period.
-Attention span. 90 minutes of straight soccer action is something like an opera for guys like Marc. He doesn't know the language, it goes on and on without stopping, and, geez, nobody can touch the ball with their hands except the two guys in special shirts, and they have to wear gloves to hold it. And, this is the worst part, there's not a Smith, Johnson, or even a Fisher on the field.
The best things in life aren't free, or easy, Mr. Fisher.
Posted by: kelvini | June 12, 2006 12:00 PM
Ian....Americans can play soccer just as good as any Brit! Get over yourself. You have a lot of non-English playing in the Premiership...including quite a few Americans.
Posted by: hf | June 12, 2006 12:04 PM
Marc, you had me chuckling. I have only one question: is your German good enough for you to do the interview in German, or did you use a translator? I'd hate to think that anything was lost in translation.
Posted by: Irony Detector | June 12, 2006 12:07 PM
When did Hank Hill start writing a column for the post? Don't listen to this drivel. I thought is was satire but its to badly written. The USA have a really good team, Landon is class, Friedal is a great goalkeeper and in Freddy Adu you have one of the brighest young talents in world football. It is heartening to see so many positive comments from Americans in reponse to this rubbish and it give us Europeans hope that on the whole Americans are not the arrogant, insular idiots that is implied by this poor excuse of a columnist.
Posted by: Footylover | June 12, 2006 12:08 PM
Chris - glad to hear you post elsewhere. Glad to know you can count up to 50, too. However, I doubt that one guy counting stuff and labeling it "slobbering" lives up to being "measured and interpreted rigorously."
Posted by: cpwdc | June 12, 2006 12:08 PM
You are an ignorant bafoon Mr. Fisher and not especially bright. Compared to baseball, soccer is fast paced, dynamic, involving, and much more team oriented sport. Compared to a bunch of middle aged overweight men standing around on a field waiting for another middle aged overweight "hitter" to hit a ball with a stick, soccer is nuclear physics. If you really think that Baseball is popular because it is about mathematics, "angles", "eye hand coordination" and "percentages" you are an even bigger idiot then you are perceived to be. Baseball is popular because it is a populist sport that is based in a very easy to understand premise and that is ingrained in american culture. Baseball as a sport is about as interesting as watching paint dry.
I'm sure your views would be different if you werent so backwards and small minded in your observations, which most people find at best silly.
Posted by: Miked Up | June 12, 2006 12:09 PM
Well said kelvini, that's maybe the issue: short-attention span, most americans get bored easily (why?), they need to be entertained 24/7. Reason # 2: there are no too many breaks in between so we can "enjoy" Janet Jackson, wardrobe malfunctions or other lame spectacle, besides hitting the food court and third, we don't obsess with stats and the maniac necessity of a surgical analysis down to the decimal point, well, football doesn't work that way, certainly you can analyse it in terms of goals, tempo, strategy, player positioning but you either enjoy the game or you get lost in the minutiae. Have fun fellas and GO U.S.!!!!!!, beat those Czechs!
Posted by: perucho immigrant | June 12, 2006 12:13 PM
The German magazine should have run two interviews -- one with Fisher's rants, and the other by a U.S. journalist who is a real aficionado (LaCanfora?). Only then would German readers have seen how stupid and ignorant Fisher's remarks really were.
Posted by: JJ | June 12, 2006 12:15 PM
I will leave it up to you to find adjectives then. A few quotes:
"You are an ignorant bafoon Mr. Fisher and not especially bright"
"Soccer might be low scoring, but you never see a fat soccer player scratching his crotch and spitting tobacco juice while the fans have fallen asleep."
"You're a jackass - stick to sports you know about and don't run your ignorant piehole on ones you don't understand"
"You're an idiot. If you can't see the complexity of soccer, you're not watching the game. It's painful for me to know that an ignoramus like you gets paid for NOT knowing about sports."
Maybe you would call this reasoned debate, I call it slobbering.
Posted by: Chris | June 12, 2006 12:18 PM
Hey Marc, how come "Raw Fisher" is no longer listed among the bloggers in "News Columns and Blogs?" I have to google "Raw Fisher" to find your blog at Washingtonpost.com in order to get my 'raw fisher fix.' Thanks.
Posted by: Jeff | June 12, 2006 12:18 PM
What is the deal with soccer fans....what's with all the spittle? Why do you feel that your sport is above reproach. I mean, I'm an American Football fan, but if you were to say that Football is violent, overly long, or boring, I'd have to agree that it's a matter of taste and that would be the end of discussion. Let someone assault the precious ramparts of soccer though, calling it boring, melodramatic, and emasculating for instance, and the daggers come out. Come on guys, it's a SPORT, not a religion. It seems that some soccer fans are so filled with conceit that they can't take a little ribbing. I wonder if their devotion comes more from a love of the game, or from the particular "We Are The World" outlook that comes with it.
Posted by: gdr | June 12, 2006 12:23 PM
Ooh...I missed a good one:
"I'm sure your views would be different if you werent so backwards and small minded in your observations, which most people find at best silly."
Posted by: Chris | June 12, 2006 12:25 PM
Chris - precisely my point: this is not the place for the kind of analysis you pretend to do here, certainly not for anything you called 'measured and interpreted rigorously.'
Posted by: cpwdc | June 12, 2006 12:29 PM
The reason soccer isn't a big television sport here is because there is no commercial breaks so the stations can't make as much money. They don't push it as hard as football (ever watch the Super Bowl for the commercials?) and consequently, the American populace doesn't care as much. It has nothing to do with the quality of the sport. It has to do with how often the television companies can force feed you 30 second spots about Coors Light and Viagara (preferably not in the same commercial).
Posted by: E Virginia | June 12, 2006 12:29 PM
Oh, and I missed one too:
USA 0 - CZE 1
Posted by: cpwdc | June 12, 2006 12:30 PM
Americans don't like football - the game where you use your feet - because they don't have the attention span. Also they're self-imposed isolantionists and their government doesn't want them discovering that the rest of the western world is much freer than them.
Posted by: PJ | June 12, 2006 12:34 PM
"USA 0 - CZE 1"
A virtual blow-out in soccer. Let us hope this trend continues so we can stop talking about WC for another four years...
Posted by: gdr | June 12, 2006 12:35 PM
Here comes your blow-out: USA 0 - CZE 2
Posted by: cpwdc | June 12, 2006 12:37 PM
Wow, have they invoked the Slaughter Rule yet? I can't remember, but this is single-elimination, correct? Let's hope so....GO CZE!!!!
Posted by: gdr | June 12, 2006 12:39 PM
Europe no longer believes in God but in Science, Rationality and Evidence. Soccer is so big because it has taken the place of going to church. European governments can control their citizens without going to the extremes of religion and foxnews.
Posted by: European | June 12, 2006 12:43 PM
No, and no. A "Slaughter Rule" or other silly rules don't exist in the beautiful game. Only non-beautiful games need that. And no, it's the group stage. Isn't there a rule about not posting when you don't even know the basics? Oh wait - if that were the case we wouldn't be having this blog since Fisher would have clearly failed.
Posted by: cpwdc | June 12, 2006 12:43 PM
I presume this is your Ann Coulter imitation. Say something egregiously stupid and irritating and see if you can generate some buzz.
Or are you still sore because your mom named you after a commuter train?
Posted by: Alex in Alex VA | June 12, 2006 12:48 PM
Ah, NOT single elimination. This is the "GROUP phase". Thank you for clearing that up cpwdc, although it is most disappointing news. And unfortunate news indeed to end my lunch hour on, but such is life. Oh well, let the spittle fly in my absence....good day to you. One more thing, re: your "beautiful" comments, see my earlier comment about emasculation.
Posted by: gdr | June 12, 2006 12:55 PM
marc.. ur a prize wazzock..i'ts all been said above bout jingoistic flag waving stuff, and u know U.S.A . is the worst offender, but anyway. the world cup is about gettin the beers in with ur mates.. not bud by the way.!!!!.. and just cheerin ur team on.. get over ur self an get into the spirit.. crack a tinny and enjoy
Posted by: fazer | June 12, 2006 12:59 PM
The US has some really talented players...dont underestimate them. Also, my boyfriend, who is English, is rooting for USA over England...he thinks that they are a great group and that they will go far. (it also helps that Landon Donovan and Claudio Reyna play for his favorite team, Man City) So don't worry team USA, you have at least one European out there who is pulling for you!
Posted by: hf | June 12, 2006 1:01 PM
GDR/CPWDC you go to extremes to show your distaste of soccer, even it that means rotting AGAINST your home boys, what a d*ck you are dude. Nobody forces you to understand it but at least show some support to your fellow americans.
Posted by: Americano | June 12, 2006 1:06 PM
I'm a 22-year old german and i just wanted to check out what americans think about football-now i know! American,the great nation of sport,can't evade the GAME like everyone else on this planet! Watch the worldcup and celebrate your team,they're doing a great job!
Posted by: wc2006 | June 12, 2006 1:09 PM
Soccer will never make it big time in the US until the US team does something special at this tournament. And it looks like they could be out very quickly once again.
And for the casual sports fan, its hard to see the strategy in soccer. It just looks like people running up the field with very few good results (a goal or good scoring chance).
Posted by: rodlang | June 12, 2006 1:12 PM
i didn't read all of the interview nor all of the comments, but i find it short sited to be so critical of soccer and then call the sport a reminder of what nationalism does to people. we don't need a sport for that. without being overly critical of the bush administration, i think everyone would agree that we did go to war on highly nationalistic grounds in iraq. and if not for that sense of nationalism, we would not be there today. but, i digress, i think this writer might disagree with me anyways, i mean, he does disregard the world opinion that soccer is the most watched sport in the world. so, you can say the rest of the world are idiots if you want, but i am not that nationalistic to think my views on the sport trumps all others. in my opionion, the lack of interest in the us, is the fact that this is a TEAM game, and not a sport where an individual can triumph over great team play...just look at the camera shots, in baseball, footbal and basketball, it is focused on one player, maybe a couple, but we always have that zoomed in replay every so often...in soccer, because it is a team sport, you have to see what the team is doing to know what is happening in the game much more so than the popular american sports of the day.
Posted by: i like soccer | June 12, 2006 1:17 PM
i know its seems like nothin is goin on .. but there is.. i've had 5 beers watchin this game.. usa may get somethin here.. u got some good players
Posted by: fazer | June 12, 2006 1:17 PM
"Also they're self-imposed isolantionists and their government doesn't want them discovering that the rest of the western world is much freer than them"
One third of all "World Cups" have been played in Spanish-speaking countries. The total number of Spanish speaking people in the world is around 330 million people. That's around a fourth or a fifth the population of India or China. Anyone who wants to pit the USA against "the soccer playing world" is missing the point. The USA plays the game, even if it's not that important a sport here - I just think it's close-minded and 'isolationist' for people to have a "World Cup" in a sport that most of the largest countries in the world do not participate in any significant way.
Posted by: mark | June 12, 2006 1:20 PM
I suspect that America's dislike of soccer, like our dislike of the metric system, is largely a sublimated form of xenophobia and anti-Europeanism.
It's worth noting that our most popular pro sports are either uniquely American variations on existing sports (baseball, football) or entirely created here (basketball). Even in auto racing, Americans prefer homegrown NASCAR.
Posted by: John | June 12, 2006 1:20 PM
o don't get me started on metric .. i'm a turner in uk an i have to converte from metric to "imperial" daily..... no wonder i watch footy an drink beer
Posted by: fazer | June 12, 2006 1:23 PM
fazer....the US is not the worst offender when it comes to jingoism. Anyway, why is soccer not as big here like it is in Europe or Latin America? The simple answer is "it just is." Soccer is not the main sport in lots of different countries, not just the US. Baseball has a huge following in Cuba, the DR, and Japan. In the Caribbean, India, and Pakistan: Cricket Australia and New Zealand: rugby Canada, Russia, Scandanavia: ice hockey
So there you have it. I'm not the best at debating, so I have a feeling that I will probably be contradicted, but this is my opinion.
Posted by: hf | June 12, 2006 1:24 PM
John, you read way too much into stuff.
Posted by: hf | June 12, 2006 1:27 PM
Ok I'm not sure that I understand your point. First you doubt the rigor of my extensively researched longitudinal study. Then you imply that you are proud of me for counting to fifty. Then you object to my use of adjectives. And then you refute my analysis by quoting soccer scores at me. I freely acknowledge the European superiority at soccer, the Canadian superiority at curling, the Chinese superiority at diving and African superiority at long distance running. None of these facts are relevant--my point is that many more slobbering idiots managed to rouse themselves from net-induced stupor to post about a sort of funny soccer article than managed to do so in a much longer period of time for threads involving topics that are more serious. I would make the same point in a room of rabid darts fans or frothy mouthed Motown music fans or unreasonably vehement tomato fanciers. If you object to this, fine--but I will continue to count the slobbery posts.
Posted by: Chris | June 12, 2006 1:30 PM
hf ok maybe i'm wrong.. i can live with that.. but wen ur golfers go off on one.. on the GREEN.. then u have ur athletes covering themselves in the flag at 4x4.. i'm ok with u celebrating ur countrys finest men and women doing well.. but this is bout marc sayin "world cup" is nothin
Posted by: fazer | June 12, 2006 1:30 PM
the "world cup" is about bringin ppl together.. the "football family".. i know the uk or shall i say london an the south of england is jingoistic.. proms comes to mind.. all i'm sayin is just enjoy the spectacle of it
Posted by: fazer | June 12, 2006 1:35 PM
I have to say I am appalled by this entire blog. But not because of the writer but all of these posts. We are talking about sports, and we have people labeling American citizens as arrogant? In America, you have the right to like and not like soccer, just the same as you can like and not like baseball.
I am a baseball/football/basketball fan, and do not care for soccer. I respect the soccer players as great athletes and respect the game, but it isn't my style. I find it boring, but not because it's slow paced. I think that connection is incorrectly made too many times in these arguments. NASCAR is very fast paced (200 mph), but somebody would have to pay me to watch it because I find it incredibly boring. I really can't put my finger on why I find it boring, I just do. The same can be said about hockey in my opinion; key word in that sentence being 'opinion'. I think crazy soccer, football, baseball, etc. fans need to get over themselves and not care that some writer at the Post doesn't like a certain sport.
And for the record, anybody that says hitting a 95 mph fast ball isn't the hardest thing to do in sports has never been at the plate.
Posted by: Matt | June 12, 2006 1:40 PM
What Marc did not mention was that many Americans tend to view soccer as a somewhat, how shall we say, effeminate sport. Soccer players tend to be somewhat more "fancy" (in appearance, dress, style off the field, etc.) than, say, American football, baseball, basketball or hockey players. In short sooccer players seem to be somewhat more delicate or refined as compared to American athletes.
As such, soccer has simply not been able to capture the American male demographic, which is so key for college and professional sports viability. This also explains why soccer is much more of a kids' (and even perhaps a women's) sport.
At most, soccer is a suburban sport played by those who either are new immigrants to the U.S. or those "native born" Americans who view soccer as sort of a global statement or key to "enlightenment", sort of like an NPR listener or blogger on the DailyKos views him/herself.
Posted by: I'm not sayin'; I'm just sayin' | June 12, 2006 1:41 PM
I agree that soccor is boring. But I dont think you can say that baseball is more exciting. Both are slow sports and aren't meant for tv.
Why isn't america into rugby? Thats the question you should be asking. Its fast and violent.
Posted by: jim | June 12, 2006 1:42 PM
so far it's a zero three... uhuhuh i diagnose, not enough love for the game
Posted by: matteo | June 12, 2006 1:46 PM
but u won't .. cos ur crap.. no wonder ur angry marc.. o well better luck next time
Posted by: fazer | June 12, 2006 1:46 PM
American Football --- derived from Rugby
Baseball ----- evolved out of Rounders a girls game
Basketball ----- derived from Netball a girls game
Have you got any games you can call your own
Posted by: Ian | June 12, 2006 1:48 PM
is that y ur "footballers" have armour on.. do me a favour..
Posted by: fazer | June 12, 2006 1:49 PM
Having played soccer all my life I am also a baseball fan and find it unfair to compare both games. They have different dynamics and tempo. And they are both exciting on their own ways. I believe they have a larger fan base because they are more inclusive and don't require a certain height or muscular build in order to play. And, contrary to the post, as I see lots of kids playing soccer every Saturday morning plus the triumphs of the women team, I can only se a bright future for soccer in the US.
Posted by: Pietro | June 12, 2006 1:52 PM
I wanted to see for myself, so I just watched most of the match between Our Boys and the Czech Republics. I don't get it. Where's the cheerleaders? Where's the mascots? No fight songs? This "sport" is even worse than Marc made it out to be.
Posted by: Open Minded | June 12, 2006 1:52 PM
Probably, soccer is the only game where you can exercise a lot. All players get to move back and forth. Ask any doctor, they all recommend some exercise. You play a game that helps you exercise and adds some excitement to it. No wonder why Americans are fat.
Posted by: Rafas | June 12, 2006 1:55 PM
First, everyone breath deeply and count to 10. This little piece was rather amusing, especially in the reactions it has produced! I think we all need to think a bit harder when we're reading and realize that this is some satirical writing, starting from the headline, "America's Most Prominent Soccer Hater, Reporting for Duty".
Look at this sentence, "We tend not to be interested in sports that attract hooligans and riots." Remember the Ron Artest episode two years ago in the NBA? I doubt Mr. Fisher has either.
Also interesting, is my realization that many of those who are reacting negatively are looking to have their American stereotypes so nicely reinforced, so they can revel in the alleged superiority of their favorite sport and country. Kudos to Marc.
Posted by: AA | June 12, 2006 1:55 PM
Ian....very few sports are played in its original form. Get over yourself. Americans have their sports and like their sports. Give it a rest.
Posted by: hf | June 12, 2006 1:57 PM
well open minded.. u stick to wot u know an so will WE.. thank u
Posted by: fazer | June 12, 2006 1:58 PM
Actually, the Uncle Don "legend" is true. I heard it on one of those old blooper records.
Posted by: Mike Palmer | June 12, 2006 2:00 PM
Posted by: hf | June 12, 2006 2:01 PM
Just a rebuttal of the contention that the largest countries in the world, mainly China, don't participate in "any significant way" is to miss the point that what's going on now is only the World Cup 'Finals.' To say the Chinese don't participate significantly, or most other nations, for that matter, is to undercut the effort and passion that these countries put into qualifying, even if they are ultimately unsuccessful in making the Finals.
Posted by: Footballer | June 12, 2006 2:01 PM
how are you going to compare baseball statistics back 100 years??? Are you saying that players were juiced on steroids, growth hormones, and any of a number of other ingredients to help them cheat even 100 years ago???? I don't believe that is the case, and so you must find that division point in time so that comparisons between players who cheat and those who do not can be made ... and, I can think of nothing more boring than watching clean players compete against cheaters ... also, I can't believe I am defending soccer against baseball, when soccer is filled with cry-baby divers!!! but you could have come up with something better to compare with soccer ...
Posted by: m steven foster | June 12, 2006 2:01 PM
your ideas about soccer explain a bit why abu ghraib and haditha happened. think about it.
Posted by: Shin | June 12, 2006 2:03 PM
No surprises here. America's knowledge about soccer is as high as their knowledge about geography or world problems. So, they go to wars and the rest of us (the whole planet) to the World Cup...
Posted by: Hugh Lenh | June 12, 2006 2:07 PM
Soccer sucks and Brazzil and Germany and other south american countries suck too! USA! USA! USA!
Posted by: Proud American | June 12, 2006 2:08 PM
Hmmm... Satire or not? The .pdf from the German paper would appear to be real which means one of two things is true:
1) Marc Fisher deliberately mislead the German press by passing off satire as real opinion, and thus has compromised his journalistic credibility.
2) These are his ideas, in which case he is a frighteningly unreflective and bigoted boor.
I suspect the truth is somewhere in between the two, and this is precisely the problem with mixing journalism and blogging: it blurs the line between responsible opinion and blowing half-digested crap out your a**.
Sometimes I agree with Mr. Fisher, but other times he spouts the kind of nonsense that would make a college sophomore blush.
Posted by: guez | June 12, 2006 2:10 PM
Re: I'm not sayin'; I'm just sayin'
It's not just soccer--American culture has often stereotyped European men as "fancy," "delicate" and "refined." I think it has something to do with our frontier heritage, sort of an anti-elitism. The snooty Englishman or Frenchman has been a stereotype in Hollywood movies for decades, usually as the guy trying to steal the girl from the small-town all-American boy. Monty Python's Eric Idle once joked that American fans assumed he was gay because he's English.
And HF, I think there are cultural or societal reasons for a lot of things, including why pro-level soccer isn't popular here. I don't really care whether America embraces soccer or rejects it.
Posted by: John | June 12, 2006 2:10 PM
When local English speaking TV stations are not showing the game, then you know why. The $ sign is more important than the national team. Period. Beside, they can't sell commercial during the football game because it doesn't have break every 3-4 min. Football/Soccer is never going to make it big here in the US.
Posted by: game on local TV? | June 12, 2006 2:10 PM
Soccer does suck but I dont think Germeny is in South America. Is it?
Posted by: Todd Tx | June 12, 2006 2:10 PM
the interview is sure to ruffle a few soccer fans feathers but the fats are that soccer is not a major sport in the US and prob ever will be.
I would argue with one point and one point only in the interview . . that hitting a ninty five mile per hour fast ball is the hardest thing in sports. I disagree. If in the course of a season 162 games a top notch person (Bonds, Sosa, Ruth, Brady Anderson) can hit 40, 50, 60 or 70 home runs and in a similar numebr of games a top goal scorer might have 60, I would say they are extremly comparable.
Posted by: Mark | June 12, 2006 2:12 PM
Marc, you might have added that soccer has almost no "sports highlight" moments. Unlike baseball and football (basketball, of course, has frequent scoring) almost no non-scoring plays on the soccer pitch are worth showing on the 11 o'clock sports. Most matches are tedious competitions for the ball, failed attacks, and in general about as frustrating to watch as it is to wrestle a pig
Posted by: gwgoldb | June 12, 2006 2:12 PM
"American fans' desire for a level of complexity and drama in their games that soccer cannot support. We tend to like sports that can accommodate stories about players, coaches and other personalities. Soccer, as a largely anonymous sport, doesn't fit. The game simply doesn't work on television because the field is so enormous that the players appear to be tiny. Fans therefore cannot form powerful emotional connections with their play"
Are you really a serious journalist? Did you do some research before saying something like that?
Washington Post editors, please: We'd like to see a serious discussion about why Americans don't like soccer. Not this rubbish.
Posted by: football not soccer | June 12, 2006 2:16 PM
This is a ridiculous interview. The opinions expressed are in no serious way representative of any large number of Americans' views about soccer.
Posted by: John Fowler | June 12, 2006 2:17 PM
Baseball is exciting?....because you can compare player stats?
That's where you simply lose credibility.
Posted by: Patrick | June 12, 2006 2:18 PM
Simply put, Americans a just terrible at soccer and will never be good at it unless they put a lot of work, time and energy in this sport. In the mean time all we'll hear are excuses, all kind of excuses. Let's just leave it at that.
Posted by: Aldo | June 12, 2006 2:19 PM
Hugh...you dont know anything either. I know more non americans who know less about geography and world problems than americans do. And now, let me name you all the world capitals in alphabetical order.... Kabul, Afghanistan Tirana, Albania Algiers, Algeria Pago Pago, American Samoa Andorra La Vella, Andorra Luanda, Angola
Posted by: hf | June 12, 2006 2:19 PM
'Soccer is the favorite sport of Osama bin-Laden'.
Baseball is Fidel Castro's and Hugo Chavez' favorite game. George Bush owned a baseball team.
What exactly the above proves? Nothing, I think, but maybe Marc can explain.
Silly statements like Marc's just provoke people unnecessarily.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 12, 2006 2:20 PM
I take your point, I'm sure everyone who participates or attempts to qualify puts passion into it.
But I stick with mine. If the Chinese or Indians or whatever other large country threw a serious (or even mild) effort into the World Cup you would not see Costa Rica and Ghana (despite their passion and understandable enthusiasm) consistently in participating in the final 32. You would see finals between Russia, Indonesia, Eygpt, Japan, China and so forth. Right now, it's a contest between Latin America and Europe. It has always been that way.
Posted by: mark | June 12, 2006 2:20 PM
"but to call it the World Cup is rather arrogant and overblown."
I see that its been covered but I have to put my voice in there -
What is the name "World Series" if not the most arrogant of titles?
Posted by: JC | June 12, 2006 2:21 PM
Imagine the boredom induced while sitting at a baseball game and the only conversation is based on statistics. When I want to go to sleep I put on a baseball game.
Soccer and the athletes who play it exemplify poetry in motion.
Posted by: Scott, NJ | June 12, 2006 2:23 PM
I agree that calling the world cup 'the world cup' when the USA doesnt like soccer is arrogant because its not the hole world that likes it! ANYONE THAT DOESNT AGREE THAT USA RULES IS AN ARROGANT IDIOT!
Posted by: Brad | June 12, 2006 2:24 PM
"but to call it the World Cup is rather arrogant and overblown."
People always say World Champions of every sport (NFL, MLB, NBA, etc).
BTW, you are everything I hate about America. Small minded, arrogant, and stupid. I bet you voted for Bush.
Posted by: Mark Hater | June 12, 2006 2:27 PM
This is a great example of the "ugly american" at work. Or you're playing andy kaufman in the WWF.
Obviously, soccer doesn't have the draw that american football, baseball, or basketball has in the U.S. And it probably never will. But this is ridiculous. The world cup just a "Nice little tournament," but shouldn't be called world cup? It doesn't have the complexities of American sports? When is the last time you saw an organized defense in the NBA?
Will the post hire anyone who writes crap like this, or do you have some connections?
Posted by: cp | June 12, 2006 2:28 PM
anyone who wants to see an hilarious example of american public opinion, go to:
www.boreme.com and search for 'american public opinion'
you will laugh till you cry!
Posted by: mike | June 12, 2006 2:28 PM
Don't know how serious these guys are, but I enjoyed this piece more than Marc's feeble attempt to satire (I mean, he can't seriously think the World Cup is upstaged by the so called Baseball 'World Classic')
CON: A Pitch From Two Sides
Con: Apathy continues to keep the slow-moving sport lagging behind in the United States
By Mike Penner, Times Staff Writer June 5, 2006
Take off your tattered Arsenal cap and your cracked shin guards and No. 6 jersey for Scribes FC (proud runners-up in the Los Alamitos Park and Rec Men's 30-and-Over Division) and return to a place you used to roam with feet firmly planted and head not blunted by too many headers.
Welcome back. Not much has really changed since you left.
Football still rules this country, the kind of football that's played with helmets and shoulder pads and lots of timeouts to make room for the car and beer commercials. Here we like our football players larger than life. All-Pro defensive lineman Richard Seymour weighs 310 pounds. That's bigger than two Freddy Adus.
PRO: A Pitch From Two Sides Pro: With TV and tour access to the best in soccer, and MLS on upswing, fans here have it made
By Mike Penner, Times Staff Writer June 5, 2006
Every four years the World Cup is played, meaning every four years Brazil reaches the final, England goes out in excruciating fashion, Spain goes home two rounds earlier than expected and in newspaper sports departments across the United States, editors can be heard grousing, "World Cup again? Is soccer ever going to make it in this country?"
As I wrote four years ago, the answer remains the same: It already has.
You won't find it in the television ratings and attendance figures of Major League Soccer, which is the first place anti-soccer hardheads go to bang on the wall. So FC Dallas vs. Houston Dynamo is a blip on the radar screen compared to Spurs vs. Mavericks. So what? That's missing the point.
Posted by: Serious soccer discussion? Try this in LA Times. | June 12, 2006 2:28 PM
"I agree that calling the world cup 'the world cup' when the USA doesnt like soccer is arrogant because its not the hole world that likes it! ANYONE THAT DOESNT AGREE THAT USA RULES IS AN ARROGANT IDIOT!"
Learn how to spell, then type.
Posted by: Scott | June 12, 2006 2:29 PM
Your remarks about soccer and Osama bin Laden are embarassing. It's just a basic principle of journalism: don't open your mouth if you don't master the subject. Did you read How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization by Franklin Foer?
I'm sure you didn't. You didn't do your homework. Again, it's too bad you can voice your comments under Washington Post name.
Posted by: football not soccer | June 12, 2006 2:33 PM
HAHA. Good joke Marc. I thought u were serious till I got to the part about it being arrogant to call it the World Cup. That is what gave you away. There is NO WAY a person that is a writer for a major newspaper in the US can be this stupid without joking.
Posted by: SS | June 12, 2006 2:35 PM
then type in 'american public opinion' and watch the movie you won't regret it!!!!!!!
Posted by: Re: Mike | June 12, 2006 2:37 PM
Although the USA just lost, I think there is more to come from the team they've got. As far as I'm concerned, if they can become a more potent force in football, the game as a whole will benefit.
Posted by: David | June 12, 2006 2:40 PM
It's an article filled with SARCASM people!! Stop watching TV and turn on your brains.
Posted by: concerned american | June 12, 2006 2:40 PM
C'mon everyone, chill out; all of this has got to be satire. The WP would not let such moronic statements within 10 feet of one of their microphones, were it not for the appreciation of a good joke.
Posted by: Stefano SF | June 12, 2006 2:42 PM
I'm not sure who's the bigger idiot - Marc Fisher for his uneducated and completely baseless assessment of the state of soccer in the US - or his "friend," Markus Guenther, for selecting the biggest American soccer idiot to represent this country to a chain of German newspapers. I know that columnists, in general, aren't held to the same fact-checking standards as regular reporters...but you'd think that Fisher might actually be able to squeeze at least one fact somewhere into his responses. I hope Herr Guenther puts a disclaimer on any material he might choose to actually publish!
Posted by: Mark | June 12, 2006 2:43 PM
everyone must go to http://www.boreme.com type in "US public opinion" you have to have broadband though
Posted by: Tim | June 12, 2006 2:44 PM
I'm still laughing here and I'd like to throw a few logs on the fire.
Many posts focus on the fact that soccer is a universal sport and that US citizens don't enjoy it because our teams rarely do well. If that's the case, how come after 50 some posts nobody has weighed in on the success of the US Women's Soccer team?
Also, no comments yet on the major initiative FIFA has undertaken to penalize the explosion of racial taunting and heckling at games?
How many people have been trampled to death at a baseball game?
Has a place kicker ever been executed after a American football game, or does that only happen to Keepers???
BTW - the US has won as many Men's World Cups in the last 37 years as the UK...
Posted by: aflapr | June 12, 2006 2:48 PM
I think that all of this debate is rather weird. Who cares if you do or don't like soccer? The important thing is that our country is playing in an event that has representatives from every other area of the planet - Asia, South America, Central America, Africa, Carribean, Europe, Australia, the south pacific and the Middle East. Now no matter what you think about soccer, you should support your country and your team or at the very least not actively root against them!! Come on America, get behind your team. They need our support. I am not really a fan of baseball, american football or basketball, but if a team from my city makes it into one of the championships (like Seattle did in the superbowl) of those sports, I always support the home team. That is what all of the non-soccer fans should do now.
Posted by: soccer fan | June 12, 2006 2:51 PM
Congratulations to Team USA. It takes great American athletes to finally make soccer a watchable sport. More points scored in the USA-Czech game than probably scored by all other teams combined today. The fact that all of the points were scored by Czechs is immaterial. Unfortuantely it is unlikely any of the other teams will adopt the fun-filled approach of Team USA and the rest of the tournament will be nothing but 1-0's.
Posted by: John | June 12, 2006 2:54 PM
Posted by: Geoffrey Deibel | June 12, 2006 2:55 PM
Didn't feel like going through 140 comments so I'm sure this has been posted before but.....
"In America, spectator sports tend to be family events, with a wholesome emphasis on community."
Clearly Marc you've not attended an NFL or college football lately....
Posted by: Adams Morgan | June 12, 2006 2:55 PM
read: "I think you're an idiot"
Posted by: geoffrey Deibel | June 12, 2006 2:58 PM
You're very articulate. Let me guess. Soccer fan, right?
Posted by: Anonymous | June 12, 2006 3:21 PM
Your ideas about soccer just show how you despise the most popular sport in the world.
So, just because you are a columnist you are free to say anything without doing some reading about the subject? Hello, we're speaking about the Washington Post, one of the most important newspapers in the world, the biggest winner of the latest Pulitzer.
But that's enough. Besides, Italy vs Ghana is about to start. Think about the Haditha and Abu Ghraib remark.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 12, 2006 3:21 PM
Your ideas about soccer just show how you despise the most popular sport in the world.
So, just because you are a columnist you are free to say anything without doing some reading about the subject? Hello, we're speaking about the Washington Post, one of the most important newspapers in the world, the biggest winner of the latest Pulitzer.
But that's enough. Besides, Italy vs Ghana is about to start. Think about the Haditha and Abu Ghraib remark.
Posted by: football not soccer | June 12, 2006 3:23 PM
Soccer not commercially prostituted? Ha! second only to NASCAR with sponsorship plastered all over jerseys.
Yes, boring. If you think Baseball is boring, you simply don't understand it.
Mexican / Central Americans & Baseball. Almost every major city has an amateur league made up of Mexicans & central Americans. DC included.
Every few years someone jumps up and screams that, in the U.S. Soccer is the next great thing. The Pro league eventually sputters into nothingness. American Soccer Association. North American Soccer League. MLS is financially miserable. If one person owns a number of teams in the league, and the league owns a number of others. Guess what, it's not prospering.
BTW: Pro Baseball leagues in Most South American Countries, the Netherlands, Italy, Korea, Japan, Australia. June 22, 2007 Pro Baseball in Israel will celebrate its inaugural opening day.
