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/2006/06/02/AR2006060201327.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content//article/2006/06/02/AR2006060201327.html
What's Lost in the Hue and Cry Over Haditha
2006060319
Even in "good wars" things go horribly wrong. The following quotations from "Naples '44," by the late Norman Lewis (perhaps the greatest English travel writer of the past century), are instructive. Lewis was stationed in Naples following Italy's liberation from the Nazis, and he kept a diary: "What we saw was ineptitude and cowardice spreading down from the command, and this resulted in chaos . . . "I saw an ugly sight: a British officer interrogating a civilian, and repeatedly hitting him about the head with the chair; treatment which the [civilian], his face a mask of blood, suffered with stoicism. At the end of the interrogation, which had not been considered successful, the officer called on a private and asked him in a pleasant, conversational sort of manner, 'Would you like to take this man away, and shoot him?' The private's reply was to spit on his hands, and say, 'I don't mind if I do, sir.' "I received confirmation . . . that American combat units were ordered by their officers to beat to death [those] who attempted to surrender to them. These men seem very naive and childlike, but some of them are beginning to question the ethics of this order. "We liberated them from the Fascist Monster. And what is the prize? The rebirth of democracy. The glorious prospect of being able one day to choose their rulers from a list of powerful men, most of whose corruptions are generally known and accepted with weary resignation. The days of Mussolini must seem like a lost paradise compared to us." If Lewis's account were the only surviving document from World War II, we might assume that allied nation-building ended in catastrophe. We would wonder why a morally outraged peace movement didn't stop our troops from carrying out their failed and brutal campaigns. Sixty years later and caught up in another war, we are confronted by the massacre in Haditha. And we are also caught up in the anguish of another generation of young men and women asked to kill but to keep killing within "civilized" bounds, to take insults, be fired upon by men hiding behind women and children, yet not respond in kind. To most readers this is an academic question of morality, or I-told-you-so politics. To those of us with loved ones in the military, the allegations of an atrocity committed by U.S. Marines in Haditha are personal. All our troops confront the tortured "morality" of war. My son wrote this from his first combat tour in Afghanistan as a Marine intelligence noncom: "Date: 9/25/03 8:27:01 PM Dear Mom and Dad: I have learned that the right thing and the necessary thing are not synonymous, rarely are they even in the same ballpark. It's very depressing to see the results of some necessary actions, it's never pure, and there is no purity here . . . "People ignore what they cannot see. They just don't want to know. The truth is too ugly and vicious to comprehend . . . "In a natural state a human will kill, and kill not always for necessity, but for convenience as well. The only way that I know I am still me is that I hate that fact; I hate it more than anything I have ever known." I think Lewis would have understood my son's distress. Perhaps he would have also understood my tears when confronting a son's loss of innocence. Yet I am proud my son volunteered, and of his two tours in Afghanistan and his mission in Iraq. And he is glad he served his country. I wish all Americans had a gut connection to the troops so they would know that people like my son don't kill civilians and that they anguish over the vicissitudes of war. And I also wish more people read books like "Naples '44" to give them some sense of perspective when terrible things do happen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Judging by Lewis's diary -- and many other accounts -- the so-called Greatest Generation of World War II was often badly led and worse-behaved, and was certainly less merciful than our present-day soldiers and their leaders. We haven't carpet-bombed Baghdad or nuked Fallujah to spare the lives of our troops. Yet most Americans are glad we forced Italy, Germany and Japan to become democracies, however brutal our means. The flag-waving boosters of our current war and their critics all seem to forget that war really is hell. Proponents sweep the inconvenient dreadfulness under the carpet (no photographs of coffins, please) while opponents are shocked, just shocked, at the nastiness. All sides seem to forget that there are no good wars, only morally ambiguous conflicts that lead to better or worse outcomes. In this war, we do not have enough political leaders and opinion-makers receiving soul-searing letters from their children. Their sons and daughters are notably absent from our military. That's too bad. A personal connection to our wars might discourage the sort of glib hubris that leads the media to trumpet events such as the Haditha killings without putting them in the context of the everyday heroism that is the norm, or in the context of history. And a personal connection to our military by our political leaders would give them a stake in our troops' welfare and what we are asking them to do. It's time for the critics of our military to also earn a little moral authority by volunteering themselves or encouraging their children to do so. Anything less is nothing more than arm's-length moralizing. Frank Schaeffer is co-author of "AWOL: The Unexcused Absence of America's Upper Classes from the Military and How it Hurts Our Country."