One final note: Soccer is far from the fastest growing sport in the US. Lacrosse gets that honor. I'd bet that the growth of that truly homegrown sport will signal the death knell of this version of the great soccer boom within a decade.
Posted by: Catcher50 | June 12, 2006 3:23 PM
Your ideas about soccer just show how you despise the most popular sport in the world.
So, just because you are a columnist you are free to say anything without doing some reading about the subject? Hello, we're speaking about the Washington Post, one of the most important newspapers in the world, the biggest winner of the latest Pulitzer.
But that's enough. Besides, Italy vs Ghana is about to start. Think about the Haditha and Abu Ghraib remark.
Posted by: football not soccer | June 12, 2006 3:23 PM
This is highly incendiary and rude and I'm disappointed in Marc Fisher.
Posted by: Arlington | June 12, 2006 3:24 PM
If this is the reception you get in the US where people used to have senses of humor, how will it be received in Germany where they're still waiting for their senses of humor to be delivered?
Posted by: Anonymous | June 12, 2006 3:25 PM
well done, Marc. Soccer is not going to make many inroads in the US. The fake falling and overblown fake injuries turn us off. Most of our sports legends are based around toughness, not faking: Kirk Gibson, Ronnie Lott, Willis Reed and what have you. But I do love the overblown indignity of soccer fans - a perfect reflection of their sport.
Posted by: yup | June 12, 2006 3:26 PM
The commment about India or China not being intrested in "FOOTBALL" is incorrect, Visit India anytime this month & you will see the people as enthused about football as they are about cricket (Which is the national obsession of India like american football or basketball for American's),The reason for India not being represented in the world cup is economics & as India has started prospering & infrastructure has started improving the new generation is taking up football like never before,I might be old by then but we will be there proudly cheering our team in times to come. Just an afterthought, Why do Americans need to be aggressive while discussing simple simple everday topics. Exmaple, I work for a call centre for American Customers.Lets have some fanatics spit venom.
Posted by: Rohit | June 12, 2006 3:28 PM
Unlike dozens of dopes in this comment thread, I recognize the fact that Marc was 50% serious, 50% messing around and trying to get a rise out of the predictable, hysterical soccer fans (successfully, it would seem) who flip out like 6 year old girls at the drop of a hat when anyone rips on the game.
I do think, however, that it would have been perhaps more interesting for us American readers and especially for the readers of that German paper if Marc had been more consistently serious in his answers. Some of his points (the culture of American sports vs. Euro sports for example) are actually quite interesting and insightful. But its hard to discuss them seriously when he's fooling around and calling the World Cup "your little tournament" in the next breath.
I bet there are a lot of Euros who are genuinely curious about why so few Americans like soccer, and would rather have heard more legitimate discussion than silly provocation. But perhaps the writer asked for this sort of satire, either for entertainment, or to fulfill a stereotype...
Posted by: JP | June 12, 2006 3:31 PM
How ignorant of Fisher to belittle the World Cup by saying, "It's very nice for soccer-loving countries to have their little tournament, but to call it the World Cup is rather arrogant and overblown," when in fact all nations of the world participate in it, either in qualifying, or by making it there. How many countries are represented in the so-called "World" series of baseball? National League vs. American League hardly qualifies as anything "worldly."
Posted by: Cap Hill football | June 12, 2006 3:32 PM
You mention at best 15 or 20 countries that have pro baseball leagues. Why didnt you cite a similar fact for soccer? I challenge you to find 20 countries that DON'T have some form of professional soccer.
I guarentee to you that there are many many more Spanish soccer leagues than baseball leagues, even in DC. head to carter baron any afternoon of the week. baseball, no. soccer, yes.
Lacrosse is hardly homegrown. Yes it began within what we now call the United States and Canada. But by Natives, not white people. You're heritage is far closer to the beautiful game than it is lacrosse.
Lacrosse might be making larger percentage gains, its not hard to go from a couple thousand to a couple more thousand, but soccer outpaces lacrosse easily in absolute numbers.
Posted by: stoddert | June 12, 2006 3:33 PM
Good stuff, folks. Some responses:
To Irony Detector--My German isn't what it once was, so Guenther and I did the old routine of each operating in his own native tongue, and I then translated his side of the interview for the blog.
To Fazer: A wazzock! Fabulous. (Five beers in at 1:17. But of course it's American sports that require extensive lubrication.)
To all: I knew we'd manage to turn this into a discussion of the metric system. I'm proud of you all.
To I'm not sayin' and John--Your discussion about effeminacy and elitism has great potential. I'd like to hear more on that.
And a new theme of this conversation comes from gwgoldb, who introduces the idea that soccer isn't making here because there are no highlight moments for SportsCenter to use. Very interesting.
Posted by: Fisher | June 12, 2006 3:35 PM
While every person is entitled to their own opinion, I have to disagree with a couple. Saying that soccer players are anonymous on the field and are too small to be seen on camera undermines the fact that one can actually see their faces - unlike football which the players have helmets. In that sense, the anonymity of soccer plays is less than their football counterparts.
Granted, soccer has not taken off in the US because of a machismo culture that has the best athletes going to more popular (and physically punishing, not to be confused with endurance) such as football. However, to argue that soccer has no strategy or need for coordination probably means that you have not actually watched many games with the intention of coming to terms with the subtle complexities that exist.
Posted by: C | June 12, 2006 3:41 PM
Posted by: Anonymous | June 12, 2006 3:46 PM
Anyone who believes that this is satire probably thinks that Barry Bonds owes his home-run-hitting prowess to prune juice and spinach soup. Look: satire means saying the opposite of what you think in order to deflate the assumed opinions of the audience. What Fisher has done is to say what he actually, truly does think, and he has said this in a way that reinforces what his audience of German magazine readers already thinks. Namely, that Americans are crude, simple-minded, arrogant, elitist, racist/xenophobic numbskulls. Instead of Fisher putting one over on us unsophisticated soccer fans, it appears that he has been played for a sucker by the European media. This foolish and poorly calibrated performance means that I will be doubting Fisher's opinions on other matters in the future. There are so many of these paunchy, middle-aged baseball stat-geeks who every four years arrive to make screamingly ignorant criticisms of the world's most popular and greatest sport -- Frank Deford and Adam Gopnik are two others -- and I'm afraid that we will have no peace until that generation of baseball-sentimental baby boomers retires. Bring on the Franklin Foers of this world, and by God, Bruce, let's start Clint Dempsey next time . . .
Posted by: Frightening Pace | June 12, 2006 4:00 PM
I'm not saying it's not popular in India, but you have a ways to go before India qualifies to be in the World Cup. Would you say the most popular sport in India is soccer? That's not my impression. The truth is the only nation outside of Latin America and Europe to ever come even remotely close to winning a World Cup is the USA. I think that says something about the World Cup, not about the USA; I think it's a safe bet that no country outside of Latin America or Europe is going to seriously contend for the World Cup for a long time to come. Soccer fans just direct frustration to the USA, because they don't understand there are bigger holes in the global picture of the World Cup. If the USA was a big soccer playing nation, fans would be blogging about the Chinese, Nigerians, Pakistanis, Vietnamese, Ethiopians, Turks and Thais (all countries with very large populations who are not in the WC).
Posted by: mark | June 12, 2006 4:01 PM
I generally enjoy your columns and am like you a baseball fans.
I would agree with almost all of the comments above that you are extremely obtuse and are of the type that causes Americans to be despised throughout the world.
If you understood anything about soccer, it is just as cerebral a game as baseball. You are right that it does not offer the same cerebral experience to fans who get to keep score and follow statistics, but the game itself is very cerebral. A midfielder who receives the ball at the center circle and turns upfield has just as much to think through as a batter facing Roger Clemens and having to guess or recognize that he is receiving a 97 mph fastball or a change-up. Also, controling a soccer ball takes just as much skill as hitting a Clemens fastball, must the skills are a different type.
I have read elsewhere that you have been exposed to soccer before. Thus, your comments are out of hatred for the sport, not mere ignorance. You are free to write about how much you hate soccer but I wish you would confine your comments to why you hate the beautiful game and not represent that your beliefs are shared by Americans in general.
Posted by: Alexandria, VA | June 12, 2006 4:03 PM
I hate all sports except, Shuffle Board.
Posted by: John | June 12, 2006 4:04 PM
So soccer is above criticism? hardly. Grow thicker skin. Then have the players do the same thing, rather then flopping around the field when anyone gets within 5 feet of them to draw afree kick. Soccer = Effiminent
Posted by: yup | June 12, 2006 4:04 PM
good for you marc. you were right on with your comments about soccer. what a boring sport. baseball on its most boring day beats out any soccer game, and baseball can get REAL boring. For further comment on soccer, I refer you to the Simpsons. And you know, I can't believe it: every single American fan of soccer is posting on this thread! I had no idea there were more than 20.
Posted by: firebrand | June 12, 2006 4:04 PM
I'm a cvnt. pay no attention
Posted by: Fisher | June 12, 2006 4:06 PM
Firebrand--There aren't more than 20 fans of soccer. Each of the six are posting under several assumed names, even while the games are going on, because soccer's conducive to multi-tasking.
Posted by: Right on | June 12, 2006 4:07 PM
Posted by: firebrand | June 12, 2006 4:18 PM
Frightening Pace, your somewhat narrow definition of satire may be technically correct (the word is often used too broadly in common conversation), but you've used the narrow definition to ignore the obvious point that Marc was clearly being "cheeky", to use a word Europhile soccer fans would appreciate. Whether or not this counts as 'satire' is well besides the point.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 12, 2006 4:18 PM
I thought that what Marc was doing was called "irony." In the case of irony with soccer fans, the technical description would be "pearls before swine."
Posted by: Observer | June 12, 2006 4:28 PM
There are few reasons why soccer is not popular in the U.S. 1) When you get in to high school both soccer and American football seasons happen in the fall. Most kids end up playing football and anyone will tell you football gets the better athletes (Imagine someone with Deon Sanders speed and agility playing soccer. I think his name was Pele). 2) Most teenagers who dream of playing professional sports also dream of getting paid a lot money doing so and most of them have no idea you can make millions playing in Europe if you're good enough; they only think you can make the chump change (compared to Football, Hockey, Basketball and Baseball players) U.S players make in the MLS. If a parent or coach does find a kid in the U.S. with great naturally ability (who does not get plucked by one of the other big 4 sports) the problem still remains. 3) The level of competition is still below the rest of the world so the kid needs to be sent overseas to play against better competition. This is something which most parents are not willing to do or if they are, cannot afford. 4) COACHING is the other and probably most important factor. Having played soccer from Age 5-12 (switched to football at 13) coaches always teach ball control, keep the ball on the ground, pass the ball (keep it on the ground again). Boring Boring Boring... Having married a Brazilian I have made several trips to Brazil and observed kids playing pickup games of soccer. I was surprised how little the ball actually touch the ground at times. Watching a bunch of kids in Brazil play pickup soccer is 10x more entertaining than watching the U.S. Cup team play (although I still root for them in vain). Our coaches need emphasize creativity on the field instead of the same old tired and unproven methods.
Posted by: James Z | June 12, 2006 4:36 PM
Yet another reason to spend more time reading the NYTimes.com for sports and analysis as it relates to soccer. Never quite understood what is to gain for media outlets to slam soccer fans and the sport of soccer. Mark Fisher once again demonstrates that the Post can be so remarkably self-absorbed as to alienate whole groups of their readers (Kornheiser and Wilbon are notably talented in such a skill as well).
Posted by: Mickey | June 12, 2006 4:36 PM
Soccer's popularity faces more competition in the USA than it does in other countries. When provided more choices, customers reject the least desirable options. That explains why soccer has not captured the American public's imagination, American's have too many better choices. Europeans, South Americans, etc, don't have 4 highly developed, major sporting leagues competing with soccer. If they had the same alternatives that Americans have, they would probably begin to see that soccer is an inherently inferior sport.
Posted by: Rose | June 12, 2006 4:38 PM
Mark, I don't know why you list the Nigerians and Turks as non-World Cup nations, both are usually there, and the Nigerians have done pretty well in the past, even beating Argentina. Of the countries you list, Pakistan is the only one in which football isn't the most popular sport. Football in China especially is growing by leaps and bounds. And beyond Europe and South America, Africa is a third continent that produces teams capable of contending. It's only a matter of time before an African team really goes places. And Korea, by the way, made it to the semi-final last time around. Football is the world's sport, and the game has billions of fans even in countries that have no short-term prospect of winning anything - simply because it's a beautiful game. And it's even more fun to play than to watch.
Posted by: Soccer's most prominent America-hater | June 12, 2006 4:44 PM
thank god all this soccer is out of the way before the games start tonite. soccer fans - enjoy some orange slices today.
Posted by: tomke | June 12, 2006 4:44 PM
You obviously have never played the sport and don't understand the strategies and what it takes to be competitive in the world arena. The fact that you said, "There is no more exciting or tense game than baseball" is one sided and almost ignorant.
Watching baseball can sometimes be as exciting as watching grass grow. How many baseball games are 1-0, 2-1 ....etc....a lot. Everybody's entitled to there own opinion, but as a writer I think you shouldn't even consider commenting on any sport but baseball. You probably think Hockey is to slow as well. It's a shame they asked your opinion on something you obviously know so little about. Baseball exciting and tense, whatever?
Posted by: A.Ressing | June 12, 2006 4:48 PM
I've been having a debate at another forum with a European as to why soccer isn't more popular in the United States; I think Marc hits a few right notes, but he does get some things wrong:
1. Baseball is the most boring sport ever created in the entire history of civilization.
2. The World Cup is a far more apt title for a competition than is the World Series (in which only 2 nations have the chance to participate).
On the other hand, I think he's close to the mark about the perception that soccer is viewed as a game for kids; I think most Americans view soccer as a "gateway" sport, a non-threatening game for the under-10 set to play before they move on to the far more intense (and, thus, more macho) American football. Americans are aggressive and arrogant (hey, I'm an American, so I can say this), and that is reflected in our most popular sports; soccer just seems wimpy and silly by comparison.
Posted by: Joe | June 12, 2006 4:51 PM
Your hatred of soccer is totally accepatble, but don't you think you're being a little harsh? I mean, what's so wrong with soccer? It's just like basketball with feet, or hockey minus the sticks. It's yet another sport, and quite frankly, there's nothing un-family like about it. I have bunches of relatives who gather around the tv or computer screen to watch World Cup games just as they do the Super Bowl or the World Series.
I agree with you when you say that soccer is more popular among the younger age groups, those under 12, and that the professional soccer league in the U.S. can barely stand on their feet but why this animosity? Also, what is so wrong with people waving flags and banners of their countries's soccer teams? How is that any reminder of terrorism? It's just people waving banners of the team they support, on an international level. When we go to Hockey games, people wearre the Bruins colors and people wave the little New Englan Patriot's Banners at Patriots Football games.
In reality, there is more to soccer than world competition. I seriously hope that you know that other countries throughout the WORLD have inter-country soccer games, just like we have our own Football Association (the NFL) or hockey league (NHL),they have their own soccer leagues.
The World Cup is merely a large international showdown between the best teams the world can gather and a fight to see which one wins. It's not big in the U.S., but it's the equivalent, if not more, of the World Series in Baseball or the Superbowl in Football.
It's rather rude for one to be so ignorant towards a simple human pastime. But then again, I suppose you don't care if someone calls you rude. I, however, am quite surprised that the Washington Post was willing to post such an article. For a very prestigious newspaper they seem to be lowering their standards (this isn't the only article I'm surprised got published in this newspaper). If this is how the paper chooses to operate from now on, people will find it difficult to believe that the Washington Post once received the Pulitzer Prize.
~One who is not excessively ignorant or proud to be so.
Posted by: Random | June 12, 2006 5:15 PM
|
Visit www.washingtonpost.com/.
| 9,820 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/11/AR2006061100763.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/11/AR2006061100763.html
|
DeLay Exits, Stage (Hard) Right
|
2006061219
|
No one who's seen Tom DeLay operate over the years could have expected the Texas Republican to go gently: The Hammer always comes down hard. But DeLay's farewell address on the House floor last week was nonetheless stunning for its sneering, belligerent partisanship.
This was not the case of a politician who happened to hit a jarring note at just the wrong time. DeLay made clear that he wanted to leave the way he behaved throughout his 22 years in Washington -- contemptuous of the opposition and unrepentant about his cutthroat tactics.
"In preparing for today, I found that it is customary in speeches such as these to reminisce about the good old days of political harmony and across-the-aisle camaraderie, and to lament the bitter, divisive partisan rancor that supposedly now weakens our democracy," DeLay said.
"Well, I can't do that," he said, and that statement had the ring of truth, as if his allergy to bipartisanship is an almost physical limitation. In DeLay's world, "It is not the principled partisan, however obnoxious he may seem to his opponents, who degrades our public debate, but the preening, self-styled statesman who elevates compromise to a first principle."
This is a man who -- now that he's had time to take in the monuments -- sees Lincoln's statue and fixates on the one hand clenched in a "perpetual fist."
I hadn't planned to write about DeLay's departure. He's under indictment in Texas and out of power in Washington; it seemed gratuitous to kick the man on his way out. But DeLay's speech cries out for, if nothing else, a review of the ethical and political wreckage left behind.
Lobbyist Jack Abramoff -- "one of my closest and dearest friends," as DeLay once described him -- was one of the chief financiers of DeLay Inc., trading on his access to DeLay and his office to make millions. DeLay's former communications director Michael Scanlon has pleaded guilty to conspiring to bribe public officials when he left the Hill to work with Abramoff. DeLay's former deputy chief of staff Tony Rudy admitted taking bribes while working for the Texan -- not only the usual grubby gift bag of skybox seats and golfing trips but also $86,000 in payments funneled to his wife's consulting company.
Edwin A. Buckham, DeLay's former chief of staff, surfaces in the court papers as "Lobbyist B," who steered money to the Rudys. (Buckham also put DeLay's wife, Christine, on his payroll, for a total of about $115,000.) Another DeLay chief of staff, Susan Hirschmann, topped a recent list of congressional staffers scooping up free trips; she and her husband accepted $84,000 in freebie travel in a mere 26 months.
DeLay's reaction to all this has been to assert ignorance of the corruption swirling around him. But this behavior was the predictable result of the scorn for the ordinary norms of politics that was DeLay's modus operandi. As his former communications director John Feehery wrote in The Post's Outlook section, "People like Rudy and Scanlon pleased DeLay because they were always pushing the envelope."
These are people who behaved contemptibly in government because they have such contempt for government.
The fact that DeLay himself has managed to amass four rebukes from the normally somnolent House ethics committee is a testament to his excessiveness. He was chastised first in 1999 for trying to bully a trade group out of hiring a retiring Democratic congressman.
In 2004, he was admonished for three more missteps: drafting Federal Aviation Administration officials to help hunt down fleeing Texas Democrats trying to foil his redistricting plan; offering to endorse the son of retiring Rep. Nick Smith (R-Mich.) in exchange for the congressman's vote for the Medicare prescription drug bill; and holding a golf fundraiser for energy companies on the eve of House consideration of energy legislation.
DeLay's money-laundering indictment in Texas arises from his efforts to evade the state's ban on corporate contributions to political campaigns. DeLay and his aides routed the money through Washington, desperate to forge a GOP statehouse majority that would let them redraw the state's congressional districts and cement Republican control of the House. I've had my doubts about whether this should be a criminal prosecution, but the episode illustrates DeLay's relentlessness in the pursuit of political goals.
And this is the core of DeLay's damaging legacy. He dismantled the barriers between the Capitol and K Street, inviting friendly lobbyists -- and he kept a list, literally, of who had given enough to make the grade -- to write legislation. DeLay's pay-to-play House worshipped campaign cash (a committee chairmanship did not come cheap) and stifled dissent, from inside the party or out.
As he addressed his colleagues for the final time, DeLay betrayed no doubt that his tactics had ever edged even slightly across the line, no hint of recognition of the poisonous consequences of GOP authoritarianism under his sway.
There is a place for partisanship, and an honor in hewing to principles that divide the parties. But DeLay's zero-sum politics diminishes the capacity of government to solve difficult problems. Compromise isn't just an occasionally necessary evil, as DeLay sees it. Practiced well, it can be a mechanism for distilling the best public policy, or at least a better one than either faction would achieve on its own.
"If given the chance to do it all again, there's only one thing I would change," DeLay said, jabbing his finger in the air for emphasis. "I would fight even harder."
That was all too believable.
|
No one who's seen Tom DeLay operate over the years could have expected the Texas Republican to go gently: The Hammer always comes down hard. But DeLay's farewell address on the House floor last week was nonetheless stunning for its sneering, belligerent partisanship.
| 22.387755 | 1 | 49 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/11/AR2006061100599.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/11/AR2006061100599.html
|
Smoke of Iraq War 'Drifting Over Lebanon'
|
2006061219
|
TRIPOLI, Lebanon -- Abu Haritha still carries traces of the battles he fought in Iraq, 500 miles away.
On his hand is a black ring, a gift from a fellow insurgent after he was wounded in the torso in Fallujah by shrapnel. "For the memories," Abu Haritha said. Under his black hair, peppered with gray, is a scar where, he recalled, a bullet had grazed his head. Every once in a while, he watches videos lauding attacks carried out on his former battlefield and celebrates the exploits of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, killed last week in Iraq. At times, he regales colleagues with stories of American fear.
But for Abu Haritha, that battle is over. As he sits in this northern city, Lebanon's second-largest, he waits for what he believes will be a more expansive war beyond Iraq, a struggle he casts in the most cataclysmic of terms. In the morning, he jogs; he lifts weights for hours at night. In between, with his cellphone ringing with the Muslim call to prayer, he proselytizes in streets that are growing ever more militant, sprinkled with the black banners that proclaim jihad and occasional slogans celebrating the resistance in Iraq.
"It's an open battle, in any place, at any time," he said, his voice calm. "History has to record that there was resistance."
The war in Iraq has generated some of the most startling images in the Middle East today: a dictator's fall, elections in defiance of insurgent threats and carnage on a scale rarely witnessed. Less visibly, though, the war is building a profound legacy across the Arab world: fear and suspicion over Iraq's repercussions, a generation that casts the Bush administration's policy as an unquestioned war on Islam, and a subterranean reserve of men who, like Abu Haritha, declare that the fight against the United States in Iraq is a model for the future.
Abu Haritha's home, Tripoli, is one of the most visible manifestations of the war, a rough-and-tumble city being transformed by growing radicalism and religious fervor that may long outlast the death of Zarqawi and the U.S. presence in Iraq, now in its fourth year. Here, and elsewhere, that militancy may prove to be the inheritance of both the war and the Bush administration's professed aim of bringing democratic reform to the region.
As those currents gather force, Abu Haritha waits with a certain ease, confident of what is to come.
"Iraq is a badge of honor for every Arab and Muslim to fight the American vampire," he said.
"The Americans may enter Syria, they may enter another country, and we should prepare ourselves for them," Abu Haritha said at a cafe in a crowded alley. "We have to face them so that history won't record they entered our land without confrontation."
No one is quite sure of the number of fighters from Iraq who have returned to Tripoli, its cheap concrete buildings sprawling up hills along the Mediterranean in a region once renowned for its orange trees. Abu Haritha said hundreds went to Iraq during the U.S. invasion in 2003, when the mobilization was so casual that organizers would walk into cafes and openly recruit among jobless Lebanese Sunnis gathered there. He estimates that dozens more have gone since; 50 to 60 of them have died there, he said.
Abu Haritha went by way of Saudi Arabia, after performing the Muslim pilgrimage. He traveled first to neighboring Jordan, then across the Iraqi border with an Islamic relief group that he declined to identify. He said he was in Baghdad, Mosul, then finally Fallujah.
"We couldn't go to Palestine, we couldn't go to Kosovo, we couldn't go to Chechnya," said Abu Haritha, a name he uses as a nom de guerre. "There was no other obstacle before Bush except Iraq." He stopped, narrowing his eyes. "Write 'Bush.' Don't write 'president' before his name," he insisted.
|
TRIPOLI, Lebanon -- Abu Haritha still carries traces of the battles he fought in Iraq, 500 miles away. No one is quite sure of the number of fighters from Iraq who have returned to Tripoli, its cheap concrete buildings sprawling up hills along the Mediterranean in a region once renowned for... Like...
| 13.62069 | 0.965517 | 27.551724 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/11/AR2006061100816.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/11/AR2006061100816.html
|
New Aid for Storm Forecasters
|
2006061219
|
MIAMI -- Scientists at the National Hurricane Center normally deliver findings in a just-the-facts style of prose: wind speeds, pressure readings, compass points. But their description of last year's Hurricane Wilma betrayed a sense of wonderment.
The storm, which strengthened unexpectedly and set records for intensity, was, in the words of the final report, "unprecedented," "explosive" and "incredible." More ominously, in an era in which the public has high expectations for meteorological pronouncements, Wilma had defied predictions.
"The bottom just dropped out," said Naomi Surgi, a hurricane scientist at the Environmental Modeling Center, which is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "We had never in the Atlantic seen that kind of storm intensification. None of the models forecast that."
Meteorologists have made steady improvements in predicting the path of a hurricane, cutting errors roughly in half over the past 15 years or so. But they have long struggled to predict a storm's strength, a critical element because it determines who should and who will evacuate.
This hurricane season, forecasters have hopes of improving their record in predicting storm intensity.
A new computer model, developed by the Environmental Modeling Center and described as the "next generation" in tropical storm forecasting, will be at the disposal of forecasters at the National Hurricane Center here.
Built with $3 million in federal funds, according to Surgi, the Hurricane Weather Research and Forecast Model is expected to improve forecasts of hurricane intensity, size and rainfall.
In far more detail than its predecessors, the new computer model will envision the full three-dimensional hurricane, the circulation at its core and the varying winds from its bottom to its top, several miles up.
"We think it will have a more accurate physical representation of what goes on in the inner core of a hurricane," said Edward N. Rappaport, deputy director of the National Hurricane Center. "We're not sure we're going to see a monumental advance in the very first year, but this will set the framework for more accelerated improvements."
The model will also monitor and predict the waves and ocean temperatures beneath the hurricane, working in finer detail than previous attempts and seeking out "hot spots" in the ocean that might boost intensity. "It is very high-resolution," Surgi said.
Forecasters at the National Hurricane Center rely on about five to 10 models for any particular forecast, Rappaport said, with one known as the "GFDL" as the lead model. The new forecasting model is expected to supplant that.
Wilma eventually walloped the island of Cozumel, Mexico, last October as a Category 4 storm, then battered the Yucatan peninsula. It finally headed to South Florida, making landfall as a Category 3 and causing the largest disruption to electrical service in state history.
|
MIAMI -- Scientists at the National Hurricane Center normally deliver findings in a just-the-facts style of prose: wind speeds, pressure readings, compass points. But their description of last year's Hurricane Wilma betrayed a sense of wonderment.
| 12.108696 | 1 | 46 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/12/AR2006061200731.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/12/AR2006061200731.html
|
White Stripes Court Case Begins
|
2006061219
|
DETROIT -- A trial began Monday on a federal lawsuit by a producer who worked on the first two White Stripes albums and says he played a pivotal role in creating the two-member rock band's signature sound and deserves a share of the royalties.
Jim Diamond, who is listed as co-producer on the band's self-titled first album, released in 1999, filed suit in April in U.S. District Court in Detroit. He is listed as sound mixer on "De Stijl," released in 2000.
The trial started Monday with jury selection before U.S. District Judge Avern Cohn and was expected to take about a week.
The White Stripes deny that Diamond helped create the band's style. The band said in court documents that it paid him $35 an hour for time at his Ghetto Recorders studio, which he started in 1996.
|
A producer who worked on the first two White Stripes albums and says he deserves a share of the royalties gets his day in court.
| 5.892857 | 0.857143 | 6 |
low
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/11/AR2006061101009.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/11/AR2006061101009.html
|
Vera's Shines Again
|
2006061219
|
The future arrived at no more than 10 mph, in a white Chrysler with a gold winged hood ornament.
On a day in January, Vera Freeman drove the quarter-mile to Steve Stanley's house, passing her legendary restaurant, Vera's White Sands, and the community that has bloomed around it near Lusby.
After a half-century as proprietress, Freeman was ready to sell Vera's White Sands. She had chosen Stanley and his wife, Lisa Del Ricco, as her successors. Should they accept, they would take the wheel of her life's work, a dream project that started in 1953 on 800 acres of Calvert County wilderness.
Vera's White Sands -- yacht club, Polynesian mirage, Xanadu for the semi-famous and wholly eccentric -- has been the anomalous treasure of the county since. Tucked two miles down a dead-end road on a Patuxent River tributary, the restaurant has lost some of its luster in the past decade as Freeman entered her nineties and Solomons Island burgeoned into a serious beach destination six miles south.
It could have been the end for Vera's -- several million dollars for the land and a bulldozer for the legend.
But Stanley, who grew up in Prince George's County, accepted Freeman's offer. He and Del Ricco bought the property and have been gutting and renovating since, using mostly friends and volunteers.
Their mission: to restore Vera's to its former glory by June 24, when a poker run fleet from the Chesapeake Bay Power Boat Association will dock at the restaurant for drinks and an overnight stay -- just like the yachtsmen of yesteryear.
Robert Mitchum strode off his yacht, into Vera's and uttered, "Gimme a drink, right away."
The alcohol hadn't been unloaded yet. The hostess improvised.
"Come down to the house, and we can make you a drink faster," Freeman told him. Mitch and his wife retired to her Moroccan-style villa next door -- and returned several times throughout the early '60s.
Freeman told this story, invigorated by the memory, over lunch in a Solomons Island eatery. Anywhere else and people would've gawked at her appearance: a captain's hat atop bright white hair, a golden wrap hugging her leopard-print dress, her veined skin a molten version of the pink marble floor in her villa. Her voice is a creak, and she is slowed by time -- she won't reveal her exact age -- but Freeman is still a vision of old-world glamour.
She grew up on the Crow Indian Reservation in Wyola, Mont., and jetted to Hollywood to be a star. While working coaxial cables for a phone company, she went on a blind date with optometrist Effrus "Doc" Freeman, who told her he did Bogart's and Bacall's eyes.
|
The future arrived at no more than 10 mph, in a white Chrysler with a gold winged hood ornament. Robert Mitchum strode off his yacht, into Vera's and uttered, "Gimme a drink, right away." With the vigor of a proud mother, Del Ricco hung the liquor license beside the bar. The white Chrysler pulled...
| 8.333333 | 0.848485 | 14.30303 |
low
|
medium
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/11/AR2006061100776.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/11/AR2006061100776.html
|
Arizona Race Tests a Hard Line on Immigration
|
2006061219
|
TEMPE, Ariz. -- The Republican in the race is a firebrand by disposition and design. The Democrat is so low-key his advisers make a point of saying he really is energetic.
The Republican is an immigration hawk who favors cracking down on illegal immigrants and wrote a book called "Whatever It Takes." The Democrat calls himself an immigration realist who would combine tighter border controls with a path toward legal status.
At 47, Republican Rep. J.D. Hayworth has nearly 12 years of experience in Congress. At 65, Democrat Harry Mitchell has none. He does, however, have an artful 35-foot statue in his honor here, where the municipal center and a bar across the street are named for him.
Hayworth is running hard for reelection, describing himself to GOP campaign workers as "not real subtle, and you know exactly where I stand." Mitchell is a local political legend who contends that Hayworth "has a lot of explaining to do," not least about his ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
The race for Arizona's Republican-dominated 5th District is considered competitive for the first time in a decade. Analysts point to troubles in the White House and Congress, as well as Hayworth's outsize profile on immigration. It all makes for an intriguing contest in an unpredictable state where pollsters see a shift to the center.
It also makes the race something of a referendum on immigration policy.
"Right now, it looks as though the playing field is leveling off," said analyst Earl de Burgh, research director for the independent Rocky Mountain Poll. "Whether Mitchell has the panache to deliver the blow to Hayworth's jaw, I don't know."
Amy Walter, who follows House races for the Cook Political Report, believes Hayworth has the edge in a district that has eight registered Republicans for every five registered Democrats. But the district's substantial slice of independents complicates the picture, as does the image of local Republicans as more moderate and temperate than their congressman.
Two other challenges to Arizona Republicans are being watched closely because of the potential for a Democratic upset. One is the battle to replace retiring Rep. Jim Kolbe (R) in southeastern Arizona's 8th District. The other is the effort by wealthy Phoenix developer Jim Pederson (D) to topple Sen. Jon Kyl (R), a conservative.
"This is no longer the country of Barry Goldwater. There's a thrust toward centrism in Arizona that's very apparent," de Burgh said.
With six terms in Congress, Hayworth, a former offensive lineman, has a way of commanding a stage. He is a large man, though not nearly as large as he used to be. He lost 110 pounds from his peak of 345, thanks to pre-dawn workouts and a stapled stomach.
He did time as a spring-training announcer and Phoenix sports anchor and does dead-on impressions of politicians, notably Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) and former vice president Al Gore. He rode the 1994 Republican wave into Congress and cultivated a reputation as a quotable conservative, recently becoming a cable news regular.
|
TEMPE, Ariz. -- The Republican in the race is a firebrand by disposition and design. The Democrat is so low-key his advisers make a point of saying he really is energetic.
| 16.888889 | 1 | 36 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060901477.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060901477.html
|
Soccer With a Side of Slavery
|
2006061019
|
"It is truly scandalous. People are talking about women, importing them to satisfy the base instincts of people associated with football. It is humiliating enough for me that football is linked with alcohol and violence. But this is worse. It is slaves that will come and be put into houses. Human beings are being talked about like cattle, and football is linked with that."
-- Raymond Domenech, coach of the French World Cup soccer team
As the 2006 World Cup games get underway in Germany, tourists and soccer fans are being joined at the various competition venues by denizens of an international world of crime where human beings are bought and sold for profit.