Even in "good wars" things go horribly wrong. The following quotations from "Naples '44," by the late Norman Lewis (perhaps the greatest English travel writer of the past century), are instructive. Lewis was stationed in Naples following Italy's liberation from the Nazis, and he kept a diary:
18.639344
1
61
medium
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060201329.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060201329.html
Salvation, One Boy At a Time
2006060319
"I am the darker brother," Langston Hughes wrote in 1925, "they send me to eat in the kitchen when company comes." For many years, Hughes's poetic phrase neatly summed up the plight of black men in America. Since their involuntary arrival beginning in 1619, they had been needed but not wanted, counted on to do the backbreaking work of nation-building but excluded from the riches their labors produced. The long struggle toward acceptance and success has brought many triumphs as black men and their families sought and gained a larger stake in the American dream. But, as the 21st century unfolds, large numbers of black men are falling behind. High incarceration rates, crime, joblessness, poverty, disease -- their problems are well-known. Those difficulties prompt, on the one hand, emotional talk of black men as an endangered species that needs saving. On the other, many critics of black male failure ignore the reach of history and contend that black men's tribulations are entirely self-inflicted. While many of us lament or condemn the conditions of an "underclass" that threatens to become permanent, others are exploring and finding solutions. One of the problem-solvers is Salome Thomas-El, an educator in Philadelphia for nearly two decades. As a teacher and administrator at Vaux Middle School and as principal of Reynolds Elementary School, he has turned around the lives of many students for whom survival has been a constant uphill struggle. His efforts have produced a steady stream of accomplished learners who have gone on to do well in college and in life. In addition, a number of his students have excelled at chess, winning national championships. Thomas-El, who wrote about his experiences in "I Choose to Stay," a 2003 memoir, shares more of his philosophy in a fascinating new book, "The Immortality of Influence." I asked him why he was able to succeed with so many children who had already been written off as failures. "I think the key is that most of the time I've never given up," he said. "I have high expectations for each one. Every child. With our young people, if we believe in them enough, even when they don't believe in themselves, eventually they'll realize they can be successful -- success breeds success." In his new book, Thomas-El discusses working with students who are essentially struggling to raise themselves. "This abandonment of our children is at an epidemic level, and must stop," he writes. "In some instances, it's not physical desertion, but emotional. . . . Some have parents who seem barely able to tolerate them or who would rather do something else than give them attention and guidance." Because of this, he told me, all adults must acknowledge that they are role models for children, even if they aren't parents themselves. "Children learn more from watching us than from listening to us. Eighty-five percent of communication is nonverbal. With every person young people meet, they are going to learn either the right thing or the wrong thing to do. Children are not born drinking beer, smoking marijuana and using profanity. They learn that from us." I asked him about schools designed solely to educate black boys. Such schools continue to be a source of contention, but Thomas-El supports them. More important, he suggested, are schools where black men teach black boys. He was quick to add that a teacher needn't be a black man to succeed with such students: "My third-grade teacher was a white female who saved my life. But these young men need to see themselves. They have to learn how to be a young man before they can be educated alongside young ladies. They don't respect property or other people. Many of our young ladies end up being hurt or harmed by being educated with young men who wind up making school tough for them." Because so many of Thomas-El's proteges are poor, I told him about the e-mails I get from successful African Americans who argue that they have no connection to the many black men struggling in the inner cities. "That's the middle-class mentality," he responded. "We don't understand that when you are blessed, it is your responsibility to bless others. We all make mistakes but we have to understand that there are people who turned around and reached out and helped us. It can no longer be about just 'me.' It has to be about somebody else." Thomas-El and others like him are working to transform another line of Langston Hughes's words from poetry to prophecy. "But I laugh and eat well," his poem continues, "and grow strong."
"I am the darker brother," Langston Hughes wrote in 1925, "they send me to eat in the kitchen when company comes."
33.642857
1
28
medium
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060201780.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060201780.html
Cubans Jailed in U.S. as Spies Are Hailed at Home as Heroes
2006060319
HAVANA -- European tourists here send home postcards with stamps bearing the images of five faces, known simply as los muchachos (the young men) or los cinco (the five). The faces, usually surrounded by billowing Cuban flags, stare out, larger than life, from factory walls, apartment buildings, billboards. The five are heroes in Cuba, but villains to exiles in the United States, where they are serving long prison terms for espionage-related convictions in 2001. Their case, once cheekily cast in the Miami news media as a "spy-vs.-spy," Cold War-era throwback, illuminates the resilience of the complicated, decades-long standoff entangling Cuba, the U.S. government and Cuban exile groups based in Florida. It is now also raising nettlesome questions about the nuances of terrorism and international espionage. American officials tend to paint Cuban agents as infiltrators bent on undermining U.S. national security. But the Cuban government asserts they are men of courage, sent to the United States to ferret out terrorism plots by Cuban exile groups waging war against President Fidel Castro. Since the Cuban Five were convicted, the reach of Havana's information-gathering machine -- described by a former CIA Cuba analyst, Brian Latell, as "among the four or five best anywhere in the world" -- has become even more apparent. In 2002, Ana Belen Montes, a senior analyst on Cuban affairs for the Defense Intelligence Agency in Washington, was convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage for the Cubans; the year before, a high-ranking U.S. immigration official in Miami was convicted of disclosing classified information to Cuba. In January, a longtime professor at Florida International University and his wife, a mental health counselor at the college, pleaded not guilty to charges that they acted as spies for Castro. But none of those cases has generated as much debate as that of the Cuban Five. There has been a groundswell of support for the five acknowledged agents among some American liberal groups and celebrities, including Alice Walker, author of "The Color Purple," actor Danny Glover and author Noam Chomsky. A San Francisco group maintains a Web site called "National Committee to Free the Cuban Five." The Detroit City Council even passed a resolution in March calling for their release, saying the agents were attempting to prevent terrorism against Cuba. The calls for their release gained momentum last August when a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, overturned the convictions and ordered a new trial, because of a "perfect storm" of bias in the Cuban exile bastion of Miami. The decision is now being reviewed by the full court. In a recent interview, Ricardo Alarcon -- president of Cuba's National Assembly and the third-most-powerful political figure on the island after Castro and his brother, Raul -- described the work of secret agents as the right of a sovereign nation to defend itself. He called Cuba an object of terrorism, a nation under threat of violence. Alarcon said hundreds of Cuban citizens have been killed in terrorist attacks since Castro came to power in 1959 and recalled banners saying "Iraq now, Cuba later" at demonstrations in Miami before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Asked whether Cuba would continue to send agents to the United States, Alarcon shifted from Spanish to English and said emphatically: "Yes, with a capital Y." José Basulto, founder of an anti-Castro group in Miami, remembers a young man named Ruben Campa hanging around the airport where Basulto kept his planes in the mid-1990s. The planes were being used to save Cuban refugees stranded in the ocean between Florida and Cuba, and to drop anti-Castro leaflets in Havana, a tactic that infuriated the Cuban government. Campa was quick to make friends and "eager to jump on the bandwagon," Basulto recalled, and soon he was flying missions for the group, Brothers to the Rescue.
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.