Human trafficking is the third-largest criminal industry in the world, after arms and drugs. While soccer fans anticipate the excitement of the games, many of us in the anti-trafficking movement are deeply troubled by the expected surge of sex trafficking in Germany to meet the demand for commercial sex associated with the World Cup. It is estimated that more than 40,000 women and children will be imported to Germany during the month-long competition to provide commercial sex in the "mega-brothels," "quickie shacks," other legalized venues and vast underground networks that exist in Germany.
The traffickers and those who benefit from sex trafficking promote an image of women freely choosing to be involved in prostitution, making huge amounts of money at it and in general having a great time. It is the "Pretty Woman" myth, which many apparently like to believe in order to justify their inaction or ignorance on the issue.
But as our organization, Polaris Project, and many others like it that work every day with people in the sex industry know, this image does not reflect the reality on the streets and in the brothels for a majority of women and children.
In fact this is a world where violence and psychological abuse by the pimps, traffickers and customers are nearly ubiquitous. Research has shown that those who are prostituted face a 62 percent chance of being raped or gang-raped, a 73 percent chance of being physically assaulted, and a chance of dying that is 40 times greater than that of the average person in their age group. There is nothing "pretty" about the sex industry for the majority of people it victimizes.
From our experience as service providers for victims of trafficking, we know that large sporting events, conventions and other such gatherings are closely tied to a spike in demand for commercial sex and, in turn, for sex trafficking. Behind the trophies and cheers is the hidden suffering of women and children who bear the brunt of violence and abuse resulting from the rise in demand. Because of the link between demand and sex trafficking, we are troubled to see that the State Department gave Germany a Tier 1 compliance ranking in its annual Trafficking in Persons report released earlier this week, despite the German government's failure to address this problem.
Exacerbating all of the factors described above are the legalization of pimping and of the buying of commercial sex. The traffickers support legalization because they know that "regulation" has, in practice, meant a thin layer of regulated commercial sex businesses that have opted into the system, resting on top of a far larger group of illegal operations. The underground dealers have correctly calculated that greater profits can be generated through not paying taxes, ignoring basic safety standards for women and engaging in trafficking of children. Without a commensurately large, and politically unrealistic, apparatus to meaningfully monitor and police the thousands of underground operations, the increase in demand under a legalized system dramatically drives the expansion of this sector of sex trafficking. Unlike the success seen in countries such as Sweden, with its policies that decriminalize prostituted women and children but criminalize the buyers and controllers, failure has been the hallmark of the social experiment of full legalization.
The modern-day slave trade is the fastest-growing criminal industry in the world. There should be no country that is uncertain in its opposition to all the things that facilitate this egregious crime. Those who fail to act will surely face international condemnation now, and the judgment of history in the future. A time will come when they will be asked, "Where did you stand? What did you do?" We hope that the German government, soccer fans and governments and people everywhere, will be able to answer in sound conscience: We stood with the oppressed, and did everything in our power to stop these abuses.
The writers are co-executive directors and co-founders of Polaris Project, a Washington-based agency combating human trafficking and modern-day slavery.
|
An estimated 40,000 women and children will be imported into Germany to provide commercial sex during the World Cup -- helping to make sex trafficking the fastest-growing criminal industry in the world.
| 24.189189 | 0.837838 | 4.027027 |
medium
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/benchconference/2006/06/post_5.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061019id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/benchconference/2006/06/post_5.html
|
Making a Bad Situation Worse in Chicago
|
2006061019
|
I wouldn't know R. Kelly if the singer came up to me and handed me his CDs. And quite frankly I really didn't intend to follow closely his child pornography case which is apparently based upon a videotape of Kelly allegedly having sex with a girl who was 13 or 14 at the time. It's just not my kind of case.
But that has changed somewhat in light of a disappointing ruling today by a Chicago judge who intends to show the videotape to the public in open court during Kelly's trial over the objections of both defense attorneys and prosecutors. That's right. If you get to court early enough that day, you'll be able to see free child pornography courtesy of the Illinois state courts.
Cook County Criminal Court Judge Vincent Gaughan says he is going to allow the tape to be played in open court because it "is the whole crux and linchpin of the case. If there was no tape, we wouldn't have a case... I find there is not an overarching interest for excluding the public and the press from the portion of the trial that is the linchpin." Of course, that rationale has not stopped scores of judges all over America recently from withholding from public view evidence that is vital for both the government and defendants in criminal cases, especially in terrorism cases, based upon the flimsiest of arguments offered by federal prosecutors.
Now, you could argue, as many of my journalist friends will, that Judge Gaughan has got it right. That if and when judges err they should err on the side of conducting more of their trials in the open. But whomever is on that tape with Kelly deserves better than to have her worst nightmare played out in front of anyone and everyone in open court. The easy and smart choice here would have been to allow the video to be played to the jury and perhaps to a group of pool reporters, who then could report on what they observed to the rest of us. Courtrooms are sealed off all the time when sensitive information is offered at trial. And this courtroom could have been as well. This is a ruling that turns a trashy tabloid case into an even more sorry tale of how the legal system can sometimes take a bad situation and make it worse.
By | June 9, 2006; 4:00 PM ET Previous: A Friday Potpourri | Next: Domestic Spy Case Comes to Court
I'd say just let the jury view the tape and keep the media out of it -- as the tabloids will have a field day with the lurid details. Look at the hoopla over Michael Jackson (who I believe was convicted in the press and in the media long before trial).
And you're correct on protecting the victim in the case, as s/he can be revictimized (especially since in some areas of the country victims can't say, "No I don't want to goto court", the prosecutor can force it. That's potentially abusive via the DA and the defense.
Posted by: SandyK | June 9, 2006 08:08 PM
Actually, SandyK, I think the more likely consequence of this trial is that in the future other victims will be less likely to turn in their victimizers. It's pretty clear that at least in that courtroom, if you are a victim of rape that all the details will be aired fully in public. While the victims shouldn't have to be ashamed, they often are.
Posted by: Cujo359 | June 9, 2006 10:20 PM
In oder to have the fairest trial, which is to say (given the evidence) in order to convict and make it stick, they should show the evidence in open court. How large is the court? Very quickly spectators are too far away to see much, most seats won't have a good view. What is important is to be open, so it does not become an issue on appeal. You gotta break a few eggs to make the omelet, in this case.
Posted by: ck | June 9, 2006 11:48 PM
Yep. Airing the video tape in open court will have a chill effect on reporting rape, incest and pedophilia (parents would not want their kid to be exploited 3x, nor dishonor the family name in the media -- as it shows tabloids and the media don't keep identities hidden well).
The issue isn't only with the Chicago courtroom, it's the green light this gives to show it in ANY courtroom in the USA.
Some courtrooms aren't very large, enough to hold but 50 or less people, which is close enough to view the details. Keep in mind a large TV will be used so the jury at least can see the details, not some 13" model @ 20 feet away.
Posted by: SandyK | June 10, 2006 12:54 AM
I lean towards agreeing with Mr. Cohen, however, in playing devil's advocate I ask: -Isn't this tape already available across the internet to the public anyway? It snuck out to the public shortly after the news broke. -R.Kelly is presumed innocent and did plead not guilty. Isn't this saying, "hey, that isn't me on that tape." Yet his lawyers objected to the showing. Why? -The issue may come down to whether you think trials should be public or not. We may not be one of the 12 jury members, but ought we be able to see the case against the accused? http://castawayre.blogspot.com
Posted by: R.Enochs | June 10, 2006 02:26 AM
This may be the most asinine ruling ever issued by a sitting US jurist, which is saying something. First, the judge has authorized the public display of material, which, if displayed by any other peson in any other venue, would constitute a federal felony. I don't recall Justice Stevens saying "I know it when I show it." Second, the public airing of the tape is no less a violation of the victim than the original act was. Finally, the fact of act and its videotaping are the crime and the tape would be unduly inflammatory and prejudicial - and not just to the defendant. Can a jury see and hear an underage fan who is clearly willingly, even enthusiasticallty, participating in sex with a recording icon and not have it create a perception of consensuality where no such consent can legally exist?
Posted by: Clarkpark | June 10, 2006 07:01 AM
Video is very persuasive in applying guilt or innocence. Usually allowing it in as evidence (like those camera shots of burglaries and such) isn't an issue and will prove guilt if validated. But as you point out showing child pornography in the courtroom is also skirting the Law on displaying illegal content. If we can't watch child pornography without going to jail and being listed as sex offenders, the court shouldn't have such access to show it to the entire courtroom. It's a double-standard, and one that opens the door of, "If so-and-so judge claims it's okay to view it in court, it's okay to view it anyway." An ugly slippery slope.
It's a bad precident anyway it's sliced.
Posted by: SandyK | June 10, 2006 09:36 AM
Since when did videotaping sex with minors become illegal?
Posted by: derek k | June 10, 2006 10:12 AM
I hear R Enoch's arguments. But I completely disagree with them. There is always a balancing test between the public's right to know and the value of public trials and the rights of the individuals and the fear of, as I believe Sandy mentioned, fewer victims coming forward. As the author points out, courtrooms are sealed off all the time when sensitive information is offered at trial. Moroever, I don't think the fact that this is available on the Interent argues for public disclosure: I think it argues just the opposite. I don't know much about the facts of this case. But you have to feel awful for the girl and her family.
Posted by: | June 10, 2006 11:27 AM
Perhaps the minor's identity cannot be ascertained by the video, or perhaps she's black, or at least dark skinned, and hence has less legal protection than the lighter skined elements of the population.
Posted by: Dave, Freeport, IL | June 10, 2006 11:28 AM
I disagree with you. To suggest that a "pool of reporters" is somehow a substitute for an "open court" proceeding to continue the glorification of the media types who, after all, are part of the process of the tabloid journalism you decry.
This is a criminal trial and criminal trials, as all trials, are required to be open. The judge is not broadcasting this trial as the nutcake in California did with the O.J. Simpson trial.
Clearly, all agree that the judge, jury and counsel should see the videotape. If there are spectators in the court, including reporters who want to see it, whether out of legitimate involvement in the case, an assignment to report on it, or out of voyeurism, it makes no difference to the rest of us.
The tape has already been described by you - someone having sex with a teenager, perhaps 13 or 14. What additional description do you want from a pool of reporters?
I think your point is silly and not thought out at all.
The judge's ruling is well within his discretion. This is not a national security case where classified evidence needs to be sealed.
Posted by: AM | June 10, 2006 12:21 PM
As someone who has freely admitted to ignoring the case up front, please make sure you check your facts before making accusatory statements. I'm not an R. Kelly fan or supporter, but the girl in the video was not raped-- in fact, it was initially determined that they didn't even have intercourse, which was why certain charges were dropped. I don't think you can say it's this girls "worst nightmare", if she was a willing participant. And yes, I understand she was a minor, and the act was deplorable, but please make sure you follow up on your facts before commenting on something.
Posted by: | June 10, 2006 12:58 PM
Ron Miller wrote: =========================================== "As the author points out, courtrooms are sealed off all the time when sensitive information is offered at trial." ===========================================
Yes, and airing such a video in court is equal to the DA or defense attorney bringing in sex toys to describe a rape scene (since they were found in a room of the victim). Sometimes vivid graphical aids aren't needed, especially since it turns the court into a peepshow.
This isn't "Night Court" of a SNL skit, this is a real courtroom and the public expects the law profession to act professional, not turn the courtroom into a WWF match, complete with a three-ring circus of tabloid journalism. It'll deny justice just for tom foolery.
Posted by: SandyK | June 10, 2006 02:06 PM
That videotape was on the internet years ago. it may be really bad subject matter, but millions of people have already seen it. apparently this jury doesn't get internet forwards...
Posted by: Rideout | June 10, 2006 08:33 PM
If the video tape wasn't already in the public sphere and readily downloadable off the internet, then an argument could be made for closing the proceedings, but this is not the case. As you stated above, the argument "that if and when judges err they should err on the side of conducting more of their trials in the open" applies here because the video is already public sphere and the privacy of the victim cannot be protected.
Posted by: Don, Austin | June 10, 2006 10:20 PM
Wow, this one's prettty icky! ("Icky" is the correct legal term, right?) I guess that ultimately & rationally, I have to side with the judge on this one. The legal arguments against statutory rape and child pornography have always been grounded on the act of child abuse, not on potential damage to reputation of the abused. And it's more than a little bizarre to ask that a judge refuse to allow the public to observe the presentation of evidence that the public could view on the internet with very little effort.
Posted by: Bob S. | June 11, 2006 04:49 AM
I hate myself for doing this (normally the subject is sufficient for comment), but I'm curious:
Sandy K: What do, "bringing in sex toys to describe a rape scene (since they were found in a room of the victim)" - Posted by: SandyK | June 10, 2006 02:06 PM - and closing a courtroom to the public have to do with each other?
Have you perhaps sidetracked yourself here? I'm not aware that anyone has seriously questioned the propriety of introducing the videotape as evidence.
Just wondering what the analogy was intended to convey.
Posted by: Bob S. | June 11, 2006 05:00 AM
Sandy K. - A quick follow-up (after doing additional reading & thinking):
Just to be clear, I don't have any big philosophical disagreement with your feeling (as expressed in all your posts prior to the one referenced above) that the court should be closed to the public for the presentation of this particular piece of evidence. I think that I'd go the other way in this set of circumstances, but your position is reasonable and you've defended it well.
I lost you when you started to speak of sex toys, however. The only question here is about the presence of the public, not about the evidence to be presented, right?
Posted by: Bob S. | June 11, 2006 05:27 AM
That reference came from an actual case where a DA even posed for pictures with a dildo from a crime scene.
It's antics like that to keeps me from wanting any video/aid or whatever to be included for public browsing, as the potential of abuse is great. It turns a courtroom into a peep show and a mockery to the court, which isn't it's purpose.
Posted by: SandyK | June 11, 2006 09:10 AM
I sent this letter to the Chicago Tribune in regards to the the tape being shown in public and they did not have the courage to publish it. Black women especially girls are more likely to be raped and less likely to report it. There's really no reason and my brother is a prosecuter in Baltimore and out of the many cases that he has seen the one thing that is consistent is the victim's fear to go public, to show this tape, except for the utter disprect for the color of the victim. Rape is a horrendous crime that the black community does not take seriously and since the victim has been argued to be thirteen - it means that the crime would fall under stautory rape willing yes, but the capacity to say yes is dimmished by age. I can only assume that the writers above are not black and therefore cannot relate to the horror of the violation of a black body - yes I'm going there. In my letter I cite legal prescedent where a judge chose to protect the supposed victim because of her age even though the defense argued that she was a willing participant. I also should add that the victim was sixteen at the time and the case (highly visible and infamous) went in favor of the victim. I hope that you may follow up your very brave article with another since many women of color who have been assaulted are sitting alone in the dark, perceiving correctly that no one hears their cries.
PS. The video has been deemed child pornagraphy and thus is illegal to own, despite it's leak on the internet.
re: Judge: R. Kelly tape can be shown to public
It seems in Cook County only white girls/women who are raped are worthy of any respect. Not only has the R. Kelly pornography trial taken a dismal amount of time to be heard, Justice Vincent Gaughan has chosen to compound the matter by allowing the public to view the tape of R. Kelly urinating on a person whom prosecutors claim was a fourteen year old girl at the time. His reasoning, "This is the whole crux and linchpin of the case. If there was no tape, we wouldn't have a case," the judge said. "I find there is not an overarching interest for excluding the public and the press from the portion of the trial that is the linchpin."
As congress and President Bush work to enact tougher child pornography laws Justice Gaughan seeks to circumvent them. What is value in showing this tape to the public? This young woman still has to go on with her life regardless of whether Mr.. Kelly is convicted or not. I highly doubt if this was a young white woman this tape would be put on display for the public's titillation.
In another highly publicized case involving a taped assault, the Orange County gang rape case where the defendants and victim were white, Judge Francisco allowed the tape into evidence because of the strength of the video for the prosecution stating, "The defendant's visual disregard for another is so graphic that this court would reasonably anticipate that any prosecuting agency would endeavor to use all of its resources to properly prosecute the alleged crimes." Yet, he blocked access of the tape to the public and the media in order to shield the victim from from further humiliation. Why does this young woman not deserve the same courtesy?
This case is an embarrassment since it's public record that Mr. Kelly attempted to marry a fifteen year old Aaliyah. Further proof that America views black women's bodies as nothing more than chattel. Cook County residents should look into how much tax payer money has wasted while this man is free to earn millions of dollars as the "Pied Piper" and next election and send Justice Gaughan packing.
CD Gayle Los Angeles, CA
Posted by: | June 13, 2006 12:09 AM
I believe this judge is correct in having this sex tape shown in court. This is key evidence, and to crush all doubts and rumors, it should be played in court. The problem with our country, U.S., is that we are suffering from perverted sexual obsessity. The last couple of years I have read of many high ranking officials and professionals being arrested and charged with sex crimes. I mean doctors, lawyers, priests, the president, politicians, etc., etc., etc. Our country is getting porno-filthy minute by minute. U.S., us, we need our country sexually cleaned up.
Posted by: show it | July 28, 2006 12:50 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
|
Visit www.washingtonpost.com/.
| 1,881 | 0 | 0 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060901476.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060901476.html
|
A Lesson in How Not to Leave
|
2006061019
|
With the East Timorese military split into two warring camps, soldiers loyal to the government laid siege to police headquarters last month. A proposal for ending the standoff called for all parties to disarm, and the police complied. When the unarmed officers came outside, the soldiers gunned them down.
This is what has become of East Timor, until recently touted as a success story of U.N. peacekeeping. Yet it was the United Nations that laid the groundwork for this degeneration by reducing its missions in East Timor too much, too soon and too abruptly.
Walking around the capital city Dili earlier this year, we saw throngs of unemployed, idle young men. The large international presence had provided temporary relief by hiring local support staff and by pumping dollars and demand into the economy. But when most of the foreigners left a year ago, the jobs disappeared.
When a U.N. mission's mandate runs out, the exodus of personnel leaves a gaping hole in the economy. In tiny East Timor, the U.N. presence peaked at upward of 10,000 peacekeepers and transitional staff after the 1999 vote to break from Indonesia. In 2002, when East Timor officially declared independence, the size of the mission was cut in half, eliminating 800 local staff positions in less than two months. Another massive drawdown three years later axed 500 more local jobs in a matter of weeks. Each drawdown results in a glut of unemployed vying for precious few opportunities in an economy too small to absorb the workers.
The United Nations cannot be expected to stay indefinitely just to create a job market for locals, but it can take steps to mitigate the effects of its departure. If it does not, it will continue to leave scores of jobless people in its wake after each mission to an economically weak country -- helping to set the stage for future unrest.
To this end, the United Nations should plan for longer and more gradual withdrawals from nation-building missions. Members of the Security Council sought an early exit from East Timor, despite the recommendations of the secretary general and a plea from the young nation's president. The Security Council must resist the urge to do peacekeeping on the cheap.
The deadline-driven nature of U.N. mandates encourages a system in which the native government has many responsibilities suddenly handed over to it and then has logistical support taken away on the date the mission ends. The shifting of responsibilities to a nascent government should begin as early as possible, but it should then be drawn out over a longer period. After handing off one area of authority, U.N. personnel should remain available to help work out the kinks that inevitably arise. When external support is no longer necessary, those staffers can withdraw, and the focus can shift to giving the fledgling government its next dose of responsibility.
As the government's burden increases, it should be encouraged to expand its ranks. Donor nations may desire a small, efficient government, but in a post-conflict country with a meager private sector, it makes sense for the government to create jobs in administration and infrastructure development. Sadly, in East Timor, many unemployed youths have now turned to violence, roaming the streets as part of armed gangs.
Bolstering the civil service also increases the number of people with a vested interest in the stability of the government. For a country to succeed in recovering from conflict, it needs strong public institutions. This was a key factor in the success of the U.N.-administered transition in Namibia, which inherited its institutions from South Africa and remains relatively stable 15 years later.
East Timor was progressing well, but it was not ready to be cast adrift. The United Nations pared down its mission to fewer than 150 people (all advisers) even before a fully functioning judicial system was in place. Handicapped by a lack of local judges proficient in the required Portuguese legal language, the judiciary consisted of a skeleton staff of international judges.
The highly unpopular prime minister whose actions caused the military to fracture now refuses to give up his authority, and yet the East Timorese aren't scheduled to go to the polls again until next year. Elections are popularly perceived as a post-conflict exit strategy, but strong, effective peace-and-stability operations should remain in place at least through two consecutive parliamentary elections. Staying close helps ensure a peaceful first transition between native governments.
Unfortunately, nations are often all too eager to withdraw their military personnel, risking flare-ups that may lead to costlier interventions in the future. The current mission to East Timor contains no security component whatsoever -- not a single U.N. peacekeeper or police officer beyond advisers was present when the latest round of violence erupted. Ultimately, all arguments about nation-building are irrelevant if there is inadequate security for it even to be attempted.
Not long ago, East Timor was a model of how to get things right. Now, it should serve as a lesson in how not to get things wrong.
J.J. Messner is the director of programs at the International Peace Operations Association. Emily Messner writes The Debate, an opinion blog at washingtonpost.com.
|
Not long ago, East Timor was a model of how to get things right. Now, it should serve as a lesson in how not to get things wrong.
| 30.6875 | 1 | 32 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060902029.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060902029.html
|
Lacrosse Players' Case a Trial for Parents
|
2006061019
|
As the mother of a Duke University lacrosse player, Tracy Tkac endured her worst moment while watching the news at home in Gaithersburg. There on national television was her son Chris's face on an outlaw-style wanted poster.
A woman hired to strip at a team party had told police she had been raped by three lacrosse players, and the police in Durham, N.C., accused the team of stonewalling the investigation. "Please come forward," said the poster, which featured nearly every one of the 47 students on the team and was shown hanging on a campus wall.
"The people that I entrusted my son's education to, allowing those posters to go up on the walls of their private institution," Tkac said.
In Chevy Chase, Sally Fogarty and her husband, parents of Gibbs Fogarty, hunkered down, avoiding social settings where the Duke case was the topic of discussion. "I could not risk hearing my friends express doubt over my son, because I was afraid the friendships would be ruined," Fogarty said.
John Walsh watched what he called a "rolling tide" wash over his son Johnny's team in a presumption of guilt. "In a fell swoop -- a lightning bolt -- everything is taken from them," said Walsh, a health administrator who lives in Bethesda.
Feeling abandoned, angry and distraught over their sons' futures, the parents bonded most through the shared conviction that everyone on the team is innocent.
Nine players are from the Washington area, and five are graduates of the Landon School in Bethesda. Their parents, who had spent years together on bleacher seats and carpool duty, were suddenly each other's counselors -- as well as detectives and legal experts, Googling criminal procedure and DNA research. They were careful with e-mails, fearful they could be intercepted and somehow used against their sons. Their nights were spent glued to cable to see what had happened in Durham that day.
Over the months, tensions erupted over legal strategies and fears of which son might be handcuffed next. The less-affluent parents have worried about how to pay legal bills. The wealthy ones swore they would spend every last penny clearing the names of the indicted.
The hardest part has been remaining silent as their sons were cast as thuggish, racist, elite jocks.
"I know these boys," Walsh said.
Whether the parents' view of their sons is the full picture will come out in court. District Attorney Michael B. Nifong has stopped making statements and would not comment for this report. He is proceeding with his cases against three Duke players accused of first-degree rape and kidnapping.
Four local families -- all of players not charged -- agreed to interviews, providing a window into an ordeal that for many began with a simple phone call from a son saying that there had been a party.
|
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.
| 13.285714 | 0.547619 | 0.738095 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060901774.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060901774.html
|
Beltway's Outer Loop Is the Place Not to Be
|
2006061019
|
Crews at the Woodrow Wilson Bridge began work last night on the lane shifts that are likely to cause traffic backups all weekend long on northbound Interstate 95 but that will result in the opening of the bridge's first new span.
Despite sporadic showers, contractors began at 8 p.m. to set up orange barrels to close ramps at Route 1, said Michelle Holland, spokeswoman for the Wilson Bridge Project. They proceeded to close down lanes on the outer loop about 9:20 p.m., aided by scores of cones and police cars with lights flashing.
By 10:30 p.m., workers had narrowed the interstate to one northbound lane, and traffic was backed up for about a mile to Telegraph Road, said John Undeland, a project spokesman.
By the end of this weekend, all vehicles on the Capital Beltway's outer loop will cross the Potomac River over the new span. And in a little more than a month, inner loop traffic also will move onto the new structure.
The project's managers have been warning for weeks that pain will come before the gain: The shift requires that outer loop traffic be narrowed to a single lane as it nears the bridge, giving crews time to pave the approaches and exits.
The lane closures and detours could back up traffic for miles, delaying travelers from one to four hours. Lanes on the Virginia side will be milled down about 30 inches and then repaved. On the Maryland side, the lanes to the bridge will be built up about 15 inches.
If the work goes according to schedule, the first vehicles will cross the new span today.
The effort is scheduled to be completed by 5 a.m. Monday. Until then, here are some tips for motorists traveling in the area:
To prevent hours-long delays, tens of thousands of motorists will have to pay attention to highway signs, plan routes well and be patient. Consider the odds on that, and instead try to avoid the area entirely.
To help divert northbound I-95 traffic, the Springfield interchange ramp from northbound I-95 toward the Wilson Bridge will be closed. Local traffic will be directed to Interstate 395 and the 14th Street Bridge, and long-distance travelers will be routed to northbound Interstate 495 across the American Legion Bridge.
Long-distance travelers should consider as an alternative Route 301, which is nearly equal in mileage to taking I-95 across the Wilson Bridge.
Signs posted on I-95 well before the Beltway should help long-distance drivers pick alternate routes to avoid delays.
Camera views of highways are available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/traffic , and more about the project can be found at http://www.wilsonbridge.com/ .
More information and weekend updates are available by phone at 877-463-6992. Drivers can also listen for information on 1620 AM radio as they approach the bridge.
The work involved in opening the new span is in addition to the effort underway last night and tonight to rebuild the Route 210 interchange on the Maryland side of the bridge.
|
Crews at the Woodrow Wilson Bridge began work last night on the lane shifts that are likely to cause traffic backups all weekend long on northbound Interstate 95 but that will result in the opening of the bridge's first new span.
| 13.232558 | 1 | 43 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060900864.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060900864.html
|
Appeals Court Sides With White House on Wiretaps
|
2006061019
|
Companies that provide Web-based telecommunications services must allow wiretapping by law enforcement officials, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday.
The ruling upholds a Federal Communications Commission decision that companies such as Vonage Holdings Corp., the country's largest provider of Internet phone service, are under the same legal obligation as telephone companies. The requirement for a wiretap-compatible system could mean higher expenses for broadband service companies, and it marks the further spread of regulation into Internet phone services.
The FCC issued its ruling based on Justice Department concerns that new technology would not accommodate police wiretaps under the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, known as CALEA.
Judge David B. Sentelle, writing for a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, said that the FCC "offered a reasonable interpretation" of the law.
In dissent, Judge Harry T. Edwards argued the law should not apply to information services such as broadband Internet phone providers.
The law "does not give the FCC unlimited authority to regulate every telecommunications service that might conceivably be used to assist law enforcement," he wrote.
The American Council on Education, worried that the FCC directive would place new costs on university networks, challenged the FCC decision and argued that information services should be exempt from the law.
The court ruled that private networks, such as those at universities, are exempt. Peer-to-peer communications, such as instant messaging programs, are also beyond the law's reach because they communicate between computers.
Matthew A. Brill, a lawyer with Latham & Watkins LLP in Washington who argued the case, said he was disappointed the FCC ruling was upheld but "pleased the court recognized the law exempts private networks, which was one of our goals."
He said he is considering whether to appeal.
The requirement for equipment compatible with government surveillance could "impose significant costs to anyone who wants to install a [commercial] broadband network," said Philip J. Weiser, a professor of law and telecommunications at the University of Colorado.
"Any provider of broadband networks now needs to make accounts wire-tappable," he said. "That's not the way they're engineered and it's certainly not the cheapest way."
Those costs most likely will squeeze company profits rather than be passed on to customers, said Blair Levin, who analyzes telecommunication regulation for Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., a financial services firm.
"The trend is to bring the Internet voice business model into parity with traditional voice business models, and that trend will continue," he said.
Further regulation of Web-based phone services probably will continue as well. Legislation already has passed forcing Internet phone providers to connect emergency calls to local 911 dispatchers, which has been challenged by several providers. The FCC also may require Internet phone companies to pay into a fund for universal telephone service.
|
Companies that provide Web-based telecommunications services must allow wiretapping by law enforcement officials, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday.
| 24.391304 | 1 | 23 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060802087.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060802087.html
|
House Votes to Ease Cable TV Licensing for Phone Companies
|
2006061019
|
The House of Representatives yesterday passed a bill making it easier for phone companies to offer video programming, bringing consumers a step closer to having more choices for their cable TV service.
The bill, which passed by a 321 to 101 vote, would allow companies such as Verizon Communications Inc. to get television franchises by applying to the Federal Communications Commission rather than by negotiating them one by one with thousands of municipalities.
The vote, a defeat for the cable industry, shifts attention to the Senate, where telecom analysts believe it will be harder to pass similar legislation this year.
"We think it's going to be a problem getting it out of the Senate. It's certainly possible, but we think it's more likely going to be tied up there," said Blair Levin, an analyst with Stifel Nicolaus & Co.
The House bill would allow new video providers to obtain cable TV franchises 30 days after they file a request with the FCC. Currently, it can take months to negotiate franchises with municipalities.
Critics of the bill include cities and other localities, which resent the loss of control over the franchising process, as well as "net neutrality" proponents, who argue that the measure does not go far enough to preserve consumers' ability to get whatever content they want over the Internet.
"Net neutrality" advocates believe that phone and cable companies should be barred from blocking, slowing down or otherwise discriminating against the Internet content that flows over their networks. They fear network owners will cut deals to give some content providers priority delivery, putting those who don't pay for this at a disadvantage.
Phone and cable companies say they will not block Web sites but should be allowed to manage their networks -- which handle an ever-increasing amount of traffic -- and to charge more to those who want guaranteed fast delivery.
The House rejected by a vote of 152 to 269 an amendment sponsored by Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) that would have required phone and cable companies to run their networks in a "nondiscriminatory" manner.
Instead, lawmakers adopted a weaker provision that would seek full access to content for consumers but would not explicitly forbid network owners from giving some content favorable or unfavorable treatment. The provision also bars the FCC from writing detailed rules to enforce "net neutrality."
"The telephone companies have made clear that they can create a fast lane that will require extra payments and a slow lane for everyone else who can't afford it. That is a fundamental change in the history of the Internet, and it will adversely affect millions of Internet users across our country," Markey said in an interview before his amendment was voted down.
During the debate, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), chairman of the House Commerce Committee, said the bill sought to "strike the right balance between ensuring that the public Internet remains an open, vibrant marketplace and ensuring that Congress does not hand the FCC a blank check to regulate Internet services.
"We don't need anybody to be the first secretary of the Internet," he added.
|
The House of Representatives yesterday passed a bill making it easier for phone companies to offer video programming, bringing consumers a step closer to having more choices for their cable TV service.
| 17.705882 | 1 | 34 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060901445.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060901445.html
|
Iraq War Critic Surprises Democrats
|
2006061019
|
Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), one of the Democrats' leading antiwar voices, startled his political colleagues yesterday by announcing he would seek a senior leadership position if the Democrats win control of the House in November.
In a letter that he circulated on the floor during a series of votes, Murtha said he is eyeing the No. 2 position. "If we prevail as I hope and know we will and return to the majority this next Congress, I have decided to run for the open seat of the Majority Leader," Murtha wrote.
The presumed favorite for that job had been the current No. 2 House Democrat, Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), with whom Murtha has long had testy relations. Hoyer, like many of his political colleagues, greeted Murtha's announcement with annoyance and exasperation, given that the election remains five months off and a Democratic victory is by no means assured.
"Mr. Hoyer has worked extraordinarily hard to unify the caucus and take back the House for Democrats, and that is his first focus," said Stacey Bernards, his press secretary. "As a result of that unity, he's confident that we will be successful in November, and intends to run for majority leader."
Bernards listed Hoyer's long résumé of political service, including his current post as Democratic whip, for which he was unopposed, and previous jobs as caucus chairman and head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Murtha did not explain the timing of the letter or why he was suddenly itching to climb the leadership ladder. Were Democrats to win House control, Murtha would be second in line to become chairman of the Appropriations Committee, one of the most powerful jobs in Congress.
He issued a brief statement to reporters that reiterated the two-sentence letter to his colleagues: "Our goal is to win the House back, and if there's an open seat, I'm the candidate."
One theory is that Murtha's candidacy could provide midterm voters with a tougher, more conservative contrast to the liberal minority leader, Nancy Pelosi (Calif.). A decorated Marine combat veteran, Murtha is strongly pro-military. But his call last year for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq was a pivotal moment in the war debate, emboldening many Democrats to speak out forcefully against the conflict.
Despite their ideological differences, Murtha and Pelosi have been close for years. The Pennsylvanian managed her successful campaign for whip in 2001 against Hoyer, and the two have worked closely on Democratic national-security strategy.
Several senior Democratic aides, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, said Pelosi was aware of Murtha's decision, and while she did not encourage him, she did not request that he stop, either.
A Pelosi spokesman said the Democratic leader had no official comment on Murtha's announcement.
|
Latest politics news headlines from Washington DC. Follow 2006 elections, campaigns, Democrats, Republicans, political cartoons, opinions from The Washington Post. Features government policy, government tech, political analysis and reports.
| 14.205128 | 0.461538 | 0.512821 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060901713.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060901713.html
|
U.S. to Hold International Meeting on Somalia
|
2006061019
|
The Bush administration will convene an international meeting next week on political developments in Somalia, following an abrupt shift in policy this week after Islamists seized control of the Somali capital from U.S.-backed, warlord-led militias.