16.73913
0.565217
0.608696
medium
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060201699.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060201699.html
A Man of the People's Needs and Wants
2006060319
ARAK, Iran -- The ordinary Iranians who poured into the local soccer stadium to hear President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad one day last month arrived carrying high hopes and handwritten letters. They left with just the hopes. The letters were collected in oversize cardboard boxes, then hoisted into the postal van Ahmadinejad has taken to parking prominently when he barnstorms the provinces, in an audacious campaign to make every Iranian's wish come true. "I asked for a proper house," Vaziolla Rezaei, 57, said of the appeal he addressed to His Excellency the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran. "And I also told him about my financial situation." "I mainly wrote about my husband's lack of work," said Kobra Hedyatti, 30. "And also about our poor house and how far the children have to walk to school." "I actually wrote him two letters," said Reza Karimi, 41. "One was about the problems we have in this neighborhood. The other was about my problems. "Of course," Karimi added with a wave of the hand, "I do not expect him to answer me individually. But I believe he would at least solve the problem of the neighborhood. "I believe if he really could, he would help us." That belief, far more than anything Ahmadinejad has said about nuclear power or the Holocaust, defines Iran's energetic president for the people who elected him almost a year ago, as well as the legions he appears to have won over since taking office in August. If his image in the West is that of a banty radical dangerously out of touch with reality -- "a psychopath of the worst kind," in the words of Israel's prime minister -- the prevailing impression in Iran is precisely the opposite. Here, ordinary people marvel at how their president comes across as someone in touch, as populist candidate turned caring incumbent. In speeches, 17-hour workdays and biweekly trips like the one that brought him here to Central Province, Ahmadinejad showcases a relentless preoccupation with the health, housing and, most of all, money problems that may barely register on the global agenda but represent the most clear and present danger for most in this nation of 70 million. "It's good to have a very kind person near you, caring about your problems," said Akram Rashidi, 34, at the counter of a stationery store where the run on envelopes outpaced the supply of change. "The important thing is that the president and important people are caring about the people." Ahmadinejad's ardent professions of solidarity with workaday Iranians defined his dark-horse campaign a year ago. But once in office, he took retail politics to a whole new level. The visit to Arak in mid-May was his 13th trip to the provinces, each time dragging along his cabinet in the name of bringing the government to the people. "He made a lot of promises," said Aynollah Bagheri, 30, in nearby Khomein, one of eight towns the president hit in two days. "I can't remember them all." The pledges -- of higher wages, housing loans, recreational centers, car factories -- already are stacked to a precarious height. And he's only halfway through Iran's 30 provinces.
ARAK, Iran -- The ordinary Iranians who poured into the local soccer stadium to hear President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad one day last month arrived carrying high hopes and handwritten letters. They left with just the hopes. The letters were collected in oversize cardboard boxes, then hoisted into the...
12.346154
0.980769
50.019231
low
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060200792.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060200792.html
Iran Guardedly Considers Offer
2006060319
TEHRAN, June 2 -- Iranian officials on Friday appeared to be studying a plan laid out by the United States and five other major powers for the future of the country's nuclear program but offered no clues on what their decision might be. Government clerics and technocrats voiced vociferous objections to a demand that Iran suspend its pursuit of uranium enrichment and reprocessing as a condition for resuming negotiations, but they stopped short of signaling that meant the package was doomed to rejection. In a statement that reflected the public relations challenge Iran faces after months of insisting it would never scale back its nuclear program, Mohammad Saeedi, the deputy head of the country's atomic energy agency, told a student news agency: "Accepting the conditions that America has set at the start of the talks is almost impossible." "The people of Iran will not allow us to stop nuclear enrichment," he said. The "almost" in Saeedi's statement was one of several signs that senior officials in Iran's theocratic government were assessing how to respond to the still-confidential set of incentives and possible penalties contained in the plan. Just five days earlier, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who holds ultimate authority in Iran, had framed the question in absolute terms. "The young Iranian scientists, with their great success in nuclear technology, have guaranteed the long-term energy future of the country," Khamenei said before a gathering of parliament members, referring to uranium enrichment accomplished in April at a facility south of the capital. "We must not lose this at any price, because any retreat would be a 100 percent loss." Analysts said Iranian decision-makers were in the early stages of what would probably be an extended internal debate over whether to accept the condition offered by the United States and an apparently united U.N. Security Council. "It will be subject to special and extensive consideration," said Davoud Hermidas Bavand, a professor of international law at Tehran's Supreme National Defense University. "I hope the final response is moderate and flexible." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who finalized the package with her counterparts from Russia, China, France, Germany and Britain on Thursday in Vienna, said on NBC's "Today" show that Iran should produce a firm answer in weeks rather than months. In an indication that Iran was treading carefully, a relatively moderate cleric delivered the sermon at Friday prayers in Tehran, substituting for the ultraconservative ayatollah whose turn it was in the regular rotation but who has a reputation for particularly unrestrained oratory. Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, nonetheless, delivered a blistering attack on the United States for accusing Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons. "Rice claims Iran's access to nuclear warfare will put the world security in danger, while we have said time and again that nuclear arms have no position in our defense program," Khatami said. "The U.S. government has over the past 50 years independently and indirectly launched military strikes on 25 independent states. If that's not insecurity, then what is?" President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also spoke Friday but broke no new ground on the issue, complaining of the double standard implicit in Iran being denied a nuclear program by countries with large stockpiles of atomic weapons. "If acquiring nuclear energy is not good, no country should benefit from it," he said, according to the government news agency IRNA.
TEHRAN, June 2 -- Iranian officials on Friday appeared to be studying a plan laid out by the United States and five other major powers for the future of the country's nuclear program but offered no clues on what their decision might be.