The formation of a "Somalia Contact Group" was announced yesterday by the State Department, which had long expressed concern inside the administration that a policy largely restricted to counter-terrorism priorities might prove counterproductive. On Wednesday, the administration indicated that it was open to discussions with the Islamists as long as they were prepared to seek a peaceful resolution and pledged not to allow Somalia to become an al-Qaeda haven.
The goal of the group's meeting, to be held in New York, is "to promote concerted action and coordination to support the Somalia transitional federal institutions, and so we are going to be working with other interested states and international organizations on this matter," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said. "We think it's the right time."
The decision to launch a multinational diplomatic initiative reflects a lack of immediately viable options in Somalia short of overt military engagement, and it appears to indicate a further resurgence of the State Department's voice in foreign policymaking under Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
McCormack said the contact group will be open to "interested parties" from governments and international organizations, and suggested that "the U.N. would want to participate in this."
A United Nations spokesman said yesterday that Washington had provided few details on the initiative but that the proposed timing coincides with the return from Somalia of Francois Lonseny Fall, the U.N. representative who met with different factions this week. Representatives from the European Union -- which also expressed interest this week in talks with the Islamists -- are expected to attend. The U.S. delegation is to be headed by the assistant secretary of state for African affairs, Jendayi E. Frazer.
A rethinking of U.S. policy was provoked by fast-moving events over the last several weeks in the chaotic country on the Horn of Africa.
Without a coherent government since 1991, and left largely to its own devices since the 1994 withdrawal of a U.S.-dominated U.N. military force, Somalia has been riven by turf wars among clan warlords and their well-armed militias. A transitional government established under U.N. auspices two years ago has proved incapable of control and was forced to retreat several months ago from Mogadishu, the capital, to Baidoa, 150 miles away.
U.S. interest in Somalia has long focused on the presumed presence there of a group of al-Qaeda operatives, believed to be led by Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, a Kenyan citizen also known as Harun Fazul. Indicted in absentia in the United States in the 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Fazul was on the U.S. "Most Wanted Terrorists" list issued immediately after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Washington's concern grew over the past year with the expanding power of the Islamic Courts Union, a coalition of 11 autonomous, clan-based courts that have sought to bring order to southern Somalia through the imposition of Islamic law. As court-backed militias gradually became the country's most powerful fighting force, secular warlords who fashioned their own "anti-terror" coalition in opposition found that the Bush administration -- while officially backing the transition government in Baidoa -- was willing to provide clandestine financial support.
Although those in the Defense Department and the CIA favoring aid to the warlords prevailed, other administration officials argued that putting all U.S. support behind the warlords was unwise. The relationship between the al-Qaeda cell led by Fazul and the Islamic courts has always been unclear, said one senior official who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. "We think that there are elements within this Islamist group that are providing refuge and support to this al-Qaeda leadership, but not the Islamic courts as a whole. We don't know that, and we don't believe that," the official said.
The takeover of Mogadishu by Islamic forces Monday brought the internal debate to a head. On Tuesday, after the Islamic Courts Union leadership issued an open letter to the international community to "categorically deny and reject any accusation that we are harboring any terrorists," and declared its desire to establish peace and "a friendly relationship" with the outside world, the administration decided to extend a tentative olive branch.
Washington now hopes that a new multinational contact group can shepherd an accommodation between the Islamists and the transition government. Awad Ashara, a member of the Somali parliament, told the Reuters news agency yesterday that a meeting between the two is in the works.
"The government will in the coming days be sending cabinet members, lawmakers as well as influential traditional elders to Mogadishu," Ashara said. "They will try to achieve reconciliation between the Islamic courts and the other groups."
Although Ashara said the government hopes to "work out voluntary disarmament" between the Islamists and the warlord-led militias, reports from outside the capital indicated that the warlords are gearing up to try to retake the city.
|
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.
| 21.282609 | 0.521739 | 0.565217 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060901679.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060901679.html
|
Iraq's Attorneys Practicing in a State of Fear
|
2006061019
|
BAGHDAD -- "We are living in terror," Kamal Hamdoun, the head of Iraq's lawyers' union, said as he sat in a shadowy, cavernous office redolent of better days.
As usual, there was no electricity in Hamdoun's second-floor office in Baghdad's Mansour neighborhood. Sunlight slanted in through vertical blinds, shining on ornate chairs painted gold and a huge desk piled with legal folders.
"For example, I'm unable to move around freely," Hamdoun continued. "And there's a gun in my drawer."
He slid open a drawer of his desk, revealing a cocked Browning pistol.
"The control of the jungle is for those who have claws and fangs," he explained.
Such is the life of a lawyer in a nearly lawless society. Iraq's legal system, once one of the most secular in the Middle East, is a shambles. If a "Law and Order" spinoff were set in Baghdad, it would feature police who are afraid to investigate sectarian murders (or are complicit in them, many say), lawyers afraid to take either side of a case and risk the wrath of powerful militias or well-armed gangs, judges assassinated for the decisions they have handed down, and the occasional car bombing at the courthouse.
Two such bombings killed at least 17 people in May alone.
Iraq was hardly an example of blind justice before the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein, who ensured that nearly all lawyers and judges were in thrall to his Baath Party. But for routine trials, Iraq's legal system, designed in the 1920s to resemble the Egyptian and French models, generally meted out fair justice guided by well-trained lawyers and judges.
"It was an impressive overall legal system, as long as we did not get into the political sphere," said Khaled Abou El Fadl, a law professor at UCLA and a scholar of Islamic law. "What we have consistently forgotten is how well-educated Iraqi academics are. They're sophisticated people who know quite a bit" about Western law and government.
Now, many of the best-educated have fled the country, and yet life goes on in the lawyers' union, Iraq's equivalent of a bar association, which has 42,000 members nationwide. Well-dressed attorneys flitted in and out of Hamdoun's office quietly, asking the union leader to sign papers. Downstairs, they met in the dark, cigarette smoke-filled cafeteria below Hamdoun's office, where they talked shop with each other or their clients. Their sentiment was unanimous: They preferred the dictator's law to none at all.
"We were waiting for the day when Saddam was gone," said one lawyer, Ali Gatie al-Jubouri, who spent nine years studying engineering in Michigan, only to become a lawyer after he inherited a fortune in property from his father. "But now we feel sorry that Saddam's days are over. It's a tragedy."
The lawyers, along with American legal scholars, almost unanimously blame the United States -- particularly the Coalition Provisional Authority, which administered Iraq in the year after Hussein's government fell.
|
BAGHDAD -- "We are living in terror," Kamal Hamdoun, the head of Iraq's lawyers' union, said as he sat in a shadowy, cavernous office redolent of better days.
| 16.702703 | 1 | 37 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060901461.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006061019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060901461.html
|
Evangelicals vs. Christian Cable
|
2006061019
|
Evangelical Christians are on the front lines in the battle over indecency on cable television, calling for a pick-and-choose pricing plan that would allow viewers to keep certain channels out of their homes.
But on the opposite end of the battlefield is an opponent familiar to and even respected by evangelicals: Christian cable stations.
The fear among Christian broadcasters is that a proposal to allow consumers to reject MTV or Comedy Central would also allow them to drop the Trinity Broadcasting Network or Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network. Cutting off that access could hurt religious broadcasters.
"We do not believe that 'a la carte' is the cure for the disease," said Colby May, attorney for the Faith and Family Broadcasting Coalition, which represents Trinity and CBN, in addition to other stations. "In fact, it is a cure that may very well kill the patient."
Evangelical and family groups support the concept of "a la carte" cable legislation, which would allow cable users to subscribe only to the networks of their choice.
The plan, endorsed in an unofficial Federal Communications Commission report and likely to be proposed by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), is billed as a way to avoid paying for such stations as FX, Comedy Central and MTV, which rack up high ratings with such risque or controversial shows as "The Shield," "South Park" and "The Real World."
May argues that an a la carte cable package would drive up the per-subscriber cost of each individual station to compensate for lower subscription numbers. The viewer's cable bill could rise even if the number of stations went down.
But the Christian networks' main concern is that the only ones willing to subscribe would be Christians. If a la carte were in existence, May argues, conversion experiences for alcoholics and people contemplating suicide or suffering from a crumbling marriage never would have happened.
"If you obligate viewers to pre-select religious service, you are essentially going to find yourself witnessing to the choir," May said. "In combination, all of these networks have literally thousands and thousands of anecdotal stories of people who were channel-surfing that came across one of their services and it changed their life for the better."
But such Christian groups as Concerned Women for America say lives would be better with the a la carte plan.
"Unfortunately, the number of inappropriate programs far outweighs the number of good," said Lanier Swann, the group's director of government relations. "Our issue is to protect families."
Dan Isett, director of corporate and government affairs for the conservative group Parents Television Council, argues that religious broadcasters on localized cable services would not be affected by a pick-and-choose cable choice plan. He said the policy might even grant more opportunities for fledgling networks not owned by major multimedia corporations.
"If consumers have a choice, it opens up a new range of diversified programming that doesn't exist today," Isett said. "If I were [Trinity Broadcasting Network], I would look at this as an unparalleled opportunity to reach people."
Michael Goodman, media analyst for the Yankee Group, said a la carte may sound like a great idea, but it's bound to have serious consequences for viewers and cable firms. He argues for a more obvious approach.
"That's why we have remote controls," Goodman said. "If you don't want to see it, turn the channel. Or if you really don't want to see it, use the parental controls."
But Swann said because many children are more tech-savvy than their parents, it is simply not enough. Besides, she said, the main problem is that cable subscribers are required to pay for material that they find objectionable.
In an effort to appease critics, the two main cable providers, Time Warner and Comcast, announced "family tier" packages late last year that carry only what they construe to be family-appropriate stations, such as the Disney Channel, Discovery Kids, the Food Network and CNN Headline News. But the critics are still upset.
"The 'family tier' system is a straw man designed to fail," Swann said. ". . . I don't think we need the same individuals who promote, produce and air the type of programming we're trying to avoid to be allowed to define what is family-friendly."
|
Evangelical Christians are on the front lines in the battle over indecency on cable television, calling for a pick-and-choose pricing plan that would allow viewers to keep certain channels out of their homes.
| 22.358974 | 1 | 39 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702436.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702436.html
|
Keller's Saving Grace
|
2006060819
|
HAMBURG, June 7 -- Kasey Keller's first trip to the World Cup was so long ago, he had hardly played above the collegiate level. It was so long ago, current teammate Eddie Johnson had just turned 6 and U.S. television executives still insisted on commercial breaks during tournament game action. It was so long ago, Keller still had a full head of blondish hair.
Sixteen years have passed since Keller first represented the United States in his sport's grandest affair and, after a number of unfulfilling experiences, the man anchoring American soccer's last line of defense stands at the forefront of the team's hopes in Germany this month.
"I think this could really finalize some aspects of my career," Keller, 36, said this week. "I see it as a great opportunity for myself and for the team -- for all of us."
Keller is the most successful goalkeeper from a country that, for years, had been known internationally for producing world-class keepers. His career record is 51-23-16 in international play, with 45 shutouts and, in the latest cycle of World Cup qualifying, he registered a 10-1-3 mark with as many shutouts as goals allowed (eight).
"He always makes that one save that you just don't think someone is going to pull off," longtime forward Brian McBride said. Most notable were Keller's three saves in a five-second span during a qualifier in Panama City and a remarkable, back-bending full extension to deny a Costa Rican bid last year.
Of the 736 players on the 32 World Cup rosters this summer, Keller is the only holdover from the 1990 tournament in Italy. Then a 20-year-old sophomore from the University of Portland, he sat behind starter Tony Meola and veteran backup David Vanole and, as expected, did not play.
Four years later, when the United States hosted the tournament for the first time, then-coach Bora Milutinovic passed over Keller, in part because he feared whoever was on the bench, Meola or Keller, could become disruptive.
"It will just be that one enigma in my career that I'll never figure out," Keller said.
In 1998 in France, Keller finally got his chance, this time under Steve Sampson. And although he was hardly at fault in the Americans' winless campaign, the three losses reflected poorly on all players. Keller had started the first two matches, yielding four goals, before giving way to Brad Friedel in the meaningless finale against Yugoslavia.
Then along came the 2002 tournament in South Korea and Japan. Keller and Friedel were regarded equally, but on the eve of the opener against Portugal, Coach Bruce Arena chose Friedel. Arena would later say he wished he would have played Keller in one of the first-round matches, but with Friedel in outstanding form and the U.S. team enjoying its most successful run since 1930, there was no change.
"Being young last time and not having a good understanding of what was going on, it was hard to understand how tense that situation was," said forward-midfielder Landon Donovan, who was 20 at the time. "Credit Kasey for that, because a lot of guys would have made a big stink about it. He just dealt with it. He wasn't happy about it, but I'm sure he's ecstatic [now] and he's going to show he deserves to be there."
Following the 2002 tournament, Arena and Keller discussed the goalie's future and both agreed that Keller should remain with the program.
"The low was that he didn't play in the World Cup," Arena said, "but the high was that it gave him the motivation to get here."
Said Keller, "We cleared the air and I'm still here."
There was no controversy this time around. Friedel decided last year to retire from international soccer and concentrate on his prosperous career with Blackburn in the English Premier League, leaving Keller in competition with Tim Howard, who had been struggling to earn playing time with Manchester United and was subsequently loaned to Everton last month; and Marcus Hahnemann, a journeyman who had helped Reading earn promotion to England's top circuit next season.
Keller secured the job by playing well this past season for German club Borussia Moenchengladbach, his fifth major team since turning pro following his junior season at Portland in 1990.
Upon moving to Germany, he and his family settled in a small, centuries-old castle in the Ruhr region. It's a long way from the egg farm where Keller grew up outside Olympia, Wash., two decades ago, when modern American soccer was in its infancy.
Reflecting on his first World Cup experience so long ago, "it was a totally amateur setup, from coaches to players to basically the federation," Keller said. "It's not a blame; it's just a fact. We hadn't qualified for a World Cup in 40 years and we had players coming out of college and coaches who had never had that experience, people in the federation didn't have that experience.
"You couldn't expect anything, really. But you have to start somewhere, and that starting point built the foundation for where we are today."
|
HAMBURG, June 7 -- Kasey Keller's first trip to the World Cup was so long ago, he had hardly played above the collegiate level. It was so long ago, current teammate Eddie Johnson had just turned 6 and U.S. television executives still insisted on commercial breaks during tournament game action. It...
| 17.844828 | 0.982759 | 56.017241 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060800114.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060800114.html
|
Insurgent Leader Al-Zarqawi Killed in Iraq
|
2006060819
|
BAGHDAD, June 8 --Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the mastermind behind hundreds of bombings, kidnappings and beheadings in Iraq, was killed early Wednesday by an airstrike --north of Baghdad, U.S. and Iraqi officials said Thursday.
Zarqawi, a Jordanian-born high-school dropout whose leadership of the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq made him the most wanted man in Iraq, was killed along with several other people near the city of Baqubah, the officials said.
VIDEO | Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaeda militant who led a bloody campaign of suicide bombings, kidnappings and hostage beheadings in Iraq, has been killed.
U.S. warplanes dropped two 500-pound bombs on a house in which Zarqawi was meeting with other insurgent leaders. A U.S. military spokesman said coalition forces pinpointed Zarqawi's location after weeks of tracking the movements of his spiritual adviser, Sheik Abdul Rahman, who also was killed in the blast.
Following the attack, coalition forces raided 17 locations in and around Baghdad, seizing a "treasure trove" of information about terror operations in the country, U.S. Army Major Gen. William B. Caldwell IV told reporters at a military briefing here. Some of the raids focused on targets the United States had been using to monitor Zarqawi's location, Caldwell said.
The stated aim of Zarqawi, 39, in addition to ousting foreign forces from Iraq, was to foment bloody sectarian strife between his fellow Sunni Muslims and members of Iraq's Shiite majority, a prospect that has become a grim reality during the past several months.
His killing is the most significant public triumph for the U.S.-led military coalition in Iraq since the 2003 capture of Saddam Hussein, although analysts warned that Zarqawi's death may not stem the tide of insurgency and violence any more than Hussein's capture did. Copying Osama bin Laden's leadership strategy, Zarqawi set up numerous semi-autonomous terrorist cells across Iraq, many of which could continue operating after his death.
Underscoring the threat of continued violence, an explosion ripped through a busy outdoor market in Baghdad just a few hours after Zarqawi's death was announced. The blast, in a predominantly Shiite neighborhood, killed at least 19 people and wounded more than 40, the Associated Press reported. It was followed by several other bombings around the city, which according to news reports killed several people.
"Today Zarqawi was defeated," said Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, appearing at a news conference with U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top U.S. military commander in Iraq. "This is a message to all those who use violence killing and devastation to disrupt life in Iraq to rethink within themselves before it is too late."
Speaking from the Rose Garden several hours later, President Bush praised the U.S.-led coalition for continuing to pursue Zarqawi through "years of near-misses and false leads."
"Through his every action, he sought to defeat America and our coalition partners and turn Iraq into a safe haven from which al-Qaeda could wage its war," Bush said. ". . . Now Zarqawi has met his end, and this violent man will never murder again."
The president said he will meet with his Cabinet and national security team at Camp David on Monday to discuss the "way forward" in Iraq. On Tuesday, the group will be joined by Iraq's new ambassador to the United States, Bush said, and will speak by teleconference with Maliki and his recently formed cabinet.
Bush echoed Iraqi and U.S. military leaders in cautioning that Zarqawi's death would not in itself halt the bloodshed in Iraq.
|
BAGHDAD, June 8 --Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the mastermind behind hundreds of bombings, kidnappings and beheadings in Iraq, was killed early Wednesday by an airstrike --north of Baghdad, U.S. and Iraqi officials said Thursday.
| 17.121951 | 1 | 41 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060800967.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060800967.html
|
Across the U.S., Zarqawi's Death Hailed as Victory
|
2006060819
|
When President Bush was first informed at 4:35 p.m. yesterday that a U.S. airstrike may have killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, he reacted more with relief than jubilation at the demise of a man who had come to symbolize terrorist violence in Iraq.
"That would be a good thing," a reserved Bush told national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley after receiving the news, according to White House spokesman Tony Snow. Snow said Bush "was pleased by the news" but was more concerned with ascertaining the facts and getting details of the operation that resulted in the death of Zarqawi in a safe house north of Baghdad.
Confirmation that the Jordanian leader of the group al-Qaeda in Iraq had been killed in the airstrike was delivered to Bush at about 9:20 p.m. Eastern time last night after the U.S. military in Iraq determined that fingerprints, tattoos and scars on the body of a man found in the rubble of the bombed safe house matched those of Zarqawi, Snow said. But Bush decided to hold off making an announcement, preferring to let Iraq's new prime minister break the news on Iraqi soil, he said.
Around Washington and across the nation, Zarqawi's death was widely hailed as an important victory for U.S. forces battling Iraqi insurgents and radical Muslim foreign fighters in Iraq. But administration officials and lawmakers cautioned that the violence is far from over, and it was unclear whether the death would have an effect on the U.S. public's mounting opposition to the war or on Bush's own low job-approval ratings.
In London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair called the development "very good news because a blow to al-Qaeda in Iraq is a blow against al-Qaeda everywhere."
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told reporters in Brussels that the killing of Zarqawi eliminated "the leading terrorist in Iraq and one of the three senior al-Qaeda leaders worldwide."
In a news conference after a NATO meeting, he said: "I think arguably over the last several years no single person on this planet has had the blood of more innocent men, women and children on his hands than Zarqawi. He personified the dark, sadistic and medieval vision of the future of beheadings and suicide bombings and indiscriminate killings, a behavior pattern that has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people . . . and certainly by the overwhelming majority of Muslims worldwide."
Rumsfeld said it was "appropriate" that Zarqawi was killed on the same day that Iraq's new prime minister selected a new defense minister, interior minister and top national security official, completing the long process of forming a new government after elections in December. Rumsfeld said Zarqawi had repeatedly tried and failed to stop a succession of votes and the formation of a new government.
At the United Nations, Secretary General Kofi Annan said Iraqis "will all be relieved that he is gone," although "we cannot pretend that that will mean the end of the violence." He told reporters it was "a relief that such a heinous and dangerous man who has caused so much harm to the Iraqis is no longer around to continue his work." Zarqawi's group was believed responsible for the August 2003 truck bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, an attack that killed 22 U.N. employees including Sergio Vieira de Mello, the U.N. special representative to Iraq.
On an al-Qaeda-affiliated Internet forum, however, a writer identified as an ideologist for the terrorist network posted a "eulogy" for Zarqawi, asking Allah to accept him as a "martyr" and to "compensate" Muslims for his loss, according to a translation by the Washington-based SITE Institute.
The ideologist, who calls himself Lewis Attiya Allah, said the death of Zarqawi was a "victory" for the doctrine of Tawhid, or monotheism, and condemned those he described as enemies of Allah, including the "malicious Crusaders," the "cursed Jews" and the "straying Shiites."
Addressing them, Attiya Allah wrote: "You are losers and failures and Allah left you with what will hurt you." He concluded: "We are all al-Zarqawi."
|
When President Bush was first informed at 4:35 p.m. yesterday that a U.S. airstrike may have killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, he reacted more with relief than jubilation at the demise of a man who had come to symbolize terrorist violence in Iraq.
| 17.434783 | 1 | 46 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060800819.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060800819.html
|
After Zarqawi, No Clear Path In Weary Iraq
|
2006060819
|
BAGHDAD, June 8 -- Analysts and military spokesmen said Thursday that the death of insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, killed Wednesday when two 500-pound bombs obliterated his hideout north of Baghdad, will not extinguish the sectarian conflict that he helped foment and that is now claiming many more lives in Iraq than his campaign of beheadings and bombings.
The slaying of the Jordanian-born guerrilla leader eliminated the biggest advocate of the extreme violence against civilians that has made the Iraq war so grisly. Zarqawi and his radical Sunni Arab group, al-Qaeda in Iraq, carried out suicide attacks that could kill 100 or more passersby in a flash of light and videotaped the last gasps of foreign hostages being decapitated.
VIDEO | Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaeda militant who led a bloody campaign of suicide bombings, kidnappings and hostage beheadings in Iraq, has been killed.
But other crucial questions, analysts say, are thrown completely up into the air: whether other foreign fighters will show themselves equally eager to slaughter civilians, whether the Sunni insurgency will split into fragments or broaden its base and, above all, whether the Shiite-Sunni killing that Zarqawi's attacks helped unleash can be reined in.
"The immediate aftermath of this will probably be an upsurge of violence" as Sunni insurgents hurry to show that Zarqawi's killing has not broken the resistance, said Michael Clarke, an expert on terrorism at the International Policy Institute of King's College London.
"In the medium term, in the next month or two, it will probably help to downgrade sectarianism," Clarke said by telephone. "But the dynamic of sectarian violence is probably past the point of no return."
Attacks on Shiite Muslim civilians and on Iraq's largely Shiite security forces, often carried out by al-Qaeda in Iraq, fueled violence between Sunnis and Shiites for three years, although no group asserted responsibility for the attack that pushed the bloodletting to its current high level -- the Feb. 22 bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra. Thousands of civilians have died in Baghdad alone since then.
Zarqawi's death "will help, but probably not enough," Clarke said. "If Zarqawi had been killed a year ago, I would be much more positive about the effects of his death than I really can be now."
The U.S. military focused Thursday on the potential impact of Zarqawi's killing on the Sunni insurgency. Without Zarqawi, military officials contended, the insurgency lacks its main fundraiser and figurehead. "He's been really at the forefront in terms of being able to recruit and bring in foreign fighters, so this definitely will disrupt the effort," said one military official familiar with the hunt for Zarqawi.
"No one behind him had the kind of charisma and operational intellect that he brought to the table," the official said. "Our hope is no one can step in, and you end up with fragmentation and perhaps dissension among his followers."
Critics of the U.S. military's campaign in Iraq have accused American commanders of making their own use of Zarqawi, exaggerating the foreigner's importance to suggest that the insurgency has been thrust upon Iraqi Sunnis more than it has been led by them.
Almost as soon as American officials declared Zarqawi dead on Thursday, they pointed to a foreigner as the man they thought likely to take his place.
Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, a U.S. military spokesman, identified the man as Abu al-Masri, an Egyptian and a veteran of the Afghan conflicts. Masri appeared to have come to Iraq in 2002, probably helped found the first Baghdad cell of al-Qaeda in Iraq and was involved in bombmaking, Caldwell told reporters at a Baghdad news conference.
|
BAGHDAD, June 8 -- Analysts and military spokesmen said Thursday that the death of insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, killed Wednesday when two 500-pound bombs obliterated his hideout north of Baghdad, will not extinguish the sectarian conflict that he helped foment and that is now claiming...
| 13.884615 | 0.980769 | 50.019231 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060800152.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060800152.html
|
Iraqi Parliament Selects Top Security Ministers
|
2006060819
|
BAGHDAD, June 8 -- The Iraqi parliament agreed upon candidates to lead the country's three top security ministries Thursday, ending a weeks-long stalemate among the country's largest political factions.
The selection of an interior minister, a defense minister and a national security adviser gives Iraq a complete government for the first time since elections in December 2005 and it provides a key opportunity to promote political reconciliation between members of the country's Sunni Muslim minority and the Shiite-dominated government.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki presented the names to parliament a few minutes after announcing the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, who has claimed responsibility for hundreds of bombings, beheadings and kidnappings since the U.S. invasion.
Maliki's selection of the cabinet was a delicate exercise in satisfying the demands of the parliament's Shiite Muslim, Kurdish, Sunni Arab and secular factions. Shiite leaders demanded control of the ministries, arguing that the nation's principal security threat is from Sunni insurgents. Sunni leaders, however, sought to control Interior and Defense, insisting that both ministries have become riddled with Shiite militiamen.
In the end, the Interior Ministry and the job of national security adviser were given to Shiites, and the Defense Ministry went to a Sunni.
The new interior minister, Jawad al-Bolani, was nominated by the Iraqi United Alliance, the largest Shiite bloc in the parliament. But unlike his predecessor, Bayan Jabr, he is not connected to Shiite militias. He had been an engineer in the Iraqi air force until 1999. He became involved in politics after the fall of Saddam Hussein's government and eventually joined Iraq's interim parliament.
After his appointment was announced, he pledged on television to perform his job with "hard effort and integrity."
The new minister of defense, Abdul-Qadir Muhammed Jasim, was approved over the protests of parliamentarians from western Anbar province. Jasim served as commander of the Iraqi forces in that region during the 2004 military operation against insurgents in Fallujah, 35 miles west of Baghdad.
Sheerwan al-Waeli, the new national security minister, also encountered some opposition. The leader of the main Sunni Arab group in the parliament, Adnan al-Dulaimi, complained that his group had not been consulted on the position.
|
BAGHDAD, June 8 -- The Iraqi parliament agreed upon candidates to lead the country's three top security ministries Thursday, ending a weeks-long stalemate among the country's largest political factions.
| 12.361111 | 1 | 36 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060800258.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060800258.html
|
Iranian President Warms to Dialogue
|
2006060819
|
TEHRAN, June 8 -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday signaled Iran's readiness to renew negotiations "to resolve misunderstandings in the international arena."
"On behalf of the Iranian nation, I'm announcing that the Iranian nation will never hold negotiations about its definite rights with anybody, but we are for talks about mutual concerns," Ahmadinejad said in the city of Qazvin, to which the hard-line conservative traveled on the latest of his campaign-style trips outside Iran's capital.
The statement was the most straightforward indication so far of Iran's willingness to engage six world powers, including the United States, in discussions aimed at avoiding confrontation over its nuclear program. But he did not say whether Iran would agree to the only precondition set for the talks: that the country put its program on hold during negotiations.
The International Atomic Energy Agency reported Thursday from Vienna that Iran had begun a new round of uranium enrichment this week, on the same day that Tehran received the U.S.-backed proposal for talks. Enrichment can produce fuel for power plants or, if concentrated further, make the core ingredient of a nuclear weapon.
During two years of on-and-off talks that Iran held with Britain, France and Germany until 2005, it often rushed to complete an element of its nuclear program on the eve of formal negotiating sessions. The tactic irked the Europeans and eroded trust on both sides until the talks collapsed last August.
Since then, Iran has made several technical advances. In April, Iranian officials announced progress toward industrial-level enrichment using a 164-centrifuge cascade, boasting that the achievement "changed the facts on the ground." But if Iran accepts the preconditions set by Washington and its allies, the new round of enrichment could be its last for some time.
Iran would also be expected to stop work on additional cascades, which the IAEA reported to be currently under construction.
The IAEA has been monitoring Iran's nuclear program while investigating the scale, scope and history of the country's 18-year effort to build a nuclear program in secret. The inspectors have not found proof of a weapons program but have been unable to rule one out, in part because of Iran's spotty cooperation. The IAEA complained in Thursday's report that Iran has failed to live up to promises to improve cooperation. In April, Iran agreed to provide the agency with a timetable for answering outstanding questions. "No such timetable has been received," the new report said.
The Bush administration and other governments call Iran's program a guise for producing weapons. Iran insists it aims only to produce electricity in line with its rights as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty -- the "definite right" that Ahmadinejad and other Iranian officials have stressed they will not give up in any new negotiations.
"We don't negotiate on the way we should live, on how we should walk and the way we must handle our economy," he said in remarks quoted by the state broadcasting service. "Be aware whether you negotiate or not, whether you frown at us or not and whether you stay beside us or turn your back on us, the Iranian nation will not retreat from its path of development and achievement of advanced technology."
The bellicose rhetoric was vintage Ahmadinejad, whose popularity with the Iranian public tends to be enhanced when he projects flinty independence from a disapproving West. But the language framed by the hard talk -- "misunderstandings" and "mutual concerns" -- appeared to signal that Iran was continuing to move toward talks.
The package of incentives was endorsed last week by the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany, and presented to Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, on Tuesday. It includes the prospect of Washington putting aside 27 years of frozen relations to join the talks directly. Linzer reported from Washington.
|
TEHRAN, June 8 -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday signaled Iran's readiness to renew negotiations "to resolve misunderstandings in the international arena."
| 26.821429 | 1 | 28 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060800138.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060800138.html
|
Senate Plan to Repeal Inheritance Tax Fails
|
2006060819
|
The Senate rejected a plan yesterday to permanently repeal the federal tax on inherited estates, but lawmakers continued to negotiate behind the scenes to try to find a compromise that would reduce the levy significantly.
Voting 57 to 41, the Senate fell three votes short of the 60 needed to cut off debate and move to consider a Republican proposal that would have eliminated the estate tax. The levy is currently phasing out and will vanish in 2010, only to spring back to life in 2011.
Republican Sens. Lincoln D. Chafee (R.I.) and George V. Voinovich (Ohio) voted against the measure that would have cut off debate. Democrats Max Baucus (Mont.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Bill Nelson (Fla.) voted to terminate the debate.
"The 'death tax' is an unfair burden inflicted upon America's small businesses, farmers, and families during a time of grieving and pain," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), a leading proponent of repeal. "This won't be the last time this year the Senate votes on this important issue."
Frist and other leading Republicans argued that the estate tax forced closely held and privately owned businesses to sell out to public corporations, depriving family members of the benefits derived from the hard work of their elder relatives. As a result, they said, rich people wasted billions of dollars trying to avoid the tax, money that might better have been used to expand the businesses and create jobs.
Democratic leaders portrayed repeal as a sop to the wealthy few that should not have even been debated at all, given other pressing priorities such as rising gasoline prices and the large number of citizens who do not have health insurance. Democrats also contended that the cost of repeal is more than the country can afford in light of already large federal budget deficits.
"This country is bleeding red ink," said Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). Ending the estate tax now, he added, "is an absolute farce." Voinovich, who previously supported the elimination of the estate tax, switched sides yesterday out of concern for the rising deficit.
According to the staff of the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, repealing the estate tax would cost the government $71.6 billion a year by 2015. The Treasury Department estimated the revenue loss at $65.8 billion that year.
The Senate vote yesterday takes permanent repeal of the estate tax off the table this year, lawmakers agreed. But senators continued to hunt for a way to protect most small-business owners from the tax. If a consensus proposal is devised, Frist has promised a quick vote on it.
A compromise floated this week by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) would have exempted from the tax as much as $5 million of a person's estate. Estates worth as much as $30 million would face a 15 percent tax rate, and those above that level that would be taxed at 30 percent.
The estate tax's gradual disappearance -- and reappearance -- was mandated as part of Bush's 2001 tax cut plan. Congress decided to make the repeal temporary as a way to save revenue. After phasing out in 2010, the estate tax will return in 2011 with a $1 million exemption and a levy with a tax rate of as much as 55 percent on estates of larger size.
Not many people are forced to pay the estate tax. According to the Internal Revenue Service, only 1.17 percent of people who died in 2002 left a taxable estate.
The House, acting at the urging of President Bush, has already voted overwhelmingly to permanently repeal the estate tax. But the Senate has not been able to match that effort. In 2002, for instance, the Senate came up six votes short of approving a repeal measure.
|
The Senate rejected a plan yesterday to permanently repeal the federal tax on inherited estates, but lawmakers continued to negotiate behind the scenes to try to find a compromise that would reduce the levy significantly.
| 20.27027 | 1 | 37 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702284.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702284.html
|
Patent Claims Over Apple's IPod Escalate
|
2006060819
|
Apple Computer Inc., maker of the iPod music player, has filed a second lawsuit countering patent complaints brought by rival MP3 manufacturer Creative Labs Inc.
Singapore-based Creative, the No. 2 seller of digital music players in the world, last month sued Apple in U.S. District Court in Northern California, claiming patent infringement. At the same time, the company asked the U.S. International Trade Commission to bar Apple from importing portable digital media players that Creative claims infringe on its intellectual property.