14.173913
1
46
low
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060201796.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060201796.html
Military Cleared in Raid on Iraq House
2006060319
U.S. commanders used appropriate force in taking down a safe house in Iraq during a March 15 military raid that led to the deaths of as many as a dozen civilians, according to the results of an investigation announced in Baghdad yesterday. Officials moved quickly to tamp down allegations of a civilian massacre in the town of Ishaqi, near Balad, after a video broadcast by the BBC this week appeared to show that several civilians, including children, were shot to death in the nighttime raid. The military scrambled to announce the investigation's findings amid rising international furor about another alleged mass slaying, in Haditha, on Nov. 19. Several U.S. Marines are under investigation into whether they shot as many as two dozen civilians in their homes and in a taxi. The alleged slayings have increased tensions between U.S. forces and the Iraqis amid claims that the military has used excessive force while fighting insurgents. Military commanders acknowledged yesterday that frustrations and stresses related to battling the insurgency may be causing a small number of U.S. troops to fail to follow proper procedures. Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, spokesman for Multi-National Force-Iraq, issued a statement last night saying that investigators had found no wrongdoing in the Ishaqi raid and that the ground force commander "properly followed the rules of engagement as he necessarily escalated the use of force until the threat was eliminated." Caldwell said troops captured a Kuwaiti-born al-Qaeda cell leader -- Ahmad Abdallah Muhammad Na'is al-Utaybi -- and killed an Iraqi bombmaker and recruiter during the coordinated raid. The troops took direct fire from the building upon their arrival, he said. They responded first with small arms and then by calling in helicopters and, later, close air-support, essentially destroying the structure, Caldwell said in the statement. Troops then entered the building and found the Iraqi bombmaker's body, along with three dead "noncombatants" and an estimated nine "collateral deaths." "Allegations that the troops executed a family living in this safe house, then hid the alleged crimes by directing an air strike, are absolutely false," Caldwell said. The Ishaqi incident gained notice this week in part because of allegations that Marines patrolling in Haditha, northwest of Baghdad, shot the Iraqis in their homes after a roadside bomb killed a Marine. The Marines initially reported that 15 civilians died as a result of the bomb, and a homicide investigation did not begin until nearly four months later. Top military officials are still working to determine why the initial reports out of Haditha were false and whether the Marine chain of command failed to properly examine the case. The Marines and the Defense Department have not offered public comments on the details of the Haditha case, citing the ongoing investigations. A third case, involving a separate group of Marines, could lead to murder charges at Camp Pendleton in California. In that case, Marines allegedly dragged an Iraqi civilian out of his home and executed him. A defense attorney for one of the Marines had predicted that charges would be filed by yesterday, but Camp Pendleton officials said they had not been filed as of last night. Caldwell cautioned against lumping the alleged incidents together, noting that they are entirely different cases and should be examined separately. Brig. Gen. Donald M. Campbell Jr., chief of staff of Multi-National Corps-Iraq, said yesterday morning in a briefing from Baghdad that the allegations of wrongdoing at Haditha and elsewhere are "disturbing" and "frustrating" but are not representative of the work "99.9 percent" of U.S. troops are doing in Iraq. Campbell said that it is "very, very tragic" when Iraqi civilians are injured or killed, and that U.S. commanders take such incidents very seriously. He also said that the nature of the Iraq war, with an enemy that is often hard to identify, can place enormous strain on U.S. forces. "When you're in the combat theater dealing with enemy combatants who don't abide by the law of war, who do acts of indecency, soldiers become stressed, they become fearful," Campbell said. "It's very difficult to determine, in some cases, on this battlefield who is a combatant and who is a civilian. It doesn't excuse the acts that have occurred, and we're going to look into them. But I would say it's stress, fear, isolation, and in some cases they're just upset. They see their buddies getting blown up on occasion and they could snap." The series of alleged cases of military misconduct in Iraq has stirred concern within the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill in large part because of the message such incidents send to Iraqis, whose top leaders have criticized the way the United States has treated civilians during the war. Campbell's assessment that troops can "snap" when faced with emotional losses within their unit is one of the reasons the military is giving troops on the ground a new round of "core values" training. Members of Congress and President Bush have said that they are troubled by the allegations. Congressional aides said yesterday that they are waiting to learn more facts about the cases after receiving general briefings in recent weeks. One Republican aide said the cases are "a big public relations problem" and could have "a direct impact on the prosecution of the war in Iraq and the willingness of the new government to work with the U.S. to achieve a stable country." Michael E. O'Hanlon, a defense expert at the Brookings Institution, said he fears that there is a gradual decline in trust between U.S. forces and the Iraqis. He said the tactics troops have employed during the war are worrisome in a broader sense. "A lot of civilian casualties in Iraq are due to American bullets, and that raises questions about whether our tactics are appropriate and smart," O'Hanlon said. "Sometimes you're killing four innocent people in order to kill two insurgents, and we've used force in ways that have carried that risk almost every day of the war." Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has indicated that he would like to hold open hearings into the Haditha incident as soon as possible without prejudicing the ongoing criminal investigations, according to his spokesman, John Ullyot.
U.S. commanders used appropriate force in taking down a safe house in Iraq during a March 15 military raid that led to the deaths of as many as a dozen civilians, according to the results of an investigation announced in Baghdad yesterday.
27.590909
1
44
medium
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060200882.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060200882.html
Army Dog Handler Gets Hard Labor, No Jail Time
2006060319
A military police dog handler who was convicted of using his animal to intimidate a detainee at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq was sentenced yesterday to 90 days of hard labor, a penalty that will allow him to stay in the Army without serving a day in jail, according to his defense attorney. The sentence also calls for Sgt. Santos A. Cardona, 32, to be reduced one rank and to forfeit $600 of his monthly pay for 12 months on his convictions for assaulting a high-value detainee in late 2003 and early 2004 and for dereliction of duty. Cardona will be allowed to stay with his military police unit at Fort Bragg, N.C., and will perform the labor at the behest of his company commander. Cardona was charged with conspiracy and abuse relating to incidents at the prison involving another military dog handler and other soldiers and interrogators who were working in a wing of the facility dedicated to detainees of intelligence value. A military jury at Fort Meade found Cardona not guilty of several charges involving a series of abuses but decided he was responsible for allowing his dog, Duco, to bark and growl at one detainee in U.S. custody. Harvey Volzer, Cardona's civilian defense attorney, said in an interview yesterday that his client was "ecstatic" about the verdict and looks forward to continuing his military career. "He wanted to stay in the service, and this will allow him to do it," Volzer said. "He doesn't feel he did anything but help his fellow soldiers, whether in an interrogation or helping a problem guy be more compliant for interrogation." Prosecutors have described Cardona and former Sgt. Michael J. Smith -- an Army dog handler sentenced to nearly six months in jail on similar charges -- as rogue police officers who were intimidating and assaulting detainees on the night shift along with a group of other wayward MPs. Volzer and Army Capt. Kirsten M. Mayer argued that Cardona was following instructions to use his dog to frighten detainees. Cardona is one of nearly a dozen soldiers who have been punished for abuse at the prison, but his sentence -- including no jail time and no discharge -- is the lightest for those who have faced a court-martial.
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.
10.119048
0.333333
0.333333
low
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060200492.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060200492.html
Man Who Set Woman Afire Gets Life in Prison
2006060319
Roger B. Hargrave exercised his right to remain silent before a Prince George's County jury when he was tried and convicted in April of trying to kill his estranged wife by dousing her with gasoline and setting her on fire. But just before a judge sentenced him yesterday to the maximum possible penalty -- life in prison -- Hargrave, wearing a navy blue suit, white shirt and silver tie, spoke publicly for the first time about an attack that has drawn national attention. As his badly burned victim, Yvette Cade, 32, sat with relatives in the first row of courtroom seats about 20 feet away, Hargrave fidgeted with a notebook on which he had written his statement. In a barely audible voice, Hargrave, 34, apologized to witnesses to the assault. He apologized to Cade's family. He said he was sorry for Cade's condition and prayed she would accept his apology. He said he had become a Christian and hoped to counsel victims of physical and emotional abuse. "I still can't figure out what I thought I was doing," Hargrave said. "I'm sorry for the pain I've caused. I can only explain my actions as that of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." Circuit Court Judge William D. Missouri was unmoved. "You never once said I am sorry for what I did to my wife," Missouri told Hargrave. "You said I'm sorry for what happened to her. You're avoiding responsibility for what you did." Because of his actions, Cade will suffer the rest of her life, Missouri told Hargrave. Missouri then handed down the unusually stiff sentence. The jury convicted Hargrave of first- and second-degree attempted murder April 28. Under Maryland sentencing guidelines, which are advisory, someone with a record like that of Hargrave, who has previously been convicted of robbery and handgun violations, would typically be sentenced to 25 to 40 years in prison, defense attorneys said. The attack occurred Oct. 10. Hargrave walked into the mobile phone store where Cade worked in Clinton, poured gasoline on her head and torso from a plastic Sprite bottle, then chased her outside, where she fell to the ground. Hargrave lighted a match and dropped it on her. Cade suffered third-degree burns, the most serious kind, on her head and much of her upper torso. When Cade was given the opportunity to speak yesterday before Hargrave was sentenced, she stood and said she couldn't think of anything else to say. She asked people in the packed courtroom to bow their heads and close their eyes, then recited the Lord's Prayer.
Get Washington DC, Maryland, Virginia news. Includes news headlines from The Washington Post. Get info/values for Washington DC, Maryland, Virginia homes. Features schools, crime, government, traffic, lottery, religion, obituaries.
11.065217
0.413043
0.413043
low
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060201882.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060201882.html
Online and in Your Face
2006060319
Does this sound familiar? You type an Internet address and suddenly your browser is frozen and American Express drops a curtain over the text you are reading. Twice. Or a giant Papa John's pizza slowly floats across your screen, like an edible blimp. Or a foot stomps into view, with the words "Power to Your Feet" under the sole. Nike would like a moment of your time. The Web -- huge swaths of it, anyway -- has been turned into a maddening dodge 'em course of blinking banners and gaudy animation. It's like a library where they deliver the books in a clown car: silence one moment, pig whistles the next. The cursor has become the new fly swatter, the "close" button our national mosquito. This surely took the collusion of thousands, including legions of CEOs, ad execs and Web site publishers. (Among them, the honchos at Washingtonpost.com, it must be said.) So there is plenty of blame to go around. Singling out one man merely for the sake of retribution -- just to put a human face on this accursed hassle -- well, that would be grossly unfair. But it would be fun. So shake hands with Gal Trifon! If you want someone to answer for the millions of promotional rattraps now coiled around the Internet, Trifon is a fine place to start. He is the president of an outfit called Eyeblaster Inc., and there is more than a little pride in his voice when he says, "We were actually the first to introduce the floating ad." Yes, Trifon and his colleagues dreamed up the wafting cyber-irritant that crawls into your line of sight and won't leave until it evaporates or gets shooed away. Eyeblaster also claims to have pioneered or popularized the "full-page overlay," the "push-down banner" and a host of Incredibly Annoying Online Advertising Formats, or IAOAFs, if you will. We're not talking about pop-up ads, which, Trifon is eager to explain, is something Eyeblaster has never sold. Those are rare these days, in large part because of the advent of easy-to-use pop-up blockers. (Pop-unders, the pop-up's evil twin, lives on). An IAOAF -- or a rich-media ad, as the industry calls it -- basically takes the pop-up concept and adds a cheerleading squad's worth of sis-boom-bah. The spread of high-speed Internet made it possible to pile on features, including streaming video and animation, plus motion of every imaginable variety, plus countless ways to show up, linger and vanish. The goal now isn't merely to interrupt, as it was in the pop-up days. It's to interrupt and engage. Not so good for you, but very good for Eyeblaster. The privately held company started about seven years ago in Israel with four people and now runs offices in 11 countries, with 150 employees. It has rivals, with kinetic names such as Eyewonder and PointRoll, but Eyeblaster did for the Internet what the 30- and 60-second ad did for television: It basically invented the standard. One day recently, Trifon, who is 37, sat down in a conference room with a laptop and gave a little Eyeblaster demonstration. He was dressed in the smart-casual style that is apparently required of admen in New York, the blend of serious and funky that reassures clients that you are both responsible and highly creative. Trifon, who speaks with a slight accent from his homeland, has a weakness for phrases like "vertical opportunity," and he uses the word "platform" a lot, but an evangelical enthusiasm shines through the jargon. "This one is probably a more obvious way of interacting with an advertisement," he says, cueing an ad.
NEW YORK Does this sound familiar? You type an Internet address and suddenly your browser is frozen and American Express drops a curtain over the text you are reading. Twice. Or a giant Papa John's pizza slowly floats across your screen, like an edible blimp. Or a foot stomps into view, with the...