Apple filed a counterclaim in U.S. District Court for Western Wisconsin and followed that up June 1 with a claim in U.S. District Court for Eastern Texas. In its latest suit, Apple says Creative infringed a number of its patents relating to the software and systems on its mobile music player.
The Creative-Apple dispute is one among many recent tussles over technology patents.
EchoStar Communications Corp. and TiVo Inc. are locked in a dispute over TiVo's digital video recording patents. The U.S. Supreme Court last month sided with eBay Inc. in part of its patent dispute with MercExchange LLC. And earlier this year, BlackBerry maker Research in Motion Ltd. settled its patent case with NTP Inc. for $612.5 million.
Creative had sought "amicable solutions" with Apple in recent months, Creative spokesman Phil O'Shaughnessy said in an e-mail. "At no time during these discussions or at any other time did Apple mention to us the patents it raised in its lawsuits. We had fully anticipated and planned for Apple's retaliatory action," he said.
Creative was one of the first companies to develop a digital music player, which it launched in 2000, more than a year before Apple introduced its iPod and iTunes products. Apple quickly surpassed Creative's Nomad music player in popularity, and it now claims nearly three-quarters of the U.S. market, according to Plano, Tex.-based consulting firm Diffusion Group. Creative's market share is 9 percent.
"It seems like a stretch for Apple to make that claim," given that it followed Creative and others in bringing the iPod to market, said Richard Doherty, research director for the Envisioneering Group, a consultancy. "Apple might be opening a bit of a Pandora's box," because Creative and other companies may have an easier time proving they invented digital music player technology before Apple, he said.
Many companies countersue primarily to try to force out-of-court settlements, which is the outcome in about 90 percent of patent claims, Doherty said.
|
Apple Computer Inc., maker of the iPod music player, has filed a second lawsuit countering patent complaints brought by rival MP3 manufacturer Creative Labs Inc.
| 17.851852 | 1 | 27 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702283.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702283.html
|
New Web Site to Simplify Public-Interest Searches
|
2006060819
|
One Economy Corp., a nonprofit group that seeks to bring the benefits of broadband Internet access to the poor, today will announce plans to create a public-interest Web site with easily accessible information about public safety, emergency services, education, health and economic opportunities.
The project, to be called the Public Internet Channel, reflects One Economy's belief that much of the content on the Internet is not easy to find or presented in simple, digestible ways, particularly for those who are not Web-savvy.
Once up and running, the new Web site is to feature original content written in English and Spanish at a fifth-grade literacy level, as well as provide links to existing information on the Web. The site, which may be available in pilot versions within a year, would offer people practical advice on topics such as disaster preparation, low-income tax benefits and finding local health services.
Rey Ramsey, chief executive of District-based One Economy, said that while much attention had been paid to closing the "digital divide" to provide Web access for the poor, not enough had been devoted to ensuring that relevant content is available on the Internet.
"Here it has been this transformative tool for businesses . . . but yet when we look at the issue of poverty and how we engage the poor, we have really not maximized technology well enough at all," he said. "This will be an effort to focus on the silent twin: content."
Analysts said it made sense to create such a Web site, but they said that getting the content right is never easy and that the greatest difficulty may be getting people to visit it and use the information.
"This is very challenging stuff they are trying to do," said John Horrigan, associate director of research at the Pew Internet and American Life Project. Horrigan said a 2003 Pew survey found about 6 percent of Internet users had visited an analogous federal government Web site ( http://www.firstgov.gov ) that helps people find their way around the government's home on the Internet. "It's really hard to get users to go to these one-stop-shopping portals for things like this."
The group said that the annual operating costs are $10 million to $12 million and that it aims to raise a $20 million fund to start the project, seeking money from philanthropic foundations and corporate sponsorships from high-tech and communications companies.
One Economy plans to seek agreements with government and private and nonprofit groups to allow their content to be showcased on the site. It hopes to start pilot projects in San Francisco, Baltimore and New Orleans within a year.
The new Web site would dramatically expand on content already available on One Economy's existing site ( http://www.thebeehive.org ) that has basic information for low-income people, including tips on homework tips, credit and how much life insurance to buy.
|
One Economy Corp., a nonprofit group that seeks to bring the benefits of broadband Internet access to the poor, today will announce plans to create a public-interest Web site with easily accessible information about public safety, emergency services, education, health and economic opportunities.
| 11.039216 | 1 | 51 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702050.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702050.html
|
U.S. Prison Study Faults System and the Public
|
2006060819
|
CHICAGO, June 7 -- Not only are America's prisons and jails largely failing the 13.5 million adults who pass through them each year, but the American public is also failing the prisons and jails, a bipartisan study group concluded in a report released Wednesday.
Politicians have passed laws dramatically increasing the inmate population to 2.2 million on a given day without understanding life behind bars or funding programs likely to help prisoners return home and not commit more crimes, said the private Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons.
Even the data that would help specialists make sense of U.S. crime and punishment are lacking, said the members, who devoted 15 months of research and public hearings to the project.
"We should be astonished by the size of the prisoner population, troubled by the disproportionate incarceration of African-Americans and Latinos, and saddened by the waste of human potential," the panel said in a report to be presented to Congress on Thursday.
"Confronting Confinement," sponsored by the Vera Institute of Justice, a New York think tank, adds an eminent voice to the view that the recent boom in imprisonment has not always made Americans safer, even as violent crime has dropped.
The report draws on hundreds of experts, including corrections officers, inmates, psychiatrists, policymakers, scholars and religious leaders. It paints a dispiriting portrait of incarceration in the United States, and contends that a high price is paid for poor policy and implementation, in dollars and anguish alike. Each year, the United States spends an estimated $60 billion on corrections.
The report gives credit to the best corrections professionals, but finds too much violence and too little medical and mental health care, as well as a "desperate need for the kinds of productive activities that discourage violence and make rehabilitation possible."
In a conference call with reporters, the commission's executive director, Alex Busansky, said that "the central question is how we can do things differently."
The members include former judge John J. Gibbons, former FBI director William S. Sessions and National Urban League President Marc H. Morial. Others are prison rights advocate Stephen B. Bright, Sheriff Mark H. Luttrell of Shelby County, Tenn., and prisons chief Timothy Ryan of Orange County, Fla. Ryan said he has evolved after once believing it best to lock up prisoners and toss the key.
The commission's principal conviction is that prison life is relevant far beyond the fences and walls of the nearly 5,000 adult places of incarceration in the United States. Violence, overcrowding and poor services -- from medical care to literacy programs -- ripple outward when an inmate heads home, as 95 percent do.
"What happens inside jails and prisons does not stay inside jails and prisons," the commission concluded. When things do not work out, the group found, the effects are felt in higher crime, higher taxes and heightened dismay. Sixty percent of the nation's inmates commit another crime. Even modest improvements in medical care and attention could significantly reduce recidivism, the panel said.
The commission pointed to studies that suggest that the most accurate indicator of a successful return to society is the inmate's connection to family.
To that end, one commission member said that institutions should lower the cost of telephone calls, expand visiting rooms to accommodate families, and offer counseling to inmates' relatives.
The panel described the high-security segregation of inmates as "counter-productive," often leading to greater prison violence and more serious crimes upon release. It also said that public monitoring of prisons and jails is insufficient.
The commission is asking Congress to develop uniform data-reporting requirements and to extend Medicaid and Medicare, without co-payments, to eligible inmates. Crowding should be reduced, and programs that foster productivity and purpose should be expanded, it said.
"I do not think the American people want to see people mistreated and abused in prison," said Nicholas de B. Katzenbach, a former U.S. attorney general and panel co-chairman, with Gibbons. "I don't think they want to see disease spreading from prison to guards . . . to the community."
|
CHICAGO, June 7 -- Not only are America's prisons and jails largely failing the 13.5 million adults who pass through them each year, but the American public is also failing the prisons and jails, a bipartisan study group concluded in a report released Wednesday.
| 16.367347 | 1 | 49 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060700505.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060819id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060700505.html
|
European Probe Finds Signs Of CIA-Run Secret Prisons
|
2006060819
|
BERLIN, June 7 -- A European investigator concluded Wednesday that there are "serious indications" that the CIA operated secret prisons for senior al-Qaeda figures in Poland and Romania as part of a clandestine "spider's web" to catch, transfer and hold terrorism suspects around the world.
Dick Marty, a Swiss lawyer working on behalf of the Council of Europe, the continent's official human rights organization, said at least seven other European nations colluded with the CIA to capture and secretly detain terrorism suspects, including several who were ultimately cleared of any wrongdoing.
Sweden, Italy, Britain, Turkey, Germany, Bosnia and Macedonia "could be held responsible for violations of the rights of specific individuals" who were handed over to the CIA or captured by U.S. operatives in those countries, Marty said in a report released in Paris.
He also said Spain, Cyprus, Ireland, Greece and Portugal turned a blind eye to CIA-chartered flights that landed on their soil to transfer terrorism suspects within Europe and beyond.
"It is now clear," Marty added in his report, "that authorities in several European countries actively participated with the CIA in these unlawful activities. Other countries ignored them knowingly, or did not want to know."
In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack characterized the report as "sort of rehash" and lacking in "solid facts." He defended the U.S. policy of abducting terrorism suspects and detaining them without oversight from the courts as "an internationally established legal practice" and said intelligence cooperation between the United States and its allies "saves lives in the war on terror."
The CIA declined to comment on the report Wednesday.
Marty acknowledged that he lacked proof that would firmly establish the existence of the secret prisons. But he cited flight data and satellite photos acquired from European agencies as evidence that the CIA transported high-level terrorism suspects from Afghanistan to airports in Szymany, Poland, in October 2003 and Timisoara, Romania, in January 2004. Marty said a close examination of the flights indicated that the suspects were dropped off in those countries for detention.
"Even if proof, in the classical meaning of the term, is not as yet available, a number of coherent and converging elements indicate that such secret detention centers did indeed exist in Europe," Marty wrote.
Marty has accused Poland and Romania of stonewalling his requests for information. On Wednesday, officials in those countries repeated earlier denials that they permitted the CIA to run secret prisons within their borders.
"The accusations are slanderous," Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz, the prime minister of Poland, told reporters in Warsaw. "They are not based on any facts."
"There is no evidence there were such detention bases in Romania," Romeo Raicu, head of Romania's parliamentary committee overseeing foreign intelligence services, told the Associated Press.
|
BERLIN, June 7 -- A European investigator concluded Wednesday that there are "serious indications" that the CIA operated secret prisons for senior al-Qaeda figures in Poland and Romania as part of a clandestine "spider's web" to catch, transfer and hold terrorism suspects around the world.
| 10.072727 | 1 | 55 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060701673.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060701673.html
|
Democrats Renew Push for Mariana Labor Bill
|
2006060719
|
House Democrats led by Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) introduced legislation today to extend key federal controls over a U.S. territory in the western Pacific, renewing an effort that was blocked for years by lobbyist Jack Abramoff and once-powerful Texas Republican Tom DeLay.
The bill aims to apply U.S. immigration law and basic labor protections, including the U.S. minimum wage, to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), a U.S. territory 3,900 miles west of Hawaii. Human rights and labor investigators have found rampant abuses there over the years, notably the trafficking of women for a commercial sex trade and the exploitation of mostly female workers from poor Asian countries in a largely foreign-owned garment-manufacturing industry that uses the territory to turn out "Made in U.S.A." clothing exempt from U.S. tariffs and quotas.
As a lobbyist for the Northern Marianas government and, subsequently, the garment industry on the main island of Saipan, Abramoff enlisted DeLay and other Republican leaders in a battle against the Clinton administration, human rights groups, labor unions and a bipartisan group of lawmakers to preserve local control over immigration and the minimum wage.
In a 2001 pitch letter obtained by The Washington Post, Abramoff boasted to the then-governor of the commonwealth that his lobbying team had worked with DeLay and other congressional leaders to bottle up reform legislation, stymied the efforts of Republican critics such as former Sen. Frank Murkowski of Alaska and obtained "extra CNMI appropriations" from Congress for infrastructure projects on the islands of Tinian and Rota.
Now that Abramoff is headed to prison for fraud in a separate case and DeLay is leaving the House under indictment for alleged political money laundering in Texas, Miller and his allies hope their efforts to rein in the commonwealth will finally succeed.
"For years, DeLay and Abramoff used their power and influence and corrupt practices to defend the indefensible," Miller said in a statement accompanying the introduction of his bill. "The House of Representatives failed to stop extraordinary abuses of poor women guest workers in the textile and tourism industries in the Marianas despite overwhelming evidence documented by the federal government, Congress, the news media and other sources."
He charged that DeLay, the former House majority leader, and Abramoff, a conservative Republican who became one of Washington's top lobbyists, "ignored well-documented threats to American security, criminal activity, violations of labor law, forced abortions and human trafficking" in the Northern Marianas.
"They were running a protection racket," Miller said. "DeLay and Abramoff protected the Marianas garment industry from congressional scrutiny and were rewarded handsomely for it with trips, lucrative contracts, campaign money and more. The most exploited women in the world, and the American legislative process, paid the price."
Miller charged that DeLay, who was majority whip before becoming majority leader, "used his office to block Congress from considering our bipartisan reforms," telling key committee chairmen not to hold hearings on them.
"The bill we are introducing is a test of whether that protection racket continues today," said Miller, a member of the House Resources Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Northern Marianas.
A spokeswoman for DeLay, Shannon Flaherty, responded in a statement, "It's clearly good news to Democrats that Tom DeLay is leaving the House because they hate free-market values and everyone who defends them. Bad news is, socialists like George Miller still won't win."
DeLay is scheduled to step down Friday. He was among a number of lawmakers who traveled to the Northern Marianas on trips arranged by Abramoff. On one trip with his family and staffers over the 1997 New Year's holidays, he told his local hosts, "You are a shining light for what is happening to the Republican Party, and you represent everything that is good about what we are trying to do in America and leading the world in the free-market system." He later called the Northern Marianas "a perfect petri dish of capitalism," adding, "It's like my Galapagos Island."
At a news conference to publicize his bill, Miller also announced that he is releasing a May 2002 Justice Department report on the Marianas that he accused Abramoff of helping to suppress. The report found that continued local control over immigration would "seriously jeopardize the national security" of the United States. The two federal officials who wrote it were subsequently reassigned to lesser posts; one of them, who had initiated a criminal investigation into Abramoff's lobbying activities on Guam, was demoted from acting U.S. attorney for Guam and the CNMI to an assistant U.S. attorney under an appointee reportedly recommended by the Guam Republican Party and approved by top White House political strategist Karl Rove.
The legislation proposed by Miller, the U.S.-Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Human Dignity Act, would gradually impose the U.S. minimum wage, apply U.S. immigration law "as if the CNMI were a state," allow U.S. Customs agents to board ships in the CNMI and require studies by the Interior and Homeland Security departments on labor and human rights violations and security and immigration vulnerabilities. It would stipulate that no products could leave the Northern Marianas with a "Made in the U.S.A." designation, and no goods could be shipped to the United States free of duties or quotas, "unless the minimum wage was paid to the workers, all labor laws were obeyed and no indentured servitude was allowed."
Appearing with Miller at a Capitol Hill news conference to announce the bill were Rep. Hilda L. Solis (D-Calif.), who co-chairs the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, and Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (D-S.C.), the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee.
"Let's give Tom DeLay a real going-away present" by passing the bill, Solis said. She said that with Saipan's garment industry starting to fold as quotas come down under worldwide trade accords and factories move to China, thousands of women garment workers who were brought in from countries such as China and the Philippines have become stranded on Saipan without jobs, and some are being forced to work in brothels.
"The situation has gotten even worse in some ways" since the 1990s, when attempts to impose federal controls were defeated by Abramoff and his allies, said Katherine Spillar, executive editor of Ms. Magazine, which recently investigated the conditions of foreign guest workers on Saipan.
Spillar said the magazine, which is published by the Feminist Majority Foundation, found that unemployed garment workers on Saipan "increasingly are finding themselves trafficked into the sex industry there," along with women from Russia and other countries who were promised jobs in restaurants at U.S. wages only to end up forced into prostitution. She said the vast majority of sex workers on Saipan now are former garment workers.
|
House Democrats led by Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) introduced legislation today to extend key federal controls over a U.S. territory in the western Pacific, renewing an effort that was blocked for years by lobbyist Jack Abramoff and once-powerful Texas Republican Tom DeLay.
| 25.764706 | 1 | 51 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/06/AR2006060601329.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/06/AR2006060601329.html
|
Katrina's Unlearned Lessons
|
2006060719
|
LAST WEEK the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers admitted responsibility for much of the destruction of New Orleans. It was not true, as the Corps initially had claimed, that its defenses failed because Congress had authorized only Category 3 protection, with the result that Hurricane Katrina overtopped the city's floodwalls. Rather, Katrina was no stronger than a Category 2 storm by the time it came ashore, and many of the floodwalls let water in because they collapsed, not because they weren't high enough. As the Corps' own inquiry found, the agency committed numerous mistakes of design: Its network of pumps, walls and levees was "a system in name only"; it failed to take into account the gradual sinking of the local soil; it closed its ears when people pointed out these problems. The result was a national tragedy.
You might think that the Corps' mea culpa would fuel efforts to reform the agency. Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) are pushing a measure that would do just that, requiring that future Corps proposals be subject to technical review by an independent agency. But the stronger current in Congress goes in the opposite direction. A measure urged by Louisiana senators and written by Sens. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) would loosen oversight of the Corps. Billions of dollars may be spent in ways that ignore the most basic lessons from Katrina.
Congress has already passed laws with language directing the Corps to design a new flood-protection plan for Louisiana. The language encourages the construction of Category 5 protections for the whole state, a project that could cost tens of billions of dollars; it advertises its own profligacy by laying down that the flood-protection plan should be exempt from cost-benefit analysis. The new measure, which is reportedly part of a revised version of a water projects bill that will be unveiled shortly, would lower the bar for congressional approval of whatever Louisiana defenses the Corps sees fit to propose. Rather than requiring full votes in both chambers of Congress, the Corps' plan could be authorized by votes in two committees that tend to rubber-stamp such projects.
In the wake of Katrina, this is almost beyond belief. The Corps' admission of its own technical shortcomings points to the need for tougher oversight, not less. And the New Orleans disaster has illustrated the folly of building flood defenses for vulnerable low land: Some of the worst-hit areas would not have been developed in the first place if the Corps hadn't decided to build "protections" for them. Encouraging the Army Corps of Engineers to build Category 5 defenses for all of Louisiana, including parts that are sparsely populated for good reason, would not merely cost billions that would be better spent on defending urban areas. It would encourage settlement of more flood-prone land and set the stage for the next tragedy.
|
The Corps of Engineers admitted last week that it was responsible for much of the destruction of New Orleans. Naturally, Congress thinks the agency deserves a reward.
| 19.033333 | 0.833333 | 3.7 |
medium
|
medium
|
mixed
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/06/AR2006060601396.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/06/AR2006060601396.html
|
Salvaging Iraq
|
2006060719
|
The images from Iraq are of hell on earth: On Sunday 12 Iraqi students traveling to Baqubah to take their final exams were dragged from a bus and killed because they practiced the wrong religion. The next day gunmen dressed in police uniforms kidnapped 56 people near the bus station in central Baghdad and hauled them off in pickup trucks.
This is an Iraqi nightmare, and America seems powerless to stop it. What would you think if you were the parent of one of those dead Iraqi children? You would want the United States, the nation that broke the fragile bonds that once held Iraq together, to act more effectively to control this violence. And you would want Iraq's so-called government of national unity to behave like one and stop the killers who are devouring the decent people of Iraq. And if neither the Americans nor the Iraqi government could protect your children, you would turn to the militias.
The American project in Iraq is unraveling. The president continues to talk about staying the course, and the White House still issues upbeat predictions of victory, but the course we are on is not working. The election of Iraq's first permanent government in December was the last good chance to put the pieces together. Nearly seven months after the elections, Iraqi politicians still can't agree on who should run the two key ministries, defense and interior.
An American friend wrote me this week from Iraq: "The civil war rages in Baghdad, regardless of what the PC word currently being used in Washington to describe the killing is these days. Each morning when the sun comes up, the bodies of the killings from the night before are gathered up and sent to the hospitals where they try to figure out who they are. While the new government, all of the ministries, the coalition and the bloated embassy bureaucracy all sit frozen in the Green Zone, this civil war rages on just outside the wire and concrete barriers."
A devastating summary of America's mistakes is contained in the latest installment of the Pentagon's quarterly report to Congress, "Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq." In every part of the country, fewer people than a year ago think the situation is better now than before the war. In the Baghdad area, pollsters found the percentage of optimists had fallen by half since March 2005, to about 30 percent.
And the violence grinds on: The rate of insurgent attacks is higher now than it was in 2004, with an average of more than 600 a week since the new government took over in February. U.S. military commanders talk of their success in splitting the Sunni insurgency, but the attack numbers don't reflect any lessening of its lethality. Meanwhile, the Shiites are fighting back with equal viciousness, and the Pentagon numbers show a sharp rise in sectarian killings over the past year.
What we're seeing in Iraq is a mismatch between ends and means: between a political strategy of unity and the reality of feuding factional leaders; between a military strategy of "clear, hold and build" counterinsurgency and the reality that most American soldiers remain hunkered down every day; between the goal of stabilizing the country and the daily reality of physical intimidation.
What can America do to mitigate the Iraq disaster? Certainly it doesn't need more strategy papers. The political and military strategies now in place talk the right language of unity and counterinsurgency, but this is still mostly Green Zone talk. Marine Capt. Scott A. Cuomo argues in the June edition of Marine Corps Gazette that the U.S. military should make "embedded training teams," living and fighting with the Iraqi security forces, its main effort. He says frankly of his own combat experience in Iraq: "We did very little to truly help indigenous security forces protect the populace from the insurgency."
A bold proposal comes from my friend in Iraq, who knows the security situation there intimately. He argues that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki should move his government's 27 ministries, which increasingly are operating in the Green Zone, out into the city. The Iraqi army would protect each outpost of the government, aided by U.S. teams. "The population needs to see there is a government that has the courage to reclaim the city, one district at a time."
My friend likens the current frantic pace in the Green Zone to people in socks trying to run on a slick linoleum floor. "There is a lot of activity, but very little forward motion," he writes. "Hope is not a strategic plan, and the status quo is unacceptable."
|
The images from Iraq are of hell on earth: On Sunday 12 Iraqi students traveling to Baqubah to take their final exams were dragged from a bus and killed because they practiced the wrong religion. The next day gunmen dressed in police uniforms kidnapped 56 people near the bus station in central...
| 16.054545 | 0.981818 | 53.018182 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060701166.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060701166.html
|
Gorbachev Invests in Newspaper
|
2006060719
|
MOSCOW, June 7 -- Former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev and Alexander Lebedev, a billionaire and often-contrary member of the ruling United Russia party, have bought a 49 percent stake in the Novaya Gazeta newspaper, a crusading publication that has often run tough articles about President Vladimir Putin.
In public, Gorbachev has expressed broad support for Putin's policies, praising him for stabilizing the country internally and strengthening it on the world stage. But some colleagues, speaking on condition of anonymity, said he is privately concerned about the increasing lack of political pluralism in the country, including state control of the media.
Gorbachev could not be reached for direct comment, but he spoke Wednesday at the World Newspaper Congress, which is being held here this week.
"You may ask us: Will the newspaper remain as it is now? We can just say that the editorial staff will continue to hold a controlling stake," Gorbachev said. "The newspaper's staff and we have agreed that the newspaper should keep its creative potential and continue to express a wide variety of opinions. We should -- this is one of our goals -- promote the newspaper's qualitative development in the interests of democratic values."
Lebedev, a member of parliament, said in a telephone interview that their investment would be used to turn the newspaper, which is published twice a week, into a daily with national reach.
"The most important task of any newspaper is to look objectively at the bureaucracy," said Lebedev, a banker, who is Russia's 21st-richest man, according to Forbes magazine. "For many years, Novaya Gazeta has had a reputation as objective and nonconformist, and that's what we want to strengthen."
Despite his membership in United Russia, Lebedev has frequently faulted its pro-Putin stance. "I have the right to criticize the Kremlin for the things they have done to this society: no civil society, no parties, no proper elections, no free mass media, and there's no parliament as far as exercising the proper controls over this bureaucracy," he said in a separate interview last month.
Lebedev said he and Gorbachev had been talking to the newspaper's editorial board for the last 12 months about making an investment.
Novaya Gazeta has become a kind of shelter for some of the country's best-known journalists who were purged from TV stations and various publications after criticizing the Kremlin.
The paper, however, is struggling financially, often unable to attract major advertisers. Its circulation outside Moscow, where it sells 170,000 copies, is weak.
The newspaper's board of editors, which includes senior journalists on the staff, will retain control of its 51 percent of shares. Gorbachev and Lebedev obtained their 49 percent stake from outside shareholders for $2 million, according to a source familiar with the deal.
The two men also committed to making an immediate $2 million investment to support the paper's growth. The new financing may allow Novaya Gazeta to expand its role as one of the country's few dissenting voices during parliamentary elections next year and a presidential election in 2008.
|
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.
| 13.152174 | 0.434783 | 0.478261 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/06/AR2006060601324.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/06/AR2006060601324.html
|
Ben Bernanke: Tough Guy
|
2006060719
|
Ben S. Bernanke rattled world financial markets Monday with his tough talk about combating inflation, but he also buffed up his image as a strong Federal Reserve chairman committed to the fight, analysts said yesterday.
"He reintroduced testosterone to the inflation-fighting resolve of the Fed," said Diane Swonk, chief economist of Mesirow Financial Inc., an investment management firm. "This is a pure male thing. He said to the markets, 'You think I'm a wimp? Take me on.' "
Gone, during Bernanke's remarks to a bankers' conference, was any mention of a Fed pause in its two-year series of interest rate increases. Gone was any fretting over the danger of pushing interest rates too far and triggering a slump. Instead, he declared that the recent rise in inflation would not be tolerated.
Bernanke, who took over as Fed chief in February, needed to send such a signal to counter the markets' doubts about his anti-inflation resolve, analysts said -- even though it meant jolting the markets with the implication of higher interest rates. He called recent inflation trends "unwelcome," noting that the Labor Department's consumer price index, excluding volatile food and energy items, had risen at a 3.2 percent annual rate over the three months ended in April and at a 2.8 percent pace in the six months ended in April.
When Bernanke told Congress in April that the Fed might pause in its rate increases, "he sent a bad message that the central bank was going to be soft on inflation, and that was the wrong message to send when energy, commodities and raw materials prices were at multi-decade or historic highs," said Richard Yamarone, director of research at Argus Research Corp. "I was pleasantly surprised [Monday]; my beliefs were confirmed that the world's most important central banker was in fact vigilant against inflation. He finally laid that out. I'm surprised he didn't do this earlier."
Bernanke's remarks followed extensive discussion within the central bank about its strategy for communicating with the public. Bernanke has long argued that Fed officials should be more open about their thinking to help the markets anticipate the likely course of interest rates. But that effort may have backfired: Recent attempts to reflect the Fed's internal uncertainty and debate caused some investors to question whether the central bank's commitment to low inflation had weakened with the retirement of former chairman Alan Greenspan.
Most of the Fed's top policymakers believed they were nearly done when they raised their benchmark short-term interest rate to 4.75 percent at their meeting in late March, Bernanke's first as chairman, minutes of that session show. And some of them worried then about the danger of raising the rate too high and causing an economic downturn. But others expressed concern about the inflation risks posed by rising prices for energy and raw materials, tightening labor markets, and robust economic growth -- suggesting that more interest rate increases might be needed.
Fed officials again lifted the rate in May, to 5 percent, and left the door open to more increases. But several also spoke more openly in public about the difficulty of knowing when to stop raising interest rates -- the classic dilemma for any central bank and one that the Greenspan Fed faced three times in his 18-year tenure.
The problem is that Fed interest rate changes take effect over many months and even years, as consumers take on new mortgages, car loans and credit card debt and as businesses borrow to expand. Higher interest rates eventually crimp spending, causing the economy to soften and inflation to fall -- but the process takes time.
And, as Bernanke observed in a paper he co-authored in 1995, when interest rates go up, economic growth typically slows many months before inflation falls .
This makes it particularly tricky to decide when to stop. The Fed today is close to reaching that "no-man's land of not knowing if you've gone too far because of the lags," Swonk of Mesirow Financial said.
Inflation rose or stayed high for some months after each time the Greenspan Fed finished a series of interest rate increases, in 1989, 1995 and 2000. Twice, in 1990 and in 2001, the Fed tightenings were followed by recession. Only in 1995 did the Fed achieve the central banker's Holy Grail of a "soft landing," in which an overheating economy cools to a healthy pace of expansion without a painful slump.
Greenspan faced higher inflation than Bernanke faces, and he raised the federal funds rate much higher than it is now before stopping: to nearly 10 percent in 1989, to 6 percent in 1995 and to 6.5 percent in 2000.
The Fed has been steadily raising its benchmark federal funds rate, the overnight interest rate on loans between banks, for two years, from a very low 1 percent in June 2004. With rates so low for so long, the housing market boomed through last year and began to soften only in recent months. Consumer spending remained strong through earlier this year and has just recently started to sag.
Bernanke said Monday that the expected economic slowdown "seems now to be underway," but he expressed more concern about inflation and signaled strongly that interest rates will move higher before he is done.
Financial markets, which have been volatile for weeks because of inflation fears and uncertainty over the Fed's likely action, sold off Monday and yesterday on expectations of more rate increases.
"This happens all the time at the end of a tightening cycle, and everybody is all atwitter because they don't know when it will end," said Mark Gertler, the New York University professor who co-authored the 1995 paper on Fed policy with Bernanke. "Our paper tells you there are lags in the effects of policy but doesn't tell you when to stop."
|
Ben S. Bernanke rattled world financial markets Monday with his tough talk about combating inflation, but he also buffed up his image as a strong Federal Reserve chairman committed to the fight, analysts said yesterday.
| 29.763158 | 1 | 38 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/06/AR2006060600697.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/06/AR2006060600697.html
|
Bush Pushes Immigration Plan in New Mexico
|
2006060719
|
ARTESIA, N.M., June 6 -- President Bush returned to the U.S.-Mexico border region Tuesday to tout what he described as a growing consensus around proposed immigration reforms and see firsthand how new border agents are being taught to keep people from entering the country illegally.
In Washington, House Republicans are showing little sign of meeting the president's demands on a comprehensive immigration plan. But appearing at the training facility here for border agents, Bush sounded an optimistic note that agreement is possible on plans to increase border security, crack down on employers hiring illegal immigrants and help immigrants assimilate into U.S. society.
VIDEO | Bush Addresses Border Agents
"People are coming to the conclusion we got to do something about a system that isn't working," said Bush, clad in shirt sleeves in the searing sun. "And while the differences grab the headlines, the similarities in approaches are striking."
Bush broke little ground substantively in his speech to border agents and agents in training, repeating many of the same points he had made since announcing his general approach to immigration in a nationally televised address last month. But aides say he is trying to build grass-roots support in advance of negotiations aimed at reconciling House and Senate bills that take sharply different approaches toward undocumented workers.
The president is also trying quiet diplomacy. Joining Bush on Air Force One on the trip from Washington were two New Mexico representatives who have been critical of the president for various aspects of his plan, Democrat Tom Udall and Republican Steve Pearce. During the trip, Pearce said, the two received a briefing from David Aguilar, chief of the Border Patrol, who outlined a more aggressive approach to keeping illegal immigrants from entering New Mexico.
"They actually have begun to develop a comprehensive plan for securing the border which we have not seen before," Pearce said.
A key sticking point for Pearce and other House Republicans is the president's plan for resolving the status of millions of illegal immigrants already in this country. The bill approved by the Senate would allow illegal immigrants who have been here at least five years a way to become citizens if they pay fines and back taxes and learn English; the House plan would make illegal presence in this country a felony.
The president has been supportive of the Senate approach, and in his speech Tuesday indicated that he does not regard such an approach as "amnesty" because illegal immigrants would have to get behind legal immigrants in line for citizenship. He added: "If Congress is worried about the number of people getting in, they can decrease the number of green cards. . . . If you want a longer line for people, issue fewer green cards."
Despite Bush's growing emphasis on border security, House conservatives remain wary of any final bill that would make undocumented immigrants legal. Despite the president's statement, "most Americans" consider his plan to be amnesty, said Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), a leading conservative. "There's just no support at home or in my heart."
But New Mexico's Democratic governor, Bill Richardson, who attended the speech here and met privately with Bush, said the president indicated he would deploy even more assets to overcome such doubts. "I came away with two strong impressions -- that he is sincerely eager to get a comprehensive bill, and that at the appropriate time he will weigh in heavily," Richardson said.
Before his speech here, Bush watched as agents in training staged various scenes depicting what it is like to work on the border. First was a document check of passengers on a bus, followed by agents scrambling over three train cars, yelling statements such as "All clear on the bottom" as lids and doors clanged. Bush also watched as agents staged a routine traffic stop, speaking in Spanish to a suspect who had his hands up while they trained on him what appeared to be plastic guns. He later flew to Laredo, Tex., to visit a regional Border Patrol facility. He watched screens monitoring different points on the border.
Earlier, he made an unannounced stop at Cotulla Style Pit Bar-B-Q, where he greeted diners in Spanish and English before sitting down with a dozen or so border agents around a long table. "Why don't we bring a couple of plates of nachos?" he asked.
|
ARTESIA, N.M., June 6 -- President Bush returned to the U.S.-Mexico border region Tuesday to tout what he described as a growing consensus around proposed immigration reforms and see firsthand how new border agents are being taught to keep people from entering the country illegally.
| 16.9 | 1 | 50 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/06/AR2006060601331.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/06/AR2006060601331.html
|
States' Primaries Are a Midterm Bellwether
|
2006060719
|
Alabama Gov. Bob Riley easily won the Republican primary contest last night against former state Supreme Court chief justice Roy S. Moore, once regarded as a formidable challenger because of his support from social conservatives who cheered his refusal to remove a monument to the Ten Commandments from the state judicial building.