12.311475
0.983607
55.213115
low
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060201885.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060201885.html
A Long Wait for Peace
2006060319
William Thomas first introduced fanny to brick on the White House sidewalk on June 3, 1981. His sign said, "Wanted: Wisdom and Honesty." He's been there ever since, still squatting, still wanting. A few months after he began, he was joined by Concepcion Picciotto, who has remained similarly steadfast. War is not over, but the peace protesters have won. Sort of. The oasis of green across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House is theirs. At some point a protest may become more than what it is about. It becomes a thing in itself. An institution. A monument. Take Lafayette out of Lafayette Square -- the monumental statuary likeness of the Frenchman, with Colonial braid, big boots and a sword -- and hardly anyone would notice. (Hint: He's not the guy on the charger; that's Jackson). But get rid of the shelter made of a battered patio umbrella, a weathered plastic tarp and those faded anti-nuke signs erected by Thomas and Picciotto? It wouldn't be the same park. Tourists from places like Beijing and Chicago would no longer flash peace signs for digital cameras. School groups would make one less stop. Tour-guide shticks would shrink by a sentence or two. So fewer conversations, arguments and tears. Two less souls to share the space on cold days and nights with pigeons, squirrels and rooftop snipers. Anniversary celebrations are for institutions. The 25th Anniversary Speakout for the 24-7 peace vigil begins at noon today, hosted by peace and anti-nuke groups, with speakers and invitations to "sing, chant, recite, drum, dance your heartsong." A quarter-century. Through rain and sleet and snow and the heat of summer. And police raids and lawyers and courtrooms. And jail. Thomas was once sentenced to 90 days for violating the elaborate (and ever-evolving) rules of expression. But that's all been sorted out. As long as they don't "camp" (dozing off on your stool is okay, but no sleeping in anything that resembles "bedding"), stray more than three feet from their signs or construct overly large posters, the law leaves them alone.
William Thomas first introduced fanny to brick on the White House sidewalk on June 3, 1981. His sign said, "Wanted: Wisdom and Honesty." He's been there ever since, still squatting, still wanting.
10.186047
1
43
low
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060201831.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060201831.html
Fighting Our Flush Fixation
2006060319
As worries about resource conservation and global warming spur growth in environmentally sensitive construction, builders find that one room separates the greens from the traditionalists. Once the most generic of features in commercial buildings, toilets loom as the earth-friendly builder's final frontier. Eco-friendly toilets -- low-flush, dual-flush or no-flush compost -- conserve water and cut pollution, a double benefit that few other green features can claim. But try to find one of these toilets. As more builders earn plaudits and save money with geothermal heating and bicycle parking, they remain more likely to plant roof gardens than to install green toilets. Plumbers say waterless urinals, which use a replaceable cartridge, are unsanitary because they don't wash waste away. Municipalities resist making the changes to plumbing systems that compost toilets require. (In a compost toilet, the high-tech version of an outhouse, accumulated waste decomposes into liquid fertilizer and organic matter.) Users complain that high-efficiency toilets, which use less water than traditional models, require two flushes to do the job. Behind such objections stands this truth: America remains a flush-oriented society, and the more powerful the flush, the better. "It was a morale issue," Anja S. Caldwell, green building chief for the Montgomery County public school system, said of initial resistance to the 50 waterless urinals introduced over the past year. "People thought that by taking the flush away, you're taking an entitlement." Six years after the U.S. Green Building Council established standards governing construction with low environmental impact, buildings certified by the builders' group total 6 percent of construction. The trend is growing. Fifteen states and 49 cities -- including Maryland, Virginia and the District -- have some green building legislation or incentives. About a dozen large commercial buildings in the metro area comply with green standards, and "hundreds" more are being built, said Taryn Holowka, spokeswoman for the Washington-based council. The National Geographic Society headquarters in the District, several Maryland office towers and schools, and three Pentagon buildings in Northern Virginia meet the council's standards. The new Nationals baseball stadium is intended to be a green project. However, most of these buildings retain traditional plumbing. "We're getting more questions about these [green] toilets and seeing more interest in them," Holowka said. But for now, "they're a little bit different." The Montgomery County public school system had its first encounter with flushlessness last year, installing 18 waterless urinals at Martin Luther King Middle School in Germantown. Caldwell, an architect who grew up with low-flush plumbing in her native Germany, surveyed users. "Two to one, they liked the flushless," she said.
As worries about resource conservation and global warming spur growth in environmentally sensitive construction, builders find that one room separates the greens from the traditionalists.
19.962963
1
27
medium
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060201570.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060201570.html
Vonage in Predicament After Public Offering
2006060319
Imagine being chief executive of a high-technology company and having to choose between alienating a relatively small group of shareholders who also happen to be the firm's customers or a much larger group of shareholders who aren't. That's the predicament facing executives at Vonage Holdings Corp., the best-known provider of Internet phone service, after its less-than-stellar initial public stock offering last week, according to public filings and officials familiar with the company. The company sold more than 31 million shares at $17 each during the IPO, raising about $530 million, which Vonage has said it will use to grow its business. But becoming a publicly traded company also brought Vonage a giant headache. As part of the IPO, the company took the unusual move of offering shares to qualifying customers, contacting them via the Internet and telephone. In the end, about 10,000 of Vonage's 1.6 million phone subscribers bought about 4.2 million shares. The problem, as the company says in public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, is that Vonage may have violated securities laws by offering its customers the shares on an Internet site that failed to provide a link to a prospectus, a legal document detailing to prospective investors all aspects of the stock offering, including any risks. The company fixed the problem by making it impossible for any customer to accept the offer of buying stock without first having to open a prospectus, according to filings with the SEC and sources familiar with the offering. But in the handful of days since the offering, the value of Vonage stock has plummeted, falling below $12 a share (it closed up 35 cents yesterday at $11.98). Many customers who made a commitment to buy shares began to complain that they shouldn't have to honor that contract. Vonage on Tuesday issued a statement saying it expects customers to fulfill obligations to buy shares for $17 each. Behind the scenes, company officials, who intended the offering to secure loyalty among existing customers, are loath to sue customers because of the obvious bad publicity such tactics would bring, according to securities experts familiar with the offering. That's the crux of the problem. If Vonage allows its customers to walk away from their obligations to buy shares, then its non-customer shareholders are likely to argue that they, too, should be permitted to get out of having to pay $17 a share for stock now worth much less. By law, all shareholders must be treated equally. Shareholders who are Vonage customers would likely argue that they are not the same as non-customer shareholders because they were offered shares via an Internet solicitation that didn't provide access to a prospectus, experts said. That glitch, they might argue, entitles them to get out of any obligation to buy shares. Vonage believes it could defend itself by arguing that although its solicitation might have been faulty, the company made up for the mistake by ensuring that no one actually could accept the offer without first seeing a prospectus, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to talk about the offering. While the company is confident it would win a suit forcing customers to fulfill a commitment to buy shares, the victory would surely cause a loss of clients -- the opposite of what the public offering was intended to do. But if the company lets customers break their commitment without taking legal action, non-customer shareholders might sue Vonage to also be allowed to walk away. These shareholders would argue that the violation Vonage made in its solicitation to existing customers was a glitch that was soon remedied, erasing any legal distinction between shareholders who have Vonage phone service and those who don't. What actually will happen could take weeks to sort out, the sources said, and will depend on how the company's stock performs and how many of Vonage's customers protest promises to buy shares. Vonage spokespeople would not comment on the situation, nor would officials for the investment banking units at Citigroup, UBS Warburg and Deutsche Bank, which handled the IPO.