Riley will face Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley, who in the Democratic primary buried the comeback attempt of former governor Don Siegelman. He had hoped to use a November contest against Riley to showcase his contention that his ongoing corruption trial is a political vendetta by the Republican who unseated him.
The results were among the first to come in a night when primaries and special elections across the nation were being closely watched for signs of the broader political environment that will influence this fall's midterm elections. In the contest with the most national significance, the special election in California to replace imprisoned former representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham in a suburban San Diego district, Republican Brian P. Bilbray jumped to a 51 to 43 percent lead over Democrat Francine Busby in early returns. That total included 11 percent of precincts, and all of its absentee ballots -- the latter a significant portion of the total votes expected to be cast.
In the final days of the race, polls showed Busby in a tight contest against Bilbray to complete Cunningham's term in a once-solid GOP seat. A Busby victory in a district where Bush won 55 percent of the vote two years ago would be a clear sign of the headwinds confronting Republicans this fall as they try to keep their 12-year control of the House.
Tuesday's results yielded no significant surprises.
In New Jersey, a famous political name -- Tom Kean Jr., the son of a popular former governor -- won a Republican primary for the right to challenge recently appointed Sen. Robert Menendez (D). Also in the Garden State, former New Jersey Assembly speaker Albio Sires cruised to a primary victory over Assemblyman Joseph Vas in the 13th Congressional District, all but assuring him a seat in Congress because of the heavily Democratic tilt of the district.
In Iowa's Democratic gubernatorial primary, Secretary of State Chet Culver eked out a narrow win over economic development official Mike Blouin and state Rep. Ed Fallon Jr. Culver -- the son of former senator John Culver -- has said he has the best chance of defeating Rep. Jim Nussle (R) in the fall.
And in Montana, farmer and state Sen. Jon Tester trounced Auditor John Morrison, the onetime favorite who was leveled by revelations of an extramarital affair and of an investigation his office had conducted into a company with ties to his onetime paramour. The Democrats' chances to seize control of the Senate are considered more remote than a turnover in the House, but one of their top targets is Sen. Conrad Burns (R), who has been mired in allegations of ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Fearing a damaging, high-profile setback, the National Republican Congressional Committee pumped more than $4.5 million into the California race to help Bilbray, much of it in recent weeks. Busby had scored points by tarring Bilbray, a former congressman from a neighboring district, as a Washington lobbyist. But she hurt her own cause with a verbal blunder last week when she told a largely Latino audience, "You don't need papers for voting."
The former school board member quickly followed that slip by saying, "You don't need to be a registered voter to help" the campaign, but conservative talk show hosts burned up Southern California airwaves this week with charges that Busby was encouraging illegal immigrants to vote.
GOP strategists hoped that would bolster Republican turnout, which may have been depressed by the demoralizing spectacle of their congressman, a decorated Vietnam War pilot, going to prison for bribery. At the very least, Democrats conceded, the gaffe halted Busby's momentum at a critical moment and put her on the defensive.
"She needed a flawless finish to pull this off," said one Democratic Party official in Washington last night, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the results of the election were hours away.
Democratic voters in the nation's most populous state were also deciding yesterday who will challenge Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in the fall. With 16 percent of precincts reporting, the Democratic establishment's candidate, state Treasurer Phil Angelides, was narrowly leading telegenic state Controller Steve Westly, whose supporters believe he would be a more formidable opponent to Schwarzenegger. The two candidates have spent a combined $70 million.
Democrats in Washington, eager to seize the 15 House seats necessary to wrest control from the GOP, had much at stake in the primaries. The race to succeed Nussle in Iowa's 1st Congressional District -- where Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) won 53 percent of the vote in 2004 -- is widely seen as one of the Democrats' best chances at a Republican seat. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had backed trial lawyer Bruce Braley against former state legislator Rick Dickinson. But with 92 percent of precincts reporting, Dickinson held a 156-vote lead.
In the Republican contest, Heart of America Restaurants & Inns founder Mike Whalen had a commanding lead over state Rep. Bill Dix and lawyer Brian Kennedy.
In California, the DCCC has been boosting Navy veteran and United Airlines pilot Steve Filson as the kind of moderate-to-conservative Democrat who can beat House Resources Committee Chairman Richard W. Pombo, a high-profile target. But in early returns, Filson was losing to Jerry McNerney, a more established face in the district's Democratic politics but a candidate who Democratic strategists on Capitol Hill fear cannot win enough votes in the conservative San Joaquin Valley.
Pombo was running well ahead of Pete McCloskey, a former representative who emerged from retirement after being angered by what he said was corruption in his own political party.
|
Complete coverage of the 2006 midterm elections, congressional campaigns and governors races. Political news and analysis from The Washington Post and washingtonpost.com.
| 44.8 | 0.64 | 0.88 |
high
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/06/AR2006060600722.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/06/AR2006060600722.html
|
Terrorism Allegations Detailed In Canada
|
2006060719
|
TORONTO, June 6 -- Suspects arrested last weekend in an alleged terrorism plot planned to storm the Canadian Parliament and hold politicians hostage, and at least one wanted to behead the prime minister if demands to withdraw Canada's troops from Afghanistan were not met, according to a summary of prosecutors' allegations read in court Tuesday.
According to authorities, the group also planned to bomb power plants in Ontario and invade the downtown Toronto studios of the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., according to the written statement submitted to the court by defense attorney Gary Batasar and read into the record at his request.
The statement, which the lawyer said was a summary of the government's planned charges, indicated that the men had planned to demand the removal of Canada's 2,300 troops from Afghanistan and the release of all Muslim prisoners held in Afghanistan and Iraq. Politicians including Prime Minister Stephen Harper were to be killed if the demands were refused, according to the government allegations, Batasar told reporters outside the courthouse. Prosecutors did not comment on the statements.
The statements offered the first details of the plot that police and intelligence agencies said they disrupted in a series of raids overnight Friday. Twelve men and five youths were arrested.
Fifteen of the suspects appeared in a courthouse in suburban Brampton on Tuesday morning, shackled together and wearing prison T-shirts. Most were remanded for a bail hearing on Monday.
"The allegations are very serious, including storming and bombing of various buildings," Batasar, who represents Steven Vikash Chand, 25, told reporters outside the courthouse. "There is an allegation apparently that my client personally indicated that he wanted to behead the prime minister of Canada."
In the capital, Ottawa, Harper brushed aside the news with a joke. "I can live with all these threats as long as they are not from my caucus," he quipped as he walked into his office.
The reaction of other lawmakers ranged from disbelief to worry.
"There were certainly some grandiose plans being made," Joseph Cordiano, a Liberal in Ontario's provincial Parliament, told reporters. "I have serious, serious doubts about their capacity to carry it out."
"The plot was a very serious one," said Peter Van Loan, a Conservative in Parliament representing Ontario. "I don't expect this is the only threat out there. The thing we can take comfort in is that Canada's security measures worked."
The arrests, carried out by hundreds of police officers, have added tension to the issue of U.S.-Canada border security. Canadian politicians have become rankled over comments by some U.S. legislators that the charges are evidence of the danger of terrorism coming south across the long, lightly guarded border.
"I'm very concerned about the amount of play in the U.S. that the threat Canada poses as a 'gateway to terrorism,' " Parliament member Mark Holland, a Liberal representing a Toronto suburb, told CBC television. "It's certainly not true."
Batasar portrayed the sensational allegations as an attempt by the government to frighten the public.
"It appears to me that whether you are in Toronto or Ottawa or Crawford, Texas, or Washington, D.C., what is wanting to be instilled in the public is fear," he said.
Batasar said his client had not spoken to him about the charges. "He said nothing about that. My client retains the right to silence." In the packed courtroom, the accused nodded or waved to relatives, but said little on their own. Several defense attorneys protested that they had been unable to meet their clients individually and that the suspects had not been permitted to see their families.
"Counsel would like to have that right" to talk to their clients personally, not through a plexiglass shield, said defense attorney Donald McLeod.
Several women in black Islamic dress came to watch the proceedings, but would not talk to reporters outside the courthouse. Missing from the hearing was the huge presence of heavily armed police that had guarded the courthouse Saturday when the suspects made an initial appearance.
In announcing the raids, police said the arrests were the result of the largest anti-terrorism investigation in Canada since Sept. 11, 2001. They said the suspects had procured three tons of an explosive fertilizer, intending to set it off at a public target.
|
TORONTO, June 6 -- Suspects arrested last weekend in an alleged terrorism plot planned to storm the Canadian Parliament and hold politicians hostage, and at least one wanted to behead the prime minister if demands to withdraw Canada's troops from Afghanistan were not met, according to a summary of...
| 15.592593 | 0.981481 | 52.018519 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2006/06/primary_day_primer_your_guide.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060619id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2006/06/primary_day_primer_your_guide.html
|
Primary Day Primer: Your Guide to Key Races in 8 States
|
2006060619
|
For political junkies, June 6 has been circled on the political calendar for months. Eight states hold primary elections today. There are important races for gubernatorial nominations in California, Iowa and Alabama, a contested Senate primary in Montana and a number of competitive House primary battles.
All in all, it's almost too much of a good thing. There are so many good races out there and not enough time to give each of them their due. In an attempt to bring readers the essential, need-to-know information about today's races, The Fix is providing the primer below. Remember: This is not an attempt to catalogue every race on the ballot today, rather a look at the best of the best.
Alabama: After much sound and fury on both sides, it looks like the early favorites will win their parties' respective nominations. For Republicans, that's Gov. Bob Riley, who has faced down the primary challenge from former State Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore much better than expected. A poll released over the weekend by the University of Alabama-Birmingham showed Riley with a commanding 69 percent to 26 percent lead over Moore. For Democrats. Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley, the preferred candidate of the party establishment, has pulled away from former Gov. Don Siegelman (who's currently on trial for corruption charges dating from his one term in the governor's mansion). That same UAB poll showed Baxley with a 49 percent to 31 percent edge. Once considered a real pick-up opportunity for Democrats, the race has fallen off the radar screen in recent months. A convincing Baxley victory might change that but don't count on it.
California: State Controller Steve Westly and state Treasurer Phil Angelides are in a dead heat for the Democratic nomination. A Field Poll released last week showed Westly with a 35 percent to 34 percent edge over Angelides, down from the 37 percent to 26 percent margin Westly enjoyed in April. But we've heard (and the poll shows) that Westly has bounced back and most strategists inside and outside the state see the race as a jump ball. If turnout (as expected) is low, Angelides's support from the Democratic party establishment and organized labor could put him over the top. Republicans make little secret that Angelides is their preferred opponent against Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in the fall as he can be more easily cast as a traditional liberal Democrat.
Iowa: Secretary of State Chet Culver looks like the nominee for Democrats, although former economic development director Mike Blouin is within shouting distance, according to a poll released Sunday by the Des Moines Register. Culver, the son of former Iowa Sen. John Culver, led with 36 percent to 28 percent for Blouin and 21 percent for state Sen. Ed Fallon. Culver has led wire to wire, but most Democrats are not particularly enthused about his chances against Rep. Jim Nussle (R) in the fall. (The Iowa governor's race is ranked as Republicans' best pick-up chance in The Fix's most recent Friday gubernatorial Line.)
Montana: State Auditor John Morrison has gone from shoo-in to heel in his Democratic primary race against state Sen. John Tester. Morrison was riding high until a story hit the papers regarding an extramarital affair he had and an investigation his office had conducted into a company with ties to his one-time paramour. Morrison's momentum seemed to slip away in the weeks following as concerns were raised that Democrats needed a ethically pristine candidate to take on embattled Sen. Conrad Burns, who faces a semi-serious primary of his own today against state Sen. Bob Keenan. Enter Tester, who, although being outspent, has pulled into a statistical dead heat with Morrison, according to a Mason-Dixon poll conducted late last month. Roughly one-in-three primary voters said the revelations about Morrison made them less likely to support him, while the rest said it was not an issue for them. The identity of the Democratic nominee may not matter much as the Mason-Dixon poll showed both men ahead of Burns.
California's 11th District: National Democrats have touted their chances of ousting Rep. Richard Pombo (R) since the start of the 2006 cycle. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has endorsed Steve Filson, a United Airlines pilot, although 2004 Democratic nominee Jerry McNerney, who was endorsed by the California Democratic Party, could well win the primary. Pombo is being challenged by former Rep. Pete McCloskey (R), who has centered his somewhat quixotic campaign on allegations of ethics improprieties that continue to shadow Pombo.
California's 50th District: No race has drawn as much national attention as the special election to replace imprisoned ex-Rep. Duke Cunningham (R). Democrat Francine Busby has taken advantage of a favorable national environment and the fact that her opponent -- Brian Bilbray (R) -- is a former member of Congress and a lobbyist, keeping this race much closer than the district's registration numbers suggest it should be. Bilbray has raised little money but has been bailed out by the massive spending of the National Republican Congressional Committee (estimated at $4.5 million). The independent candidacy of William Griffith, who has been endorsed by the San Diego Minutemen, further complicates Bilbray's winning equation. Even so, Republicans are cautiously optimistic about their chances here.
Iowa's 1st District: For months, conventional wisdom dictated that the Democratic primary in this eastern Iowa district was a two-man race between former Iowa Trial Lawyer Association head Bruce Braley and former state legislator Rick Dickinson. But it now appears as though 2004 nominee Bill Gluba is running stronger than expected -- thanks to name identification built up over his past runs for office. Should Gluba shock the political establishment and win the nomination, this seat would likely disappear as a pick-up opportunity for Democrats. On the Republican side, the race appears to be between state Rep. Bill Dix and Mike Whalen, who owns a chain of restaurants in the state. Former state GOP chairman Brian Kennedy's only hope is that voters who are disgusted with the back and forth between Dix and Whalen will choose him. The seat is being vacated by Nussle and currently ranks as the second most likely district to change party control in the The Fix's most-recent Friday House line.
Mississippi's 2nd District: Rep. Bennie Thompson faces his most serious reelection challenge since winning this seat in a 1993 special election, a challenge that comes in the form of state Rep. Chuck Espy. Espy is the son of Clarksdale Mayor Henry Espy, who lost to Thompson in the 1993 race for the seat, and he is the nephew of former 2nd District congressman (and Clinton administration Agriculture Secretary) Mike Espy. Despite that political lineage, Chuck Espy has not fulfilled expectations in the race. Thompson has effectively shut down Espy's money, making it extremely difficult for the challenger to compete on an even playing field with the incumbent. As of May 17, Thompson had raised $781,000 for the race and had $590,000 still in the bank; Espy had collected $225,000 with a paltry $5,000 left on hand. Republicans have no chance here in the fall.
New Jersey's 13th District: The elevation of Robert Menendez to the Senate opened up this northern New Jersey seat. The frontrunner is state Assembly Speaker Emeritus Albio Sires, who started aggressively raising money for the race long before Menendez was formally named to the Senate by Gov. Jon Corzine (D). Sires has the support of the local party organization in the district -- a key component in this district -- and has raised $1.2 million for the contest. Assemblyman Joseph Vas released a poll last month, however, that showed him with a two-point lead over Sires. Whoever wins today's primary will be the next congressman due to the strong Democratic tilt of the seat.
Check The Fix tomorrow morning for analysis on today's winners and losers.
By Chris Cillizza | June 6, 2006; 7:45 AM ET | Category: Governors , House , Senate Previous: Gore Joins Calif. Special Election Fight | Next: Romney Goes to Bat for Same-Sex Marriage Ban
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cgi-bin/mt/mtb.cgi/7518
Posted by: Intrepid Liberal Journal | June 6, 2006 08:22 AM
I'm interested in the CA-50 seat. The Dems need to win this to show that they can win something. Remember the Ohio seat narrowly won by "Mean" Jean Schmidt? Another GOP seat that stayed in their hands despite a strong challenge from the other side.
Moral victories are meaningless. In fact, as Al Gore demonstrated by losing the presidency with more votes than his opponent, more victories are ultimately humiliating.
But back to CA-50, Busby stepped right in it by informing a Hispanic man (on microphone) that he didn't "need papers to vote." While the guy could well have been a legal citizen, it sounded terrible given today's environment. Sort of a Busby update on the Dean scream.
Why do I continue to hope...
On another note, Ann Coulter releases her latest screed today: "The Church of Liberalism: Godless." I would like to have introduced her to my late grandmother who was a liberal and the most "Godly" person I ever met. But Ann couldn't shine her shoes.
In that spirit, an EWM ode to Ann: "In Her Dreams: Coulter Converses with God." http://www.eyewitnessmuse.com/musings.php?p=213
... I gotta tell you, I'm a kind and forgiving God, but I have a tough time taking in souls with a messiah complex-confuses the Angels you know."
Oh no God please, don't cast me into eternal damnation, I'll be good, I promise!
"Ann, it's not about the promises, it's about the deeds. It's not about who you put down, it's about who you lift up. Am I getting through to you?"
Yes God, yes. I'll change. I'll spread love. I'll stop gagging myself after eating. I'll...
Posted by: The Eyewitness Muse | June 6, 2006 08:34 AM
If I was Ann Coulter in heaven, the first thing I'd ask God is why he made her look like a cheesy transvetite hooker.
Maybe that's why she has the disposition of a rabid squirrel.
Posted by: Drindl | June 6, 2006 08:57 AM
Culver will beat Nussle in the fall. Nobody wants to elect the head of the House Budget Committee as IA Gov, we can't afford deficits here.
Culver was leading Nussle in the latest KCCI poll 49 to 41. Go Chet.
Posted by: IOWA DEMOCRAT | June 6, 2006 08:57 AM
If I was Ann Coulter in heaven, the first thing I'd ask God is why he made her look like a cheesy transvetite hooker.
Maybe that's why she has the disposition of a rabid squirrel.
Posted by: Drindl | June 6, 2006 08:58 AM
I wonder if the tight California democratic gubernatorial race will increase turnout for Busby? I have a bad feeling that this one will go past the wire. When you invest 4.5 mil on an election you want to win and they may mean a court battle if this one is close.
Posted by: Andy R | June 6, 2006 09:14 AM
To me, the race to watch is Brilbay/Busby, Bilbray is not a strong candidate and if the dems are going to win the house this fall, they will have to pick up this seat. My guess, Bilbray will win this by 5 0r 6% points. If he was in any other district, he been a goner, but lucky for him his opponent is solicting illegal immigrants to vote for her. No wonder DEMs don't want photo id's.
Posted by: bhoomes | June 6, 2006 09:21 AM
"Gov. Bob Riley, who has faced down the primary challenge from former State Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore"
The Alabama race is the most interesting race from a national perspective - for all of the support the radical religious groups (I will not refer to them as the right because it insults the right and is really without philosophical justification) put behind Roy Moore they appear to not be able to reward him with the nomination.
Bush might want to take heed on this revelation while pushing his radical religious agenda against gays - if Moore can be rejected in Alabama then it is fair to say this group of christian Jihadists may rapidly be approaching the position of a mere footnote in history.
I say teach those queers a lesson and start arresting grandma every time she tells her Bridge club her grandson is married to a man - that will solve all of our problems -
bring down the walls of division Mr. Bush - a divided nation is a weak nation - a united nation is a strong nation - your ignorant policies have even divided the family of your vice-president.
Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | June 6, 2006 09:35 AM
Mike Blouin is higly respected by the business community in Iowa. He will take a lot of that traditional support away from Nussle. Chet would be hard pressed to carry the Iowa First Congressional District against Nussle and will not have appeal to the business community. I believe Blouin has the last few days momentum and will win today and in November.
Posted by: Iowa BoBo | June 6, 2006 09:51 AM
I left MS 2 out because the November race is not likely to be competitive. And I did not give much creedance to the internal poll done for Vas in NJ 13 but thanks for including CA 11. I totally dropped the ball on that one.
Posted by: RMill | June 6, 2006 09:52 AM
Not neccessarily. CA 50 will be an interesting indicator but by no means is a Dem loss going to mean they won't take control after November unless the RNC and NRCC is going to spend $4.5 M in every competitive seat they are defending (and they just don't have the cash to do that). It will just be likely a more modest Dem pick up (11-16 seats) in November rather than a seachange (20-30 seats) like we saw in 1994.
This wild spending spree is specifically to avoid months of damage control the RNC also cannot afford if they lose the seat. Having to face down media stories between June 7 and November 6 about how bad they are going to lose in the midterms is the only reason the GOP cares about this so much.
Posted by: RMill | June 6, 2006 10:01 AM
"If he was in any other district, he been a goner, but lucky for him his opponent is solicting illegal immigrants to vote for her."
That is clearly NOT what she said, but it is kind of you to identify your self as a dittohead so the rest of us know to ignore you.
Posted by: bawbie | June 6, 2006 10:05 AM
The RNCC strategy here is similar to the one used in OH 6 in spending $1.5 M to try and keep Charlie Wilson from winning an uphill write-in primary.
In an interesting turning of the tables, the Busby campaign has copied a page from the GOP playbook from OH 6 in highlighting the credentials on immigration of Bilbrays independent opponent William Griffith. RNCC ads in OH 6 were used to boost Wilson's little known Democratic opponents in hopes of drawing off write in support for Wilson. Adding that she supports the McCain option, who bailed on a Bilbray fund raising appearance last week, was an nice bonus.
Posted by: RMill | June 6, 2006 10:07 AM
Two races most important as I see it -- Alabama, as a test of the strength of Christian jihadists there, and CA-50, to see whether people actually care whether their representatives are outright, brazen criminals.
Bilbray is a sleazy lobbyist who, if elected, will have his hand in the public till from Day 1.
But because Busby made one casual comment [and if you look at in IN CONTEXT, which wingers seems unable to comprehend you can see she was not telling someone they can vote without 'papers' but rather that they could volunteer to help out] she may well lose, because of the successful campaign to ignite racism, bigotry and xenophobia that has been launched by republicans. This is their strategy every time.
Like other fascist idealogies, 'conservatives' use the most primitive human emotions -- hate and fear -- to manipulate. And it's very, very effective.
Posted by: Drindl | June 6, 2006 10:09 AM
Survey USA update June 5 CA GOV DEM PRIMARY Angelides 44% Westly 36%
June 5 AL GOV DEM PRIMARY Baxley 46% Siegelman 41%
AL GOV REP PRIMARY Riley* 64% Moore 33%
Posted by: RMill | June 6, 2006 10:18 AM
RMILL: I concur with you CA 50 will not necessary determine what happens in November, but if we(enlightened conservatives) lose this seat in a heavily republican district, I have to think we may be in trouble. I think the margin of victory by ethier candidate will give us a clue to the electorate's mood. BAWBIE: What's a dittohead mean?
Posted by: bhoomes | June 6, 2006 11:04 AM
King Newt was talking about that on Hannity last night and misspoke- calling Busby an illegal immigrant - after asked whether this was just a typical campaign trail "mis-speak."
This should damage his chances should he choose to run for the 2008 Republican Presidential. nominiation. ;)
Posted by: RMill | June 6, 2006 11:09 AM
'Enlightened conservatives' -- you mean, like Ann Coulter? I have to admit she's right on so many things. Like how the Nazis weren't really bad at all, and how Joe McCarthy was a hero and everything...
She especially reveres McCarthy for his defense of the Nazis who tortured and murdered American POWs at Malmedy. You conservatives have such toching affection for sadists.
Posted by: Drindl | June 6, 2006 11:35 AM
CA Secretary of State is predicting only 38% turnout for todays primary, traditionally low for CA.
It does not appear that the contested Dem gubernatorial primary is generating enough excitement to have an impact. Low turnout is considered favorable for Angelides.
Posted by: RMill | June 6, 2006 11:36 AM
Much as I admire Newt for his intelligence, he has way too much baggage to stand a chance in an election. Regardless of the outcome of the CA election, pundits will talk this to death. they know nothing more than you or I do but they are paid by the minute and are required to fill. but the outcome is actually very simple, whoever wins gets the seat. you can't extend any trend from this to a national mood despite the strong desire to make these predictions. the previous guy is in jail and this creates a very special situation with unique motivations. most of the rest of the country is pretty happy with thier individual Member and will send them back in droves. dittohead is a Rush L. fan. I am a parrothead instead.
Posted by: king of zouk | June 6, 2006 11:36 AM
It appears that the RNC is in disagreement with you King- to the tune of $4.5 M.
They are aware of how "nationalizing of the mid-terms" will make it difficult for them to retain control of the US House and possibly the Senate.
They are also aware of- and often make use of the fact themselves (1994) - the power of the media to "alter the national mood".
Five months of stories about how bad they are giong to get beat, "just like in CA 50", is a devestating scenario they are willing to pay through the nose to avoid.
Posted by: RMill | June 6, 2006 11:43 AM
Ann and Rush have a great sense of humor and don't take themselves seriously, it is one of their secrets to success. It is why a lot of liberals don't do well in this medium, they take themselve and life way to serioulsy. Lighten up and laugh at your own foibles, we are only here for a short time. They also don't hate you libs, the way you hate them.
Posted by: bhoomes | June 6, 2006 11:50 AM
Posted by: Vinton, IA | June 6, 2006 11:55 AM
Bhoomes, I would say Al Franken knows when to not take himself too seriously.
The other thing is the Republicans have alot to lose with a Bilbray loss then the Dems. If Busby losses by 2% lets say then they can spin that as a tightening of the electorate. The only way today will be a win for the Republicans is if Bilbray wins by 8% or more. However, I agree that this is a special circumstance and the parties that read too much into it do at thier own peril.
Posted by: Andy R | June 6, 2006 12:00 PM
Oh my god, 'Ann and Rush don't take themselves seriously'... what kind of incoherent babbling is that? Do you really think 9/11 was funny? Coz Ann sure does. She thinks women who lost their husbands then are having a great time. She also defends Nazis and says the Holocaust was the Jews' fault. You know, a lot of people beleive this filth and the media legitimizes it by having her as a guest.
I'm sorry if I take life seriously. I have a child who happens to be Jewish and I'd like to see her grow up. I don't think people who joke about the murder of Jews are really very funny, do you? Maybe you do.
Posted by: Drindl | June 6, 2006 12:08 PM
RMill - I am in agreement with you, but the forces at work here are that they would like to avoid giving any ammunition to the talking heads who will have to talk for the whole summer about this event with nothing else to go on. how pitiful for our electorate that we need to have our minds made up in this way. but I wonder exactly how much people alter their behavior based on cable output. Are these the people that should be making up the congress through their votes? I always wondered about the last-minute undecided voters. what are they waiting for - some verbal slip of the tongue or maybe some inaccurate dirt produced just in time for no response.
No one takes Al Franken seriously, except maybe those guys over at air america who are still paying his salary, despite loosing money hand over fist.
I have found that hating your opponent and spewing conspiracies and insults is the least convincing of methods. Look over this blog and tell me who is the most convincing - the tin-foil hats or the methodical analysts?
Posted by: king of zouk | June 6, 2006 12:10 PM
actually, Al Franken wrote a fairly insightful book, albeit humorous. But whine if you must.
The fun thing this year is a lot of safe Red seats are mostly Blue-shifted, to the point where you have to dig in Utah and the four remaining red states to find any races that are really a good chance for a Red victory.
It's all about the Big Government, Big Spending, Big Debt, Big Trade Imbalance, Big Tax Cuts for Billionaires, and Big Pretend Iraq Ain't Happening.
Posted by: Will in Seattle | June 6, 2006 12:16 PM
KOZ - I just have two points.
1. Air America isn't losing money. It's actually been steadily expanding ever since new ownership took over almost two years ago.; and
2. For someone who regularly sprinkes their comments with "stupid" "wacko" and other insulting statements, I wonder whether you view yourself as a "tin-foil hat" or a "methodical analyst."
Feel free to dismiss my comments as those of a "crazy" "liberal" "wacko" tin-foil hat wearing Democrat if you'd like. :)
Posted by: Colin | June 6, 2006 12:30 PM
Will, those are interesting issues. Let me take a run at the underlying philosophy. rather than approach this from the "is it easy" framework, let's approach it from the "is it proper" aspect. Is big G appropriate - the resounding response is NO, uttered by bill clinton in one of his pandering moments. Are tax cuts right? What justifies taking money from someone to give to someone else? I would state that there must be some underlying urgent need to justify this. We can't contine damnding services while simultaneoulsy insisting someone else pay. Yes Iraq is messy and expensive but is it the right thing to do? Look at who we are fighting - humans (I use the term loosly) who think it is OK to murder a bus full of children for political ends. what else do we need to know as Americans to warrant our inclusion in ending this behavior? My conclusion is to approach all these important issues from a very basic level - let's do the things that are important and cut out the luxuries. what have we really cut in the last 50 years? And I don't mean a 5% across the board cut, I mean eliminate. surely every idea introduced was not a good one.
Posted by: king of zouk | June 6, 2006 12:30 PM
I wish you were right about people not relying on cable pundit talking points as the basis of their political views, but, alas, I know way too many people who accept what they hear from O'Reilly (or Rush or Michael Moore) as gospel. Our collective suceptibilty to talking points has got to be the only reason why candidates and parties and special interests spend so much money on political ads.
It kills me to think that Alexander Hamilton et al. first published most of the The Federalist in NEWSPAPERS. And people read them. Poor Alex must be rolling in his grave.
Posted by: rkb | June 6, 2006 12:35 PM
"What justifies taking money from someone to give to someone else?"
Uhm, war? At the very least cutting taxes during a war is irresponsible, or do you disagree?
"what else do we need to know as Americans to warrant our inclusion in ending this behavior?"
Since we aren't at war with Sudan, or weren't at war with Rwanda, or don't engage in war in Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or Palestine, or any other countless places where horrible people do horrible things, it's a safe bet that "doing wrong" is not a SUFFICIENT reason to war with someone else.
So let me answer your unserious question with a substantive (but incomplete) list of things we should need to know as Americans before deciding whether the juice is worth the squeeze:
1) What will the casualties be? 2) What will the financial costs be? 3) Will it lead to a secular Democracy? 4) Will it make Americans safer from terrorists? 5) Will it aid us in the war on terror? 6) Will it impede our military engagements in Afghanistan?
So on and so forth. Merely that "the enemy kills children in buses" is not enough.
"And I don't mean a 5% across the board cut, I mean eliminate."
Why don't you suggest some so we can debate the various merits of the proposed cuts.
Posted by: Will | June 6, 2006 01:04 PM
Tonight is going to interesting !
I will try to resist looking at the results at 8:00pm. Because the best races will be to close to call and will not have good results until 11:00pm. But it is just so hard not to peek at the results once the polls close and try to see what happened. I being on the east coast and the 4 hour difference with California might have to wait to Wednesday morning for California. It may take hours to call CA-50 if what they say about it being a squeaker is true.
Posted by: Wells | June 6, 2006 01:09 PM
Posted by: Wells | June 6, 2006 01:33 PM
Will, your demands for warmaking are totally unrealistic. How many casualties, how much will it cost - you must be joking to think these are available ahead of time. It is actually much more simple than that - can we do it? Will it advance our global strategy (yes oil is important)? Is it worth it? My cuts - since you asked. totally eliminate the Dept of Ed - a local concern. eliminate the Dept of energy - a private matter. Privitize the retirement aspects of Social Security, turn over the insurance part to allstate. cut the guts out of the IRS and simplify the tax code. Stop spending Federal money on local transportation, build toll roads and bridges. reduce environmental regulations and let the tort system accomodate this. eliminate the restrictions on political donations. change health care to a portable system that is subject to individual decisions - not doctors and insurance companies. I don't need all those tests every time.
this should give you plenty of ammo to call me all sorts of names, but it would be better if you took on the debate.
Posted by: king of zouk | June 6, 2006 02:04 PM
Does anyone know how much the Post is being paid by the George Allen re-election campaign to pretend that his sister did not recently write a book called "The Fifth Quarter"? In it she describes his violent and abusive treatment of her and her siblings growing up. He threw one brother through a glass door, broke another's collarbone, rammed a pool cue into her boyfriend's head, and dragged her upstairs by the hair.
All family values, of course. Can't touch those Republicans. Gotta keep pretending like their empty "moral values" phrase actually means something. Wouldn't be polite not to.
Posted by: B2O | June 6, 2006 02:26 PM
'I have found that hating your opponent and spewing conspiracies and insults is the least convincing of methods.'
But it's been working so well for republicans and nazis and stalnists and others for so many years. I think it's pretty damn convincing myself. If so-called 'conservatives' [and I'd really like to know what's conservative about them] didn't hate liberals, I don't think they'd be spending every minute of their waking lives attacking them.
Debate? Oh yeah, privatize social security. Just go ahead and steal all the money that hardworking people have been depositing in the fund their entire working lives and funnel it straight into the pockets of bush's good friends in the investment business. Brilliant.
Simplify [which means in republicanese 'shift it to the middle class'] taxes and eliminate all taxes on everyone born wealthy.
Eliminate the restrictions on political donations so the entire country becomes one big auction block where politicians are bought and sold.
Sorry, these are not 'ideas' or 'solutions' -- just good old-fashioned class warfare.
Posted by: Drindl | June 6, 2006 02:31 PM
Are you really unaware that the last six years have already seen a near total rollback of every environmental safeguard enacted in the last three decades? To such an extreme extent that the group Republicans for Environmental Responsibility actually declined to endorse anyone for president in 2004. That should tell you something, I would think.
Posted by: B2O | June 6, 2006 02:31 PM
B20 - are you an only child? I had a large family and this is not that unusual. I don't think 50 year old childhood incidents are going to play that well. nice try though. Easier than talking about the issues of course. If you think the WaPo is carrying water for Sen Allen you need to adjust your tin-foil cap a little.