Imagine being chief executive of a high-technology company and having to choose between alienating a relatively small group of shareholders who also happen to be the firm's customers or a much larger group of shareholders who aren't.
18.809524
1
42
medium
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060201519.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060201519.html
Bush Re-Enters Gay Marriage Fight
2006060319
President Bush plans to wade back into the emotional debate over same-sex marriage for the first time in his second term beginning today with a pair of speeches pressing the Senate to approve a constitutional amendment next week defining marriage as the union of a man and woman. Bush, whose opposition to marriage between gay partners helped power him to reelection in 2004, has remained largely silent on the issue since, much to the consternation of conservatives who complain he has not exerted leadership. Now, with midterm elections approaching, he is returning to a topic that galvanizes an important part of the Republican base. The president intends to devote his weekly radio address today to the Marriage Protection Amendment and has invited supporters to the White House on Monday for another speech promoting it, according to aides and activists. The Senate is set to begin debating the amendment Monday and vote Wednesday, but both sides believe sponsors do not have the 67 votes it needs for approval despite Bush's endorsement. "His position is that he thinks people ought to have the freedom to lead their private lives," White House spokesman Tony Snow said. "He also does not believe that that means that you have to redefine the institution of marriage. He believes the institution of marriage is between a man and a woman." Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said he decided to call for a vote on the amendment because states that banned same-sex marriage in the last 18 months are under assault in the courts. "Unelected activist judges are tearing down state laws in nine states today," Frist said on "Fox News Sunday" last weekend. "That's why I will take it to the floor of the Senate." But critics said the only reason Bush and Frist are reviving the issue is for election-year pandering to conservative voters, who, polls show, have grown disaffected with the president for various reasons. "They understand that they are in deep trouble and they need to do anything they can to appease their people, which is the right-wing base," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization. "This is an age-old political tactic, which is when everything is falling down around you -- as it is for the administration -- you go for your base." Ballot measures to ban same-sex marriage in 11 states in 2004 helped drive up conservative turnout, and analysts believe that may have been a deciding factor for Bush. But supporters say the issue energizes voters beyond the base, including independents and even Democratic-leaning voters, such as culturally traditional African Americans. The issue has already emerged in some of this year's races. In one North Carolina congressional district, for instance, Republican challenger Vernon Robinson has aired a radio ad attacking Democratic Rep. Brad Miller with mariachi music playing in the background: "Brad Miller supports gay marriage and sponsored a bill to let American homosexuals bring their foreign homosexual lovers to this country on a marriage visa. If Miller had his way, America would be nothing but one big fiesta for illegal aliens and homosexuals." Miller voted against the Marriage Protection Amendment in 2004, saying the matter should be left to the states. "The republic has survived pretty well for 220 years with marriage based on state law," he said yesterday. "I don't think we ought to amend the constitution every time a politician wants to campaign on an issue." Miller said he supports North Carolina law banning same-sex marriage but is open to civil unions between gay partners. The Marriage Protection Amendment would ban same-sex marriages, but sponsors say it would allow state legislatures to approve civil unions with similar benefits for gay couples. In its entirety, it reads: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman." A constitutional amendment requires approval of two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-quarters of the states. The president has no formal role in the process. In 2004, a similar amendment with somewhat different wording failed in the Senate, 48 in favor and 50 opposed, and in the House, 227 to 186. Both sides believe supporters have picked up four votes in the Senate since then, which would result in a 52-vote majority, well below two-thirds. A recent Pew Research Center poll found that most Americans do not support same-sex marriage but concluded that opposition has softened in the last two years. In 2004, 63 percent of Americans opposed same-sex marriage and 30 percent approved. In March, 51 percent opposed it and 39 percent supported it. Bush has given the appearance of a reluctant supporter of banning same-sex marriage. In an interview with The Washington Post in January 2005, he said he did not plan to lobby senators for the amendment because it did not have much chance of passing, infuriating conservative supporters. Even this week, he has sent mixed signals. The White House told activists that Monday's speech would be in the Rose Garden, but after criticism that he was using such a symbolic site, the White House moved it to an office building next door. Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage, which drafted the constitutional amendment, said the White House does not want to appear to be driving the debate but expressed satisfaction that Bush comes through at key moments. "There are some who would prefer to have the president of the United States act like a conservative interest-group leader," Daniels said. "But he's not. He's the president of the United States. They don't want to be seen as pushing the issue." "But when salient moments arrive," Daniels added, Bush speaks out.
President Bush plans to wade back into the emotional debate over same-sex marriage for the first time in his second term beginning today with a pair of speeches pressing the Senate to approve a constitutional amendment next week defining marriage as the union of a man and woman.