Posted by: king of zouk | June 6, 2006 02:33 PM
Drindl, you forgot the biggest one of all: convincing their flock that the Estate Tax is their enemy, when it is actually what keeps the budget balanced, and only hits the top 1 or 2%.
Ask the average clueless FauxNews viewer, and they'll assure you that the GOP is saving them from getting hit with this when they die. Of course, they still think Saddam attacked us on 9/11, that the earth is 6,000 years old, and that the current global warming is natural. Is it any wonder the country's in so much trouble when there's this huge block of gullible types whom the GOP can use for their swindles?
Posted by: B2O | June 6, 2006 02:36 PM
"I had a large family and this is not that unusual."
Wow. This explains much of what I've read in your posts. I understand now. Sorry to hear about it.
Posted by: B2O | June 6, 2006 02:39 PM
B20, the republican dupe was insulting your childhood. You know, the guy who wants to have a serious debate. He can't stand the fact that you insulted his hero Allen, the psychotic nutbag who would be president. He's probably no stupider or more psychotic than the Boy on a Bike who runs the country now, though.
Unfortunately, as PT Barnum said, there's one born every minute. And that's why we'll always have dictators and charlatans and thieves in positions of power.
Posted by: Drindl | June 6, 2006 02:45 PM
But you fail to mention that the environment is the cleanest it has been in 50 years. this trend continues. you talk about the process but not the results. It is not the regulation that is working, it is the technology advances. I am not disputing the goals, I am offering an alternative way to reach them. Can you admit that the eco-lobby has overreached and now needs to be reconsidered in light of current needs and desires.
Stealing - deposit 12% of your money into a fake account. If you live to 65, you get some back. If you die when you are 66, too bad, you get nothing. Drindl, it is hard to take anything you write seriously since you love to sprinkle your opinions with "nazi", "facist" etc. I will not be responding to you in the future until you get a grip. It is not because I have nothing to say, it is because you have nothing to offer. your tantrums do the leftists with conviction a disservice. there are many leftists ideas with merit but you do them no justice.
Posted by: king of zouk | June 6, 2006 02:46 PM
I just read an article about how much money republicans have spent on CA-50. Wow
Oh, yeah Chris comment that Bilbray has not raised that much - is about the stupid comment I have seen Chris write so far. Bilbray has raised and spent 1.5 million dollars as a candidate. 1.5 million for a individual candidate in a house race is alot of money . The figures I have recently seen and these are the just officially disclosed dollars as of last week is that republicans have spent a total of 11 million dollars from multiple organizations. I am sure this total will rise on Thursday when more organization disclose last minute spending. Now compare this to a total of about 4 million dollars that dems have spent. Republican are spending 3 times what democrats are spending to save a republican in a district that has a built in 15 point advantage for republicans. When you look at how much money is being spent to save Bilbray it becomes obvious that republican are scared to death. Come November republicans will not have the luxury to spend 11 million dollars on 36 individual house seats that are at risk.
Posted by: Wells | June 6, 2006 03:49 PM
"But you fail to mention that the environment is the cleanest it has been in 50 years. this trend continues. you talk about the process but not the results. It is not the regulation that is working, it is the technology advances."
And we all know that industry would have made the investment and implemented these technology advances spontaneously, out of their overriding social consciousness, right? The environmental regulations passed at the encouragement of the eco-lobby (which represents a fair portion of the American public BTW) were not the reason. Industry was "just about to do that on our own" every time they were mandated to, I'm sure.
Posted by: B2O | June 6, 2006 04:02 PM
visit to www.chetnotstupid.blogspot.com to realize why Republicans would love a shot at Chet Culver. He is a less intelligent, even more politically tone deaf version of his father.
Posted by: Des Moines, IA | June 6, 2006 04:03 PM
As an example, we've seen how wonderfully Bush's imaginary "voluntary" decreases in carbon emissions is working. Shockingly, a soulless corporation will only respond when prodded to by law. (not a surprise to most of us, yet some still imagine, or pretend to, that these "voluntary" safeguards will have any effect)
Posted by: B2O | June 6, 2006 04:04 PM
Zouk, sorry if those last two sarcastic posts came out sounding snide. You've actually been arguing with me quite civilly. I just get amazed sometimes at the naive notion that corporations will do something that costs them money just because it is the right thing to do. The only exception I see is when it is in their PR interests to do so - and even in that case they are protecting their bottom line (from lost sales/boycotts, etc.).
George Bush asking industry nicely to cut down on their greenhouse gas emissions has exactly the same effect as me asking Bill Gates nicely to buy me a new car.
Posted by: B2O | June 6, 2006 04:10 PM
I advocated letting the tort system handle any problems. If you pollute my river upstream of my farm, I sue you for damages. I didn't say we should let corporations run wild and do whatever they want with no downside. I don't have all the answers but more regulations does not seem to work very well. Remember this was a way to cut government costs. We shift the burden onto the private sector. the trial lawyers will love it. I don't believe that factories pollute on purpose, they do it because it is the cheapest way to do their business. Adding in potential lawsuits adds to the cost and will effect the risk posture taken. Of course these methods already exist and the effectiveness may be questionable, but it is an idea that may pay off. a good case in point is logging. Privately owned land is handeled completely different than leased land.
Posted by: king of zouk | June 6, 2006 04:47 PM
Des Moines, IA - "visit to www.chetnotstupid.blogspot.com to realize why Republicans would love a shot at Chet Culver. He is a less intelligent, even more politically tone deaf version of his father."
You should try visiting thomas.loc.gov to see why Democrats are eager to take on Nussle. I can't wait to hear him explain how he's going to bring the $400 billion yearly deficits to Iowa.
Posted by: bawbie in CR | June 6, 2006 04:48 PM
"How many casualties, how much will it cost - you must be joking to think these are available ahead of time."
I didn't say the numbers were available before hand, I said that's the kind of consideration that we should think about when preparing for war.
As for it being "unrealistic", you're just wrong. Military plans include casualty predictions. They also include contingency plans, based partly off casualty projections or unintended consequences. Our nuclear drops on Japan were predicated on an unwillingness to suffer predicted casualty rates.
Our current military project in Iraq is based off "forced protection" which essentially means every single soldier's life is the mission, as opposed to 200 years of American military tradition where an objective was the mission and soldier's lives were the means.
And that means every time we want to clear out insurgents we require overwhelming force... so as to reduce the amount of American casualties. Which means that is precisely the type of consideration that military minds are employing every single day in Iraq. Unrealistic? More like constant. You seem oblivious to that.
"It is actually much more simple than that - can we do it? Will it advance our global strategy (yes oil is important)? Is it worth it?"
My response to those: Can we do it? Unclear so far. The better question is, by the time all is said in done, will we have WANTED to? Saddam Hussein was a secular dictator in as much a fight against Islam as we were. By the time Iraq has a functioning government, women who would otherwise walk the streets Burka free will be covered head to toe -- or else they will get acid thrown in their faces. Iran will certainly benefit from this as the Suunis will be all but wiped out (in the political sense of non-participation, and in the real sense of being kidnapped in the middle of the night and executed) by a Shiite majority angry at years of minority Suuni rule.
Who does this benefit? Iran. Is that good for American interests? You tell me?
Will it advance our global interests (OIL)?
Well, as a matter of fact it doesn't. War in Iraq has driven the global price of oil. Iraqi production is still below pre-war levels. If this benefits anyone it is Iran (who we don't even get oil from) who can use Iraqi shortages to its own advantage. Politically this means bending us over backwards in the security council by stringing China and Russia along. A national embarrasment, if you ask me.
Even if i accept the premise that oil is a worthwhile cause for war, any objective mind would admit that it didn't work out in Iraq.
Not according to Americans. You are welcome to disagree. I'd love to hear you explain why it is worth it.
As for your cuts, looney they be!
"totally eliminate the Dept of Ed - a local concern."
Not remotely close to politically feasible. In any event federal education dollars account for 1/10th of the education budget; around 71 billion of the over 900 billion in education costs. The other 800+ billion is covered by state taxes. A local concern to anyone who is listening.
But let's talk about what really put the Education Department on the map. It was the GI Bill which ultimately paid for 8 million veterans to go to College, and the 1958 National Defense Education Act in response to the Soviet launch of Sputnik.
Now, I don't know about you, but I think sending 8 million American World War 2 veterans to college and combating the Soviet spacerace were worthwhile endeavors. You are welcome to disagree, sir.
Not that I should be arguing this with you, of all people, since your party has increased the ED appropriations by 30% since taking the executive branch in 2001. It's your President that is in love with Federal Expansion of the Education Department. Why?
"Privitize the retirement aspects of Social Security, turn over the insurance part to allstate."
Because we all love insurance companies. Politically unfeasible because it requires benefit cuts. Not to mention it's totally unworkable because the current system DEPENDS on the participation of people who have no "need" for social insurance. The socially secure subsidize the socially insecure. If you privatize it the socially secure have no incentive to participate and thus, the funding drops out. Have fun passing that one, guy.
"cut the guts out of the IRS and simplify the tax code."
In practice this means eliminating progressive taxation for a "simpler" solution but I want to hear it from your lips. Are you a flat taxer or "fair" taxer? I'd love to discuss the merits (or lackthereof) of both.
"Stop spending Federal money on local transportation, build toll roads and bridges."
But then how will the Federal Government force states to abide by drinking age laws? Pfft, I don't really care, actually. I support underage drinking and I love the luxury of toll roads. Be my guest on this one.
"reduce environmental regulations and let the tort system accomodate this."
The only "cut" would be the EPA presumably. Boy you'd really knock a dent in that 500 billion dollar Bush projected deficit by cutting the whopping 7.6 billion in total EPA annual requests.
I'm not going to get into the environmental regulation argument with you because it is unnecessary. I'll grant you the environment and the federal education budget and you are still well over 400 billion dollars away from a balanced budget.
"change health care to a portable system that is subject to individual decisions - not doctors and insurance companies."
See: Social Security. Health insurance is dependent on one section of the population (the healthy and rich) subsidizing another section of the population (the poor and unhealthy). Or, if you prefer generational conflict over class-warfare, the young vs. the old.
Once you eliminate the "incentive" of the rich/healthy/young from participating (by forcing them to participate through taxation) then they will simply stop. And the poor/unhealthy/old will be unable to cover the costs themselves and will... vote. Or die. Your proposal is implausible.
I eagerly await your response.
Posted by: Will | June 6, 2006 05:04 PM
so you advocate eliminating the military and keeping everything else. Guess what - all health care depends on the rich and healthy to pay for the sick and poor. How does this negate my point. I simply stated that the consumer should be reinserted into the decision loop. but I pay insurance every month and have not been to the doc in a long while. where is this money going. the insurance industry can figure out how to accomodate this problem. Very poor people can still get some coverage although it will not be as good. We just can't afford to cover everyone in a world class way. but cutting out alot of what doctors think is right and what the market will bear will help a lot. HMOs are often laughed at but they are a great step in the right direction for many people. eliminating social security would stop pols from raiding the fund. you could still require participation but make the capital inheritable. a short term gap would be solved in the long run, instead of a long term gap getting worse and worse. I never said that I could get these passed. the GI bill is the only ed program with any record of success. it is very much like vouchers which are off limits these days. why? Drinking age laws - a national concern? not in my book. I would gladly pay a toll to avoid traffic. your stuff this far is valid for debate. your Iraq stuff is less so. you quote many hysterical lines like women are better off before. this is just silly. and if you don't know why we are there by now, I will not be able to enlighten you.
but it is a pleasure to encounter an honest debate for once on this site. Are any of my arguments convincing in the least? Is there anything I could have said that would have swayed you?
Posted by: king of zouk | June 6, 2006 05:28 PM
forgot the tax thing. I read a very interesting article from a U of MD economist saying that the AMT is creeping up in such a way that it will become a flat tax before long. I am willing to pay for my share of the services and then some since I am so well off. but I only want to provide for people who really need it. the churches and other like organizations do a very good job at making this distinction and charity is a good way to go. I don't begrudge an actual disadvantaged person getting help through the government (probably state not federal), but I think the bar for disadvantaged has fallen too low. I am very willing to pay for the military but not much else. And it would be nice if the people who got the help said thank you once in a while instead of more, more. I don't know enough about tax policy to say much more but I know I pay too much and they spend it on things I don't want. now you may not want the military but there is a thing called the common good and the Army certainly qualifies as this. not so much rock and roll museums and bridges to nowhere to pick out some funny cases.
Posted by: king of zouk | June 6, 2006 05:42 PM
"so you advocate eliminating the military and keeping everything else."
Absolutely not. I have no idea what in my post could possibly have made you reach that conclusion but it is utterly ridiculous. Your reading comprehension is extremely poor.
"Guess what - all health care depends on the rich and healthy to pay for the sick and poor. How does this negate my point. I simply stated that the consumer should be reinserted into the decision loop. but I pay insurance every month and have not been to the doc in a long while. where is this money going."
You missed the point. Though YOU might decide to pay insurance even if you do not need it, many people would opt out if they had the chance. The government takes that choice away from them because their involuntary participation in Medicare/Medicaid is NECESSARY to fund the very poor and the very sick who would not otherwise be able to afford insurance. Why would anyone insure someone who is extremely old/poor? The poor and old are less healthy than the rich and young and are also far more likely to NEED health insurance which means insurers must charge them more to get a return. And since these are the people least capable of paying for insurance in the first place they are the least likely to be insured at all.
If we put the consumers back into the decision loop they will make the perfectly reasonable decision that the poor/old/unhealthy are not worth subsidizing and will opt out of participation with these people.
That's why taking them out of the loop is so crucial; we need their involuntary participation to save lives.
You-as-anecdote does not dictate how all people will behave.
"eliminating social security would stop pols from raiding the fund."
If this doesn't win boneheaded statement of the year award I don't know what would. It would also stop "people" from "raiding" the fund IE: receiving benefits that they paid for, many people for decades.
If you have a problem with the "raiding" of the fund (which actually goes towards servicing our debt, a noble cause, in my opinion and mandated by law since excess revenues from taxes MUST go towards servicing the debt) then the solution is not the total abolition of Social Security but rather a managable FICA tax rate that actually applies to the amount used.
Since the baby boomers are about to enter benefit age any lowering of FICA will be temporary; you'll have to raise it shortly just to cover the costs.
What I would do (but it won't happen because it is utterly reasonable) is take off the cap for SS tax at 90,000 (which is ludicrous) and tax all income. Obviously the rate could be lowered from 9% (I think?) because you are drawing from a much larger pool of money. And the taxes generated from FICA should reflect the amount needed to pay out SS beneficiaries.
"it is very much like vouchers which are off limits these days. why?"
I was under the impression that vouchers were a state issue. Anyways, besides the GI bill, what horrible federal education expenditures are you so against? Federal grants? Federal scholarships so we can compete with the Soviets/Chinese/Enemy of Tomorrow? Why don't you itemize your complaints instead of just saying "Federal government should not be in education". Well, as a matter of fact, it makes up less than 10% of education, so what exactly is grinding your gears so bad?
"Drinking age laws - a national concern? not in my book. I would gladly pay a toll to avoid traffic."
At least we can agree on something. I at least recognize the possibility that some people cannot afford tolls.
"you quote many hysterical lines like women are better off before. this is just silly. and if you don't know why we are there by now, I will not be able to enlighten you."
Uhm, no. I quote perfectly available history of women in Iraq during Saddam and post-Saddam. Under Saddam there was no law forcing women to wear Burkas because Saddam was no friend to religious fundamentalism. Iraq was actually considered one of the more "western" middle eastern countries because of this fact.
Post-Saddam things have changed. Women now wear Burkas, not because it is law (yet) but because if they don't they might get kidnapped and have acid dripped on their faces. Ultimately Iraq will end up a Sectarian country under Shari'ah law, much like Iran and Saudi Arabia. If you think that's a good thing, explain why. If you think I'm making this up, read the following link from Kurdish Media (hardly friends of Saddam):
Posted by: Will | June 6, 2006 06:19 PM
"forgot the tax thing. I read a very interesting article from a U of MD economist saying that the AMT is creeping up in such a way that it will become a flat tax before long."
I read the same article. Interesting premise, though the AMT is politically dead. Couldn't find it in the WaPo archives. I read Redstate, Powerline, Steyn, Malkin, and Captain's Quarters and I would wager that it was on one of them. I also read DailyKos, though I seriously doubt that's where I found any support for AMT-as-Flat-Tax.
Posted by: Will | June 6, 2006 06:28 PM
Moral victories sure can raise a lot of money!! Millions to be somewhat precise.
Andy, yes, I think the close gubernatorial primary, as well as the independent candidate challenging Bilbray, should help tilt things in Busby's favour.
Busby's tactic is not quite the same one used by the NRCC in OH-6. In OH-6, the NRCC ran TV ads attacking a hopeless Democrat who'd gotten the 50 signatures to make the ballot as being "too liberal". It was a disingenuous move to try and fool Democratic voters into thinking Bob Carr was the frontrunner to vote for and keep Charlie Wilson off the ballot. It failed, of course. Busby is highlighting the 3rd candidate's right-wing credentials in hopes that he'll peel votes away from Bilbray. It's not so disingenuous really; it's raising a question for Republican(-leaning) voters of whether they want the putatively more moderate Bilbray or his more conservative challenger. Immigration is a huge issue in that San Diego area district, and if the right wing wants to send a message to mainstream Republicans by throwing the seat to Busby, so be it. It would hardly be the first time.
I don't see how anyone could accuse Jon Stewart of taking himself seriously either.
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 6, 2006 07:06 PM
KZ, if the costs of a war are impossible to know ahead of time, why did the Bush administration tell us it would cost $10 billion? So far, it's cost over $286 billion. Fuzzy math if you ask me. I guess that's why we have the biggest deficits and debt in US history. What's most telling is that you could make every cut proposed, and it really wouldn't save taxpayers a dime. Defense and Homeland Security are where the money is going, and Social Security hides the real depth of our annual budget deficits.
Federal revenues as a % of GDP are already at their lowest levels in 50-60 years; before we had many of the programs we do now. If you want to reduce the deficit (which I suggest doing before cutting taxes any further), you need to cut the Pentagon, which was bloated before it got a 50% budget increase from George W. Bush.
Who do I sue when someone pollutes my air? Don't I need to hire a trial lawyer to do that? Will I be able to afford one with all the awards and punitive damage caps the right wants to pass? Methinks this is not a very effective way to clean our environment.
If churches and private charities are so effective at combatting poverty and other social ills, why did so many people suffer in the Great Depression? We needed New Deal programs for very good, practical reasons.
People pay 6.2% of their incomes to Social Security, not 12%. Unless you make over $90,000 a year, in which case your tax rate falls as your income rises. A redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich. Eliminate the cap on income taxed for the program, and the tax becomes flat, and the program is solvent for the foreseeable future (standard 75 year horizon). The program is extremely efficient, spending under 1% on administrative costs. Anything private would cost many times as much for administration, not to mention the lost benefits.
The tax code is really pretty simple unless you're rich or a moron. It should be made fairer first and simpler second.
Bush said we were going to Iraq to take out Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. In 2004 after the elections, he admitted there weren't any. What kind of basis is this for a war costing upwards of 2100 American lives, 286 billion American dollars, and 15,000 wounded soldiers (not to mention the much higher number who will be permanently traumatized)? Never in US history had we cut taxes while at or preparing for war until 2003. Shocking stupidity. The dollar keeps falling because the world knows this administration has no intention of getting the deficits or debt under control. When the Euro was first adopted in 1999, it was worth about $.85 US. Now it's about $1.30. I don't think that's because Europe has done anything particularly right, it's because the US has done so much wrong.
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 6, 2006 07:35 PM
Polls close in a few minutes in AL and NJ. Anyone have good election result sites to check?
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 6, 2006 07:52 PM
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 6, 2006 07:54 PM
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 6, 2006 08:09 PM
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 6, 2006 08:11 PM
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 6, 2006 08:16 PM
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 6, 2006 08:19 PM
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 6, 2006 08:23 PM
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 6, 2006 09:00 PM
Thanks, SR, for all of the websites...I was just going to search the internet for them!
Posted by: Greg-G | June 6, 2006 09:02 PM
Wow, Sandwich Repairman is Mr. Info
Posted by: Wells | June 6, 2006 09:10 PM
Just tryin to be helpful to my fellow political junkies!!
Incompetent AL seems unable to count 10% of their votes more than 2 hours after their polls closed.
In NJ, it's telling that so far, there have been 15,000 more votes cast in the Democratic Senate primary than the Republican one. This would tend to bode well for Menendez in November (not that Democrats' registration advantage in NJ is any surprise).
The Dem nomination for SD Gov. seems irrelevant to me. I don't know enough about the statewide races in NM to make heads or tails of them. No surprises there for House, Senate, or Gov. that I know.
I can't find anything from Mississippi for the life of me. Maybe Haley Barbour's white-hooded henchmen are gumming everything up.
Iowa and Montana results should be coming soon...
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 6, 2006 10:13 PM
The polls have been closed for 3 hours and Alabama has just over 1/3 of the votes counted! Good thing this state doesn't have contested elections.
and the @#$% Nationals dropped another game to Atlanta...at least the Reds won their 6th in a row.
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 6, 2006 10:58 PM
Angelis by 6 in early returns, leads by wide margin in LA....
Posted by: Greg-G | June 6, 2006 11:18 PM
With 12% of the vote in, BUSBY up by 1K votes!
Posted by: Greg-G | June 6, 2006 11:23 PM
What is the site where you are seeing: "With 12% of the vote in, BUSBY up by 1K votes!"
Posted by: Andrew | June 6, 2006 11:25 PM
Andrew, it's the CA Sec of State site:
Shout out to Sandwich Repairman
No more precincts in yet...
Posted by: Greg-G | June 6, 2006 11:29 PM
With 3% of the vote in, Angelides is up 13K votes, with a pretty wide margin in early LA precincts...
Posted by: Greg-G | June 6, 2006 11:32 PM
11:37 Ahnuld has been declared the winner in the Repub primary...
Posted by: Greg-G | June 6, 2006 11:38 PM
Angelides up 23K...6% in LA and 5.5% in San Diego
His SD returns a good sign for Busby
Posted by: Greg-G | June 6, 2006 11:42 PM
Bilbray is up almost by almost 8 points in early returns in the special.
Posted by: CA 50 | June 6, 2006 11:43 PM
Yeah, Arnold is up about 10K relative to Angelides and Westley combine...BAD sign for Busby
Posted by: Greg-G | June 6, 2006 11:45 PM
In San Diego County that is though, but early returns still show Busby up by 1,000 votes
Posted by: Greg-G | June 6, 2006 11:49 PM
Not sure where your figure is coming from Greg-G. I haven't found CA-50 special numbers on the state's website.
On the SD County website http://www.sdvote.org/election/primary.xml Bilbray is up 8 points. I would point out that CA-50 is entirely within SD County.
Posted by: CA 50 | June 7, 2006 12:16 AM
Culver with a 3,800 vote lead with 67% counted
IA-1 Dem Braley with a 300 vote lead over Dickinson with 70% counted Rep Whaley over 56% in 3-way has this locked up with 4,500 vote lead with about 6,000 left to count.
Only 36% reporting but Riley beating Moore in AL 2 to 1 and Baxley leading by nearly as wide a margin 61%-35% over Siegelman.
Tester is crushing Morrison in MT to challenge Burns. 33% counted, Tester up 28,657 to 15,932.
NJ-13 No contest, Sires up 2 to 1 over Vas with 65% in.
Posted by: RMill | June 7, 2006 12:17 AM
What we're seeing in CA is probably just absentee ballots so far.
I do have to retract my frustrated comment on AL though; Baxley has more votes than Riley even while winning her primary with 60% instead of Riley's 64%. More people voted in the Dem than Rep primary there. Interesting.
Looks like Dickinson is winning the Dem primary in IA-1, and Culver leads for Gov.
Montana's result site is truly awful.
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 12:18 AM
CA 50, thanks for the SD County link, I wasn't finding runoff results on the state's page either. I see Bilbray up 7 points with 11% of the vote in, and he's winning the primary for November with 52% or so. Absentee ballots tend to lean Republican...let's hope this turns around...
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 12:22 AM
AP called the Mississippi race for Thompson. Espy losing big with 47% in , 64% to 35% (down almost 14,000 votes).
Posted by: RMill | June 7, 2006 12:22 AM
The report I've seen is just the CA Sec of State, no additional precincts have reported in about an hour:
But with 12% in, Busby is up by 1K votes, but Arnold is beating both Dem candidates by a wide margin in the county
Anxiously awaiting further results...but doesn't look good for Busby
Posted by: Greg-G | June 7, 2006 12:24 AM
Good to have you reporting, RMill...IMHO, you should run this blog over CC any day of the week...
Posted by: Greg-G | June 7, 2006 12:26 AM
Angelides extending lead to 26,000 votes with 4.3% reporting statewide.
Posted by: RMill | June 7, 2006 12:27 AM
Angelides is up by 23K votes over Westley, and the Dems are up 40K votes over Arnold...not good news for the Terminator so far...
Posted by: Greg-G | June 7, 2006 12:29 AM
CA GOV (D): Angelides is up 5 points now with 8% in. Westly may be gaining.
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 12:30 AM
Make that Angelides up 3 points with 9% in.
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 12:31 AM
Posted by: CA 50 | June 7, 2006 12:32 AM
The numbers of votes, except comparisons between the D and R totals, aren't too important. It's the proportions--percentage point differences--that matter.
Anyone remember which district is Pombo's?
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 12:33 AM
Has anyone read the AP report on CA-50...it's wrong. It says that with 12% of the vote in Bilbray is up by 8%. The CA SOS says that with 12% in BUSBY is up by 1K. What gives????? RMill???
Posted by: Greg-G | June 7, 2006 12:36 AM
See CA 50's comment. The AP is right.
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 12:37 AM
CA-50, the page on the Secretary of State's homepage clearly states that the page I referenced is the site for today's election, along with the other 50+ primaries going on today. It has been updated since the polls closed.
I have no idea what the site you referenced is, but given that there is absolutely no results posted at this late hour, I don't think it's valid
Posted by: Greg-G | June 7, 2006 12:42 AM
IA-1 looks like Dickinson v. Whalen.
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 12:43 AM
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 12:46 AM
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 12:49 AM
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 12:54 AM
Ok, now I see that the CA-50 results on the main CA SOS page is Primary results...that blows...we're screwed. Bilbray probably won. I'm going to bed.
Posted by: Greg-G | June 7, 2006 12:54 AM
Ok, now I see that the CA-50 results on the main CA SOS page is Primary results...that blows...we're screwed. Bilbray probably won. I'm going to bed.
Why would the SOS put this page on the same page as the live feeds for the returns in governor's race???
Posted by: Greg-G | June 7, 2006 12:55 AM
Angelides is still up 47-44 with 13% of the votes in.
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 01:07 AM
Ok, CA-50 still only have 57/500 precincts counted more than 2 hours after the polls closed. Maybe they are worse than AL.
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 01:09 AM
AL Gov: With 97% of precincts reporting, there have been 456,474 votes cast in the R primary. With 96% reporting on the D side, there have been 454,850 votes counted. I guess it's evened out. But I would've expected far more R than D votes cast. Does AL still have a Democratic registration advantage?
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 01:14 AM
Dickinson ahead in IA-1 by 2,200 votes but Black Hawk COunty still not reporting. Dickinson won Dubuque County big, by 2800 votes and that is why he is in the lead. Black Hawk County is the big fish so it could eveaporate quickly. Looks like a long night in Iowa too.
Posted by: RMill | June 7, 2006 01:15 AM
Looks like Tester is beating Morrison almost 3-1 in MT. Wow. That seems shocking. The protest vote against Burns seems significant but not too substantial.
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 01:17 AM
From my calculations of Montana's crappy site, Burns has 76% in his primary race, while Tester has 73% in his. But interestingly, there have only been 14,000 votes counted so far in the R primary compared to 20,000 in the Democratic one. Could that spell disaster for Burns?? (and I don't mean Montgomery...)
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 01:20 AM
Black Hawk County comes in big for Braley.
Braley 10,254 Dickinson 9,365 Gluba 7,081 Heath 887
Only Clinton County out as of 12:16 AM report
Posted by: RMill | June 7, 2006 01:22 AM
New Mexico's votes are apparently delivered by Pony Express.
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 01:22 AM
Braley gained 900 votes in Blackhawk County? Wasn't he down by 2200? Sounds like Dickinson pulls it out.
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 01:24 AM
With 13% of the vote in, Bilbray's lead over Busby is down to 7 points.
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 01:26 AM
With 18% in, Angelides still 3 points above Westly.
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 01:28 AM
CA GOV: 21% counted, Angelides still up 3.
Looks like about 8.5 million ballots were cast in CA.
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 01:30 AM
Ah, I see Braley up 900 votes now in IA-1.
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 01:32 AM
That's 37% for Braley and 34% for Dickinson. Gluba is at 26%.
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 01:33 AM
CA-50: 20% in and Bilbray's up 7.2 points.
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 01:36 AM
Isn't that absentee ballots, Sandwich?
Posted by: Will | June 7, 2006 01:41 AM
I'm not sure if they've gotten out of the absentee ballots or not. I wouldn't expect that high a % of them in a general, but it might be higher in the primary...
I just tried to post new IA-1 figures but my post was held. Basically there are 29,400 votes in now and Braley is 3.0 points ahead of Dickinson still.
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 01:44 AM
Redstate is reporting that the lead for Bilbray, the unofficial one with 20% in, is absentee ballots. Is there anyway you can confirm this?
Posted by: Will | June 7, 2006 01:46 AM
I have no idea, but that would tend to be good news as absentee ballots tend to lean Republican. Bilbray's been steady at 50-51% so far while Busby has been consistent at 43%. It looks like the 3rd candidate has managed to siphon some votes from Bilbray, but I'm not sure Busby has enough...still it's early and 80% is left to come in.
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 01:48 AM
Well, with 25% in, it's now 50-44 for Bilbray; his lead is down to 6 points. The momentum may be in the right direction.
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 01:50 AM
Posted by: Will | June 7, 2006 01:50 AM
things looking good for Tester and Lindeen in Montana. Will be interesting to watch both races come November.
Westly seems to be slowly gaining on Angelides and Busby is gaining on Bilbray. Gained .7% in the last 10% grouping.
Posted by: Rob Millette | June 7, 2006 01:50 AM
Lead down to 6%... CA-50 just updated.
Posted by: Will | June 7, 2006 01:51 AM
thats another .4% gain in 5% more precints. This race is going to be interesting.
Posted by: Rob Millette | June 7, 2006 01:55 AM
Tester 17,873 (65.9%) Morrison 7957 (29.3%)
Burns 12,970 (76.0%) Keenan 3177 (18.6%)
27,000 votes cast in the Dem primary, 17,000 in the Republican one. That's 61-39 in a straight 2 way race.
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 01:58 AM
Busby will need to close faster than this... 25% in and she is down by 6.
Posted by: Will | June 7, 2006 02:02 AM
We don't know which 25% of the district it is. It could just as easily be that Busby is 6 points up in the other 75% of the district. And absentees favour Rs as I said. I'd rather be ahead than behind, but this is hardly over.
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 02:05 AM
Posted by: Rob Millette | June 7, 2006 02:05 AM
Posted by: Rob Millette | June 7, 2006 02:05 AM
Posted by: Will | June 7, 2006 02:06 AM
This is trending in the right direction. If Busby gains 1% with every 5% of the vote that comes in, she'd end up winning by 9.
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 02:08 AM
I have no confirming source on that absentee claim besides http://www.redstate.com/ (great picture of Al Gore by the way, with 666 on his forehead, very subtle) which claims:
Update [2006-6-6 22:9:21 by Moe Lane]: Constant Reader Ender gives us this link, which is unofficially listing Bilbray as ahead in absentee ballots.
Where the "link" goes here: http://www.sdvote.org/election/congress.xml
which is what we are slobbering over.
Posted by: Will | June 7, 2006 02:08 AM
Looks like Angelides' lead has swollen very slightly to 4 points with 35% in.
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 02:17 AM
35% in Busby down by 5 Bilbray actually pulled away a little bit
Posted by: Rob Millette | June 7, 2006 02:17 AM
anybody know how to find out which precincts have reported in and the registration levels of each precinct?
Posted by: Rob Millette | June 7, 2006 02:21 AM
Thanks for that SD TV link. It;s slowing my computer down further but it's helpful.
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 02:26 AM
I don't think there's any way to find that out unless you know someone in the Board of Elections, Rob. Or a very knowledgeable, well connected reporter in the area.
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 02:28 AM
Correction: it should be public knowledge and readily accessible what the registration is by precinct. Knowing which ones have reported is what I don't know that there's any way to ascertain.
I took my pills for the night, I'm starting to get pretty tired...
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 02:29 AM
rats thanks for the info Sandwich wish we had a way to track that it could give an idea of which precincts were likely to help Busby and if they were still left out there.
Posted by: Rob Millette | June 7, 2006 02:30 AM
Yeah I know, it would be very key. I'm totally unfamiliar with the patterns in San Diego, and I think when the media know that stuff, they tend to guard it carefully. The BoE people are usually too busy frantically trying to get everything done.
Bilbray's lead has gone up from 5.15% to 5.4%. Not exactly major movement. I should have known better and gone to bed early to get up early. It kind of amazes me that we can't vote electronically and have them all counted in 30-45 minutes. It's been 3.5 hours since CA polls closed and we're dealing with 35% reporting?? Nuts.
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 02:35 AM
Posted by: Will | June 7, 2006 02:37 AM
You're not the Will in Seattle? Where are you?
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 02:43 AM
So 42% in and we're down 4.85 points. Not sure about this...
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 02:46 AM
In MT, Tester still beating Morrison by almost 2-1. Tester still has more votes than Burns, who is getting a larger share of his party's votes.
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 02:54 AM
46% in and Busby's down by 5. It's about time for something to start turning around, or we've lost.
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 02:57 AM
51% in and Busby's down just under 5 points. We've probably lost this one. Darn. I'm exhausted. Good night everyone.
Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | June 7, 2006 03:12 AM
66.2 in Busby down 4.8 the final push in on gentlemen (and ladies)
Posted by: Rob Millette | June 7, 2006 04:08 AM
Braley 10,254 Dickinson 9,365 Gluba 7,081 Heath 887
Posted by: Rob Millette | June 7, 2006 04:19 AM
FYI for all those who think I'm nuts staying up this late to do this I'm at work don't get out till 5 AM so I've got plenty of time on my hands.
Posted by: Rob Millette | June 7, 2006 04:21 AM
Good morning- CA- Busby loses, Angelides wins, Pombo wins.
There is still the November general for Busby to retake CA 50 but doubtful. She could never crack 45%.
Posted by: RMill | June 7, 2006 07:07 AM
Too bad about Busby. It would've made great political theatre had she won.
Posted by: Will | June 7, 2006 10:14 AM
People- it is one race in a heavily Republican district- this means nothing for the November elections- although, if the dems put up somebody who was accomplished more than a school teacher- they could have won this seat- and it is pretty pathetic that a former congressman only won by 5% over a school teacher- so you republicans, I wouldn't be jumping for joy
Posted by: | June 7, 2006 12:50 PM
Busby has a shot in November. Its 6 months away and Bilbray now has to put his convictions out on the house floor. On top of that Griffith may come on stronger, he really didn't get much of a campaign going before the SE.
Posted by: Rob Millette | June 7, 2006 07:53 PM
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
|
Chris Cillizza joins washingtonpost.com as the author of a new politics blog called The Fix. Cillizza will provide daily posts on a range of political topics, from the race for control of Congress in 2006 to scrutinizing the 2008 presidential contenders.
| 360.204545 | 0.840909 | 1.25 |
high
|
medium
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/05/AR2006060501304.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/05/AR2006060501304.html
|
Vonage Shareholders File Lawsuit Over IPO
|
2006060619
|
Shareholders of Vonage Holdings Corp. have filed a class-action lawsuit against the Internet telephone company, compounding the troubles stemming from Vonage's initial public offering last month.
The lawsuit, filed Friday in U.S. District Court in New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of Vonage's stock, alleges the company's executives violated securities laws by making "false and misleading" statements about the company's financial condition in its prospectus.
The public offering of the Holmdel, N.J.-based Vonage raised $531 million for the company when shares debuted May 24 at $17 each, but the stock closed yesterday at $12.32.
The stock's immediate decline irked some Vonage subscribers who signed up for a "directed share program" that allowed eligible Vonage customers to purchase up to 5,000 shares each at the opening. Ultimately, about 10,000 customers participated, buying 4.2 million shares.
Last week, some customers balked and said they would not pay for the shares. Vonage has said it would cover costs for its underwriters if customers back out of their purchase commitments but also insisted it was not offering to repurchase the shares from customers.
Vonage itself acknowledged in one of its regulatory filings that it might have violated securities law by not including a link to its prospectus on a Web site the company created to inform its customers about the stock-purchase plan. In the same filing, Vonage said it believed it had adequate defense against such a charge.
Vonage has not yet been served with the lawsuit and therefore cannot comment, said Chris Murray, vice president for regulatory affairs for Vonage, which has 1.6 million subscribers to its broadband phone service.
The law firm that brought the suit, Motley Rice LLC, did not return calls requesting comment.
Vonage is one of the best-known Internet phone services to compete with traditional land-line service. The company spends heavily on marketing to drive customer growth and has not yet generated a profit.
In its class-action lawsuit, Motley Rice said that such expenditures were hurting the company and that "company executives were desperate to execute an exit strategy" that would allow them to cash out their investments by foisting the ownership onto the public markets.
The suit accused Vonage of implementing the directed share program, which made up 13.5 percent of the public offering, as a way to boost appetite for Vonage shares.
|
Shareholders of Vonage Holdings Corp. have filed a class-action lawsuit against the Internet telephone company, compounding the troubles stemming from Vonage's initial public offering last month.
| 14.645161 | 1 | 31 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/05/AR2006060501195.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/05/AR2006060501195.html
|
Verizon Bias Suit Deal Sets Record
|
2006060619
|
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reached a settlement in 2002 against Verizon predecessors Nynex Corp. and Bell Atlantic Corp. But the total amount of the settlement was not made public until yesterday, when the EEOC completed its projections of how much would be paid in future benefits.
The final figure makes the case the largest pregnancy discrimination settlement in EEOC history. It covers women in 13 states and the District.
Nynex and Bell Atlantic were accused of violating federal law by denying women pension and other benefit accruals when they spent time on pregnancy or maternity leave.
The total compensation paid thus far is more than $25.3 million. The EEOC told a U.S. District Court in New York yesterday that it projected that an additional $23.6 million would be paid in future benefits. The announcement came after years of calculating which women were denied benefits when on leave.
"This comes out of a different era," said Eric Rabe, a Verizon spokesman. "The people who were here then by and large don't work for the company anymore. We think our record today is exemplary, and this was not an admission of having done anything wrong. It is simply a matter of trying to get this behind us to move on."
The suit alleged that the predecessor companies violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963 by denying women service credits for leaves of absence taken between July 1965 and April 1979. The companies also denied pension credits for child-care leaves of absence until December 1983.
Pregnancy discrimination claims filed with the EEOC rose by 31 percent from 1992 to 2005, to 4,449 from 3,385. Some of that increase reflects a growing number of women working during and after their pregnancies, but not all of it. In the same period, the percentage of working women with children younger than 18 rose by about 5 percent.
"There really remain tremendous issues concerning pregnancy discrimination in the workplace," said Elizabeth Grossman, regional attorney with the EEOC in New York. "More and more women are continuing to go forward to assert their rights in a way past generations were not. Some employers are getting educated and changing practices, but many are not."
Grossman's office last year sued and won a settlement for a waitress who was removed from a managerial career track, denied work assignments and told to "consider her options" after she revealed she was pregnant. Ultimately, she was fired. The woman received $145,000 in a pregnancy discrimination settlement with her former employer. The same office last month also sued Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. on behalf of a pregnant employee at a Bridgewater, N.J., store who says she was denied modified work assignments that were given to other employees with temporary disabilities.
The EEOC was joined in filing the class-action lawsuit against the phone companies by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the Communications Workers of America, unions representing Verizon workers. "This case represents an important victory for working women who should not have had to sacrifice their pension benefits because they had children," Christopher M. Shelton, a CWA vice president, said in a statement.
|
Verizon Communications Inc. will pay almost $49 million to 12,326 current and former female employees as part of a landmark class-action lawsuit alleging pregnancy discrimination.
| 21.034483 | 0.655172 | 1.206897 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/06/AR2006060600891.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/06/AR2006060600891.html
|
Papers: CIA Knew of Eichmann Whereabouts
|
2006060619
|
WASHINGTON -- Determined to win the Cold War, the CIA kept quiet about the whereabouts of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in the 1950s for fear he might expose undercover anticommunist efforts in West Germany, according to documents released Tuesday.
The 27,000 pages released by the National Archives are among the largest post-World War II declassifications by the CIA. They offer a window into the shadowy world of U.S. intelligence _ and the efforts to use former Nazi war criminals as spies, sometimes to detrimental effect.
The war criminals "peddled hearsay and gossip, whether to escape retribution for past crimes, or for mercenary gain, or for political agendas not necessarily compatible with American national interests," Robert Wolfe, an expert on German history and former archivist at the National Archives, said at a news briefing announcing the document release.
In a March 19, 1958, memo to the CIA, West German intelligence officials wrote that they knew where Eichmann was hiding. Eichmann played a key role in transporting Jews to death camps during World War II. "He is reported to have lived in Argentina under the alias 'Clemens' since 1952," authorities wrote.
But neither side acted on that information because they worried what he might say about Hans Globke, a highly placed former Nazi and a chief adviser in West Germany helping the U.S. coordinate anticommunist initiatives in that country.
Two years later, when Jewish authorities captured Eichmann, the CIA pressured journalists to delete references to Globke.
"Entire material has been read. One obscure mention of Globke which Life omitting at our request," CIA Director Allen Dulles wrote in a Sept. 20, 1960, internal memorandum, after Life magazine purchased Eichmann's memoir.
_Former Nazi officers such as Heinz Felfe, who served in the "Gehlen organization" _ the West German intelligence service which in its early years was sponsored by the U.S. Army and then the CIA _ were typically hired by the Soviet Union to be double agents.
_The CIA routinely misled U.S. immigration officials in the mid-1970s about the role of CIA agent Tscherim Soobzokov and his connection to Nazi war crimes.
The documents were among the latest released under a 1999 law _ resisted by the CIA _ that called for disclosure of government records related to war crimes committed by the Nazi and Japanese governments.
"CIA has been struggling with the nettlesome problem of how to balance the public's interest in the historical record of CIA's connections to Nazis, and an intelligence agency's need ... to protect the identities of sources," said Stanley Moskowitz, a former CIA official who is now a consultant to the agency.
"The passage of time has shifted the balance," he said.
Material relating to Japanese war crimes were scheduled to be released later this summer.
|
WASHINGTON -- Determined to win the Cold War, the CIA kept quiet about the whereabouts of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in the 1950s for fear he might expose undercover anticommunist efforts in West Germany, according to documents released Tuesday.
| 12.465116 | 1 | 43 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/05/AR2006060501194.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/05/AR2006060501194.html
|
In Wen Ho Lee Case, a Blow To Journalists After the Fact
|
2006060619
|
Adding a coda to the legal battle between Wen Ho Lee and the media, the Supreme Court announced yesterday that it would not hear the appeals of reporters facing court orders to testify in Lee's lawsuit against the U.S. government.
The court spoke even though the case was over. Lee's lawsuit was settled on Friday, with the government and five media organizations supplying more than $1.6 million to Lee and his attorneys.
The reporters no longer face contempt-of-court penalties for not naming their confidential sources, and their attorneys had been expected to file papers with the court asking it to dismiss the matter as moot.
But the justices had met to consider the appeals last Thursday. They knew by then that settlement talks were underway and postponed a decision to allow time for negotiations.
Indeed, a day before the court's conference, a court aide contacted Lee's attorney, Brian A. Sun, to check on the progress of settlement talks. Sun said that agreement was very close, according to lawyers knowledgeable about the case. Sun declined to comment. The court was informed of the settlement on Friday.
The court's action leaves intact a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which found that the reporters had no legal right to shield the names of their sources.
Yesterday's order is not a ruling on the legal issues in the case, but it does make it clear that the court saw no reason to review the D.C. Circuit's decision. Permitting the case to fade away at the request of the reporters who brought it would have left that point unmade.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer did not participate in the case, for reasons that, as is customary when justices recuse themselves, he did not detail.
|
Get Washington DC, Virginia, Maryland and national news. Get the latest/breaking news, featuring national security, science and courts. Read news headlines from the nation and from The Washington Post. Visit www.washingtonpost.com/nation today.
| 8.142857 | 0.333333 | 0.333333 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/05/AR2006060501496.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060619id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/05/AR2006060501496.html
|
Privately Funded Trips Add Up on Capitol Hill
|
2006060619
|
Over 5 1/2 years, Republican and Democratic lawmakers accepted nearly $50 million in trips, often to resorts and exclusive locales, from corporations and groups seeking legislative favors, according to the most comprehensive study to date on the subject of congressional travel.
From January 2000 through June 2005, House and Senate members and their aides were away from Washington for more than 81,000 days -- a combined 222 years -- on at least 23,000 trips, according to the report, issued yesterday by the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity. About 2,300 of the trips cost $5,000 or more, at least 500 cost $10,000 or more, and 16 cost $25,000 or more.
"While some of these trips might qualify as legitimate fact-finding missions," the study said, "the purpose of others is less clear." In addition, the lawmakers' financial reports that disclose the details of the trips are routinely riddled with mistakes and omissions.
Lawmakers and their staffers were treated to $25,000 corporate-jet rides and $500-a-night hotel rooms, the study showed. Lawmakers accepted thousands of costly jaunts -- one worth more than $30,000 -- to some of the world's choicest destinations: at least 200 trips to Paris, 150 to Hawaii and 140 to Italy.
"Congressional travelers gave speeches in Scotland, attended meetings in Australia and toured nuclear facilities in Spain," the study reported. "They pondered welfare reform in Scottsdale, Ariz., and the future of Social Security at a Colorado ski resort."
Many congressional offices have voluntarily curtailed their privately funded travel since disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty in January to conspiring to bribe public officials, in part with lavish overseas trips. But lawmakers and their aides still may accept travel for official purposes from private interests without limit.
House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) proposed banning such travel soon after Abramoff's plea. But lawmakers of both parties and in both chambers of Congress quickly resisted imposing significant new restrictions on the trips, which are a much-prized perk of office. Rep. John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) won election to the post of House majority leader this year by running on a platform that included opposing the travel ban.
Boehner and members of his office were among the top beneficiaries of privately funded travel, according to the study, taking more than 200 trips during the 5 1/2 -year period reviewed. Others included the offices of Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Rep. Michael G. Oxley (R-Ohio), Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.).
Kevin Madden, a spokesman for Boehner, said yesterday that privately funded travel by members of Congress is fully disclosed and "leads to greater understanding of the issues" at no cost to taxpayers.
One of the largest corporate sponsors of lawmakers' travel was General Atomics, a relatively small San Diego-based defense contractor that makes the Predator, an unmanned spy plane now in wide use by the United States and other countries. The study reported that the company "largely targeted congressional staff members, spending roughly $660,000 on 86 trips for legislators, aides and their spouses from 2000 to mid-2005." Some of the trips were valued at more than $25,000.
General Atomics' spending on congressional travel was more than that of many larger companies and was considerably higher than what other defense contractors spent. Microsoft, for instance, funded nearly $395,000 in trips during the period; SBC Communications Inc. spent about $205,000. Among General Atomics' defense competitors, Northrop Grumman spent about $12,000 on congressional junkets and Boeing spent about $13,000.
On trips paid for by General Atomics to Turkey and Australia, congressional staffers attended meetings with foreign government officials that the company was soliciting to buy the Predator.
|
Latest politics news headlines from Washington DC. Follow 2006 elections, campaigns, Democrats, Republicans, political cartoons, opinions from The Washington Post. Features government policy, government tech, political analysis and reports.
| 19.25641 | 0.512821 | 0.564103 |
medium
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2006/06/the_fix_podcast_sen_russ_feing_1.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060519id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2006/06/the_fix_podcast_sen_russ_feing_1.html
|
The Fix -- Chris Cillizza's Politics Blog on washingtonpost.com
|
2006060519
|
In a discussion with The Fix's Chris Cillizza and chief Washington Post political reporter Dan Balz, Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold shares his views on the weaknesses of the Democratic party, the war in Iraq and his plans for 2008.
Download/Listen to the interview (edited) or read the full transcript.
By clicking on the links below you can subscribe to The Fix's political podcast, which includes news, interviews and analysis. You'll receive a new podcast every two weeks or so.
Audio Podcast: XML | iTunes | My Yahoo
Video Podcast: XML | iTunes | My Yahoo
By JasonManning | June 5, 2006; 7:35 AM ET | Category: Eye on 2008 , Insider Interview Previous: The Friday Line: Listening to the 2008 Buzz | Next: Russ Feingold: Bucking Convention All the Way to the White House?
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cgi-bin/mt/mtb.cgi/7483
Senator Feingold has again demonstrated his ability to address real issues by offering real solutions. He tells us - We can be secure by focusing on the real enemies of the American way of life. And that - We can have more jobs for everyone by making sure we consider people in our search for bigger corporates profits. These are real solutions for a more secure America and more success for all Americans.
Senator Feingold has an ability to lead from intelligent strength. This is the real Progressive vision for America and the world.
Posted by: Bill Quam | June 5, 2006 11:16 AM
Russ does a great job of continueing the heritage of Sen. Bill Proxmire and fills the liberal void left by the departure of Rep. Dennis Kucinich from the national scene. That should give him about 9% of the Democratic Party's vote and 3% in the general election.
Unfortunately he comes up a tad short of winning either the nomination or the general election. He will, however, win the contest of "sending them a message".
Posted by: Peter L. | June 5, 2006 11:29 AM
peter, i actually think feingold is more like howard dean than kucinich. he will probably get more like 15-25% in the dem primaries, and something like 45-48% in a general election, so not as bad as you might think.
Posted by: college kid | June 5, 2006 11:35 AM
i actually think feingold is more like howard dean than kucinich. Its more likely he'll get 35%/40% in the dem primaries, and something like 50-62% in a general election, its no so bad Rice could be running. www.MikesAmericanBlog.com www.MikesNewsBlog.com
Posted by: Andy Todd | June 5, 2006 05:04 PM
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
|
Chris Cillizza joins washingtonpost.com as the author of a new politics blog called The Fix. Cillizza will provide daily posts on a range of political topics, from the race for control of Congress in 2006 to scrutinizing the 2008 presidential contenders.
| 14.227273 | 0.636364 | 0.863636 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/04/AR2006060400790.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/04/AR2006060400790.html
|
. . . Or Unfair Burden on Families?
|
2006060519
|
This week the Senate is expected to vote on permanent repeal of the estate tax. With this vote, Congress will have an opportunity to finish the job it started five years ago.
The estate tax -- or, as many of us prefer to call it, the death tax -- is a tax imposed on the transfer of assets or property from a deceased person to his or her heirs. This is one of the IRS's most painful taxes, as it hits families at the worst possible time, when they are dealing with the death of a loved one.
Congress passed a gradual phaseout of this tax at the urging of President Bush in 2001, and it was scheduled to disappear in 2010. But because of the peculiarities of the lawmaking process, the death tax will return in 2011 -- at the same high rates that existed before -- unless Congress enacts new legislation. In April 2005 the House passed a permanent repeal of the death tax by a vote of 272 to 162. Over a year has passed since; it is time for the Senate to act.
The list of reasons for eliminating the death tax is long. To begin with, this tax punishes thrift and saving. It tells people that it's better to spend freely during their lifetimes than to leave assets for their children and grandchildren, which will be taxed heavily by the federal government.
The death tax hits hardest at heirs of small-business owners and family farmers. In many cases, the heirs cannot afford to pay the tax and are forced to downsize, lay off employees or even sell their business or farm.
There can be no doubt that closely held family businesses that are growing and beginning to compete with the big guys are often devastated by the tax. I believe the death tax is a major factor in business consolidation and loss of competition.
This tax hurts the growth of minority-owned businesses. As the first generation of African American millionaires begins to die, many of the companies they founded will have to be sold to pay the estate taxes. For example, the tax almost forced the oldest African American-owned newspaper -- the Chicago Daily Defender -- out of business.
According to Heritage Foundation economists, the death tax also costs the American economy 170,000 to 250,000 potential jobs each year. These jobs are never created because the investments that would have financed them are not made, as these resources are diverted to pay for complex trusts and insurance policies to avoid the tax.
The death tax is double taxation. Most of the assets taxed at death have already been taxed throughout an individual's lifetime.
The death tax accounts for a small portion of federal government revenue, an expected $28 billion in 2006, or only 1.2 percent of federal receipts.
Many argue that repealing the death tax would decrease charitable giving, as this tax allows individuals to deduct gifts to charitable organizations. Yet, even though the phasing out of the death tax began in 2001, charitable contributions in the United States reached a record high in 2004.
The death tax even has a negative effect on the environment, as heirs are often forced to develop environmentally sensitive land to pay the tax. According to a study by researchers from Mississippi State University and the U.S. Forest Service, about 2.5 million acres of forest land were harvested and 1.3 million acres were sold each year from 1987 through 1997 to pay the estate tax.
Finally, the American people already understand the unfairness of the death tax and support its repeal. Sixty-eight percent of those surveyed in a recent poll commissioned by the Tax Foundation supported repeal of the estate tax. Moreover, the death tax was rated by Americans in the same survey as the least fair tax .
As a vote approaches, it is essential that constituents let their representatives hear now how unfair they believe this tax is. The death tax is almost dead. Let's put the stake in its heart.
The writer is a Republican senator from Alabama.
|
This week the Senate is expected to vote on permanent repeal of the estate tax. With this vote, Congress will have an opportunity to finish the job it started five years ago.
| 21.971429 | 1 | 35 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/04/AR2006060400610.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/04/AR2006060400610.html
|
Arrests Shake Image of Harmony
|
2006060519
|
MISSISSAUGA, Ontario, June 4 -- Qayyum Abdul Jamal and several others arrested Friday in what Canadian police say was a foiled bomb plot were regulars at al-Rahman mosque here, a storefront space sandwiched between a Hasty convenience market and a beauty salon in a small strip mall.
The 43-year-old Jamal, the oldest of those nabbed in the sweep, lived with his family just down the road, in a neat, suburban townhouse complex where neighbors said he spent a lot of time fixing cars in his driveway.
"He was quiet. Didn't say much," said his next-door neighbor.
But that was not true at the mosque. Jamal's angry view of the world, and his belief that the West is at war with Muslims, boiled over there, others say. It was so strident that it startled Wajid Khan, a Muslim member of Parliament who stopped at the mosque last year on his regular rounds of his district just west of Toronto.
"I was concerned that he had found a bunch of young kids and he was able to influence them," Khan said in an interview Sunday. "I took issue with him. I think we have to be extremely vigilant in the Muslim community. We have to watch out for people who are trying to teach disaffected youths that it's the Muslims against the rest, a war of civilizations. Anyone talking through his hat should be kicked out and reported."
The arrest of 12 men and five juveniles accused of assembling the components for a huge bomb has strained the fragile relationship between Canadian officials and the growing Muslim community.
Canada's shrinking native population has prompted the country to encourage robust immigration. Canada touts the relative harmony within its society, sometimes in contrast with tensions over immigration in the United States.
Public figures treat references to distinct ethnicities or religions as anathema; police statements on the arrests Friday did not use the word Muslim. But while Canada trumpets this diversity, the arrests supported the warnings of some that the growing ethnic communities can be a source of hidden passions and underground politics.
And while immigrants continue to come for economic opportunity, freedoms and a generally warm welcome, some Muslims say the arrests are bound to increase suspicion and discrimination against them.
"A backlash is a given," said Fatima Rakie, 24, a Canadian-born woman of Lebanese descent who wears traditional black robes and a Muslim hijab , or head scarf. "People are aggravated with us already. They will think all Muslims are extremists. But all religions have their extremists."
The first sign of that backlash came Saturday night, when 28 windows of a mosque in west Toronto were smashed. Police said they were investigating, and the incident helped prompt a nationally televised "community meeting" Sunday involving Muslim leaders and police, with both sides urging tolerance and cooperation.
Authorities have released few details about the ties among the men facing charges under Canada's terrorism laws, passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States. The suspects appeared briefly in court Saturday under heavily armed guard, and most will return to court for a bond hearing Tuesday that may reveal more information about the alleged plot.
|
MISSISSAUGA, Ontario, June 4 -- Qayyum Abdul Jamal and several others arrested Friday in what Canadian police say was a foiled bomb plot were regulars at al-Rahman mosque here, a storefront space sandwiched between a Hasty convenience market and a beauty salon in a small strip mall.
| 11.735849 | 1 | 53 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/04/AR2006060400899.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/04/AR2006060400899.html
|
Colossus of Roads
|
2006060519
|
When the beast approaches, a rumble burbles from its chest, the sea of traffic retreats and suddenly there's a space.
Three quick turns and the Hummer H1 -- the biggest and most powerful of a big and powerful breed -- slides into the spot. The door opens and a pair of sleek black Ferragamos appears. They pause for only the briefest moment, touching on the step a foot and a half off the ground before climbing down.
Seven years ago, a young man approached Mary Williams as she parked, knocked on her window and demanded to know: "How dare you drive this vehicle?"
"I said 'thank you,' " she recalls, and then walked away. "There's very little you can say to someone like that, being judged like that. I was not going to stop driving this."
If we are what we drive, then Mary Williams is a 3 1/2 -ton, 42-gallon, 6.5-liter turbo-diesel grandmom who wears pale pink sweater sets and houndstooth trousers from Brooks Brothers. If our vehicles are our defense against the world, she is armed and ready.
Yes, diesel is tipping $3 a gallon or higher, greenhouse gases may be melting the polar ice caps, and the fuel mileage on this $140,000 baby today barely breaks double digits. Drive down the street in an oversize SUV these days and you'll get Medusa-like stares from the Prius-loving, BioWillie (soybean fuel) world. Even GM sees the writing on the wall.
But in matters of love, none of this matters.
Mary Williams, 69, fell for the Humvee when she first saw it 15 years ago. It was in uniform, its camouflaged hulk speeding across the oil fields in Desert Storm. A year later, AM General sold the first civilianized one, the Hummer H1. She brought one home from the showroom, drove it around for a couple of days, then announced: "That's the one. That's for me."
Here was a vehicle that spoke to her: It could handle anything that came its way, muscle its way out of trouble, even take a hit and shake it off. "Safe, I felt very safe in it," she says. She held back for a few model years until they boosted the horsepower even more, to give the brute more speed.
"I wanted a truck that I thought suited me," she says. She bought it on May 29, 1999, "and I've been driving it every day since."
It's 6:30 p.m. near the end of a long week and Williams emerges from her personal training session in Georgetown, freshly changed into a black and white silk blouse and trousers. She climbs into her Hummer, parked in front of the fitness club, with the graceful motion of an equestrian. Her left foot steps high up onto the running board and she slips into her seat.
She guides the truck onto M Street, easing into a clot of vehicles inching toward the traffic light at Wisconsin. This is the worst of the rush hour, and it can take an hour and a half to get home to North Potomac, but she seems unfazed. One freshly manicured hand curls lightly around the leather-wrapped steering wheel; the other hand is propped at an angle on her hip as she waits patiently. In the background, Ray Charles croons "God Bless America" on the Monsoon speakers.
|
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.
| 13.235294 | 0.333333 | 0.372549 |
low
|
low
|
abstractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/04/AR2006060400966.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/04/AR2006060400966.html
|
Potentially Presidential Pols Pass in a Va. Night
|
2006060519
|
RICHMOND -- Two ex-governors with presidential dreams. A constellation of groupies for each. One hotel ballroom.
The orbits of former governor Mark R. Warner (D) and U.S. Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) collided Saturday at Richmond's swank Jefferson Hotel, offering a preview of what the 2008 election might bring if Virginia's two most ambitious politicians seek the White House.
The Jefferson's Grand Ballroom began the day as the site of a "Policy and Politics Retreat" for 200 of Warner's closest, and richest, associates. The former governor's name hung on banners, and his image -- beamed in from New Hampshire, where he was giving a speech -- appeared on three huge plasma television screens.
By evening, though, the chamber's Democratic karma had given way to a decidedly Republican sensibility.
Down came the plasma screens. Bright blue Allen signs replaced the fluttering Warner banners. Republican activists dressed in tuxedos and gowns streamed in for their state party's annual fundraiser as Warner supporters left, heading to a barbecue picnic at the local NASCAR racetrack.
"Somebody in booking has a weird sense of humor," an Allen staffer was overheard to say.
In six months, the prospect of a chance meeting of Warner and Allen might not seem so novel. Both are openly flirting with a presidential bid, although neither admits to having made a final decision. An announcement from either could come after the November elections.
Should they jump in, both face significant obstacles to winning their parties' nominations.
Allen must persuade GOP voters to choose his brand of aw-shucks, George W. Bush-style conservatism over such potential adversaries as U.S. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. And he needs to win reelection in November in the face of plummeting Republican poll numbers and problems in Iraq.
"That has more of a potential to be a real challenge than anyone thought," said Scott Reed, who managed former Senate majority leader Bob Dole's presidential campaign in 1996.
Warner -- a one-term governor with no foreign policy know-how -- must introduce himself to the nation and ease concerns about his lack of experience.
"Right now he's not the governor anymore," said Steve Elmendorf, a senior aide in the presidential campaigns of Democrats Richard A. Gephardt and U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.). "You can't demonstrate experience, so you have to demonstrate knowledge."
|
RICHMOND -- Two ex-governors with presidential dreams. A constellation of groupies for each. One hotel ballroom.
| 22.809524 | 1 | 21 |
medium
|
high
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/04/AR2006060400603.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060519id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/04/AR2006060400603.html
|
Legion of Little Helpers in the Gut Keeps Us Alive
|
2006060519
|
So you think you are the self-reliant type.
Well, give it up. You'd be nothing without the trillions of microbial minions toiling in your large intestine, performing crucial physiological functions that your highfalutin human cells wouldn't have a clue how to do.
That's one of the humbling truths emerging from the most thorough census yet of the bacterial tenants homesteading in our bodies. The new view, made possible by cutting-edge DNA screening methods, shows that the vaunted human genome -- all the genes in our cells -- is but a fraction of what it takes to make a human.
In fact, it's time to stop thinking of yourself as a single living thing at all, say the scientists behind the new work. Better to see yourself as a "super-organism," they say: a hybrid creature consisting of about 10 percent human cells and 90 percent bacterial cells.
"The numbers might strike fear into people, but the overall concept is one we have to understand and adjust to," said Steven Gill, a microbial geneticist who helped lead the study at the Institute for Genomic Research in Rockville.
A better understanding of the bacteria colonizing our bodies could have far-reaching medical implications. In the not-too-distant future, Gill and others predicted, doctors will test for subtle changes in the numbers and kinds of microbes in people's guts as early indicators of disease. Doctors may prescribe live bacterial supplements to bring certain physiological measures back into normal range. And drug companies will invent compounds that mimic or amplify the actions of helpful bacteria.
"These microbes are master physiological chemists," said Jeffrey I. Gordon of Washington University in St. Louis, another team member. "Understanding their biosynthetic capabilities and following the pathways by which they operate could be the starting point for a 21st-century pharmacopoeia."
Scientists have long recognized that the number of human cells in the body is dwarfed by the 100 trillion or so bacteria living in and on it. It's a daunting reality obscured by the fact that human cells are much bigger than bacterial cells. For all their numbers, bacteria account for only about three pounds of the average person's weight.
Just how important those three pounds are, however, has been difficult to appreciate until now. Most bacteria are too finicky to grow in laboratory dishes. As a result, little was known about who these majority shareholders really are and what, exactly, they are doing to and for us.
The new study, described in last week's issue of the journal Science, took a novel approach. Rather than struggling to grow the body's myriad microbes and testing their ability to perform various biochemical reactions -- the methods scientists traditionally use to classify bacteria -- the team used tiny molecular probes resembling DNA Velcro to retrieve tens of thousands of snippets of bacterial DNA from smidgeons of the intestinal output of two volunteers.
By comparing the DNA sequences of those snippets with those of previously studied bacteria, the team was able to sort many of the invisible bugs into known families.
|
So you think you are the self-reliant type. A rugged individualist.
| 39.6 | 0.866667 | 8.2 |
high
|
medium
|
extractive
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060201328.html
|
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060201328.html
|
A Calculus of Race and Death?
|
2006060319
|
The Rev. Anthony Evans, president of the D.C. Black Church Initiative, unloaded both barrels at Kenneth Wainstein, U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, in a May 19 letter addressed to Wainstein, copies of which were sent to me, other journalists and media outlets, and public officials, including Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey.
The thrust of the Evans missive, which he elected to characterize as "moral outrage," is that Mr. Wainstein's office observes "a double standard when it comes to race." Evans, who is associate pastor of Mount Zion Baptist Church at 14th and Gallatin streets NW, wrote Wainstein of his dismay that, in the face of an "alarming rate of Black-on-Black crime (especially males)" in the District, "you have demonstrated that you devalue the deaths of those individuals by the scant amount of resources that you have devoted to solving those cases."
To illustrate his point, Evans directed Wainstein's attention to what he called "the disparity between how your office treats a 'nameless' American-American male killed in the stillness of a dark alley in the District of Columbia and the resources that your office devoted during the recent death of David E. Rosenbaum, the New York Times reporter who was killed in early January."
While expressing outrage at Rosenbaum's death and commending him as a "good citizen" and "first-rate journalist," Evans wrote that Rosenbaum "still should not have received preferential treatment in the investigation of his death."
"From our vantage point there were three mitigating factors why you did this: 1) he was a white male, 2) he was a prominent journalist and 3) he was Jewish."
Evans acknowledged that he had leveled a "horrendous charge" but then offered as one of his supporting "facts" The Post's coverage of Rosenbaum's death. Evans suggested that The Post gives short shrift to African American men who are murdered but that it featured Rosenbaum's death in dozens of articles. (How The Post's news-gathering indicts the U.S. attorney's office is not made clear.) The U.S. attorney's response to Rev. Evans can be found at http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions .
Now to the point of today's piece.
Six columns about Rosenbaum have appeared on The Post's op-ed pages, all written by yours truly. Perhaps the Rev. Evans has also concluded that I regard David Rosenbaum as more important than a "nameless African American male." Otherwise why send me a copy of his letter to Wainstein?
If so, he deserves a response.
To the charge of having devoted several pieces to Rosenbaum's killing, I plead guilty. To suggest, however, that I was drawn to his story because of his race or occupation is as absurd as Evans's loathsome declaration that Rosenbaum has draw the attention of the media because he was Jewish.
Yes, his connection to journalism caught my attention. But that does not explain the pieces I have written.
|
The Rev. Anthony Evans, president of the D.C. Black Church Initiative, unloaded both barrels at Kenneth Wainstein, U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, in a May 19 letter addressed to Wainstein, copies of which were sent to me, other journalists and media outlets, and public officials,...
| 10.5 | 0.982143 | 54.017857 |
low
|
high
|
extractive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.