22.882353
1
51
medium
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060201220.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060201220.html
A Large Gift of Faith
2006060319
SUMMIT, N.J. -- Fountain Baptist Church favors exuberance in worship, its members encouraging their spirited pastor with approving nods and liberal supplies of amens. The fervor of spirit at this 108-year-old suburban African American church, about 1,900 members strong, is matched by a charitable heart -- and pocketbook. The church, which started as a humble meeting place for a handful of gardeners and domestic workers, has turned heads with the sums it now gives to charitable causes around the world. The latest example is a $1 million pledge slated for hurricane recovery in the Gulf Coast, an amount considered quite generous for a major corporation or association, let alone a single church. According to the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, which has monitored charitable gifts of more than $1 million since 2000, it would be only the second time a U.S. church has made a donation of such size. Oriental Mission Church in Los Angeles gave $3 million in 2001 to help victims of an earthquake in El Salvador. Fountain Baptist held a "covenant signing" ceremony last weekend, pledging the $1 million to the Lott Carey Baptist Foreign Mission Convention, and on Sunday turned over its first installment, $300,000, to that Washington-based organization, which will handle the money. Fountain Baptist has tentatively designated $400,000 of the donations for job and life-skills training for 200 families in Louisiana and Mississippi; $300,000 to help dozens of pastors whose churches are trying to recover from physical damage, deaths of members or relocations; $200,000 for housing and community-building projects; and $100,000 for general and administrative costs. "What one African American church is doing as a witness to the glory of God is an example of what others can do," said Horace Baldwin, one of three Fountain Baptist members and five ministers who traveled to Louisiana and Mississippi in March to determine priorities. "More than the focus on $1 million . . . it's a witness for the benefit of those people affected by the hurricane," he said. "Some of them have had their hopes shattered, their dreams crushed. To have a church so removed from the damage site help, serves as a witness to them that there is still a God." The vast majority of the money is expected to come directly from church members. In addition to the $300,000 initial installment, the church has $500,000 in pledges, putting it four-fifths of the way there, said the pastor, the Rev. J. Michael Sanders. The church will meet its goal if members give, on average, a little more than $500 each. "It'll happen," said member Ron Thomas. "We're a giving church, with the leadership of our pastor, who has shown us you can give and it doesn't hurt. Everybody does their part." Thomas, like other church members interviewed, used what is a common saying at the church: "Not equal giving, but equal sacrifice," meaning everyone gives what they can.
SUMMIT, N.J. -- Fountain Baptist Church favors exuberance in worship, its members encouraging their spirited pastor with approving nods and liberal supplies of amens.
22
1
27
medium
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060201531.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060319id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060201531.html
Episcopalians Consider Giving Reparations to Black Members
2006060319
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The Episcopal Church is poised to apologize for failing to oppose slavery, but making up for its 19th-century inaction won't come without 21st-century controversy. At its national convention beginning June 13, the church is expected to approve a resolution expressing regret for supporting slavery and segregation. But the debate likely will get more heated when a second resolution comes up, calling for a study of possible reparations for black Episcopalians. The church, already divided on the issue of gays' role in the church, is struggling over whether reparations would be a meaningful gesture 141 years after the Civil War ended. "A lot of times you say, 'I'm not a racist, I didn't have slaves, no one in my family had slaves, I could not possibly be complicit in this,' " said Sharon Denton, a member of the church's National Concerns Committee, which deals with domestic ministry and mission issues. "But if you start digging back in the history of things, you find out there were a lot of things that come to you that were built on slave-holding and the slave trade," said Denton, a member of an all-white parish in Salina, Kans. The Rev. Harold T. Lewis, a black priest and rector of Calvary Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh, called the idea of reparations outrageous and impractical. "The better thing to do is to talk about how we can work to eradicate racism and how we can fight to eliminate economic disparities regardless of racism," said Lewis, the denomination's former longtime staff officer for black ministries. The church declined to embrace a resolution three years ago backing federal legislation to create a national reparations task force. This year's resolution is more focused on the church, calling for a study of how it benefited economically from slavery and how that benefit could be shared with black Episcopalians, about 5 percent of its 2.2 million members. But the resolution does not give specifics, and both supporters and detractors say reparations could mean anything from cash payments to college scholarships. Previous attempts to deal with the issue have proved difficult. In 1969, the church's General Convention-- or legislative body-- approved a $200,000 grant to the National Committee of Black Churchmen in response to calls for reparations from activist James Forman. But the move created a significant backlash among parishioners. Southern Episcopalians temporarily formed their own branch during the Civil War but were quietly marked absent during the northern denomination's 1862 convention and then welcomed back into the fold when the war ended. Other denominations have since apologized for their support of slavery.
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The Episcopal Church is poised to apologize for failing to oppose slavery, but making up for its 19th-century inaction won't come without 21st-century controversy.
14.514286
1
35
low
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/06/01/DI2006060101171.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/06/01/DI2006060101171.html
Being a Black Man
2006060219
Want to know more about the "Being a Black Man" project? Submit your questions and comments here. Post reporters and editors will respond to your comments throughout the run of the project, so come back to this page periodically for those updates. Also, keep checking www.washingtonpost.com/blackmen for new videos, stories and other interactive content as the project expands over the year. "Being a Black Man", a year-long series launched on June 2 by The Washington Post and washingtonpost.com, explores what it means to be a black man in today's society. Washington Post associate editor Kevin Merida and staff reporter Michael A. Fletcher were online at 11 a.m. on Friday, June 2 to discuss the impetus behind the project. The transcript of the discussion follows: Michael A. Fletcher: Good morning, everyone. Let's get started. N. Bethesda, Md.: Excellent work! It is refreshing to see balanced coverage on A1 and the accomplishments and challenges facing Black men in a mainstream publication outside of the month of February. What was your inspiration for the project?? Michael A. Fletcher: The idea for this project had been discussed among a group of reporters and editors here for several years. The basic idea was to present a balanced portrait of black men and where they stand in our society. At one point, the thought was to do the project in conjunction with last year's 10th anniversary of the Million Man March. But it took longer to execute this properly, so here we are. Augusta, Ga.: The juxtaposition of the two photos, one of the cocky youngbloods on the block and the other of the disenfranchised men seeking to rebound via work at the DC Central Kitchen, was striking. It seemed to pose the question how do we avert the BEFORE from becoming the AFTER. Will the series address how to channel the energy and zest of young black males into becoming positive and productive adults of contribution? Kevin Merida: Yes, the series will contain an upcoming story on two seniors in high school, one of whom is valedictorian and the other salutatorian. They are longtime friends, athletes at the school--smart and popular, something that is not in conflict for them. So the story explores how they have been able to have an influence on their peers, etc. Charleston, S.C.: My name is Minister Nelson Gibson. I will be hosting a Men's conference here in Charleston on Fathers' Day weekend. I was checking the news online and came across your article. I was truly blessed by it and I wanted to write you both and commend you for such a well written and insightful piece. I'm a Minister and as I interact with our black brothers everyday, I see the mixture of promise and powerlessness in their eyes. We must work individually to have a collective effect. Everyone is looking for the one solution that will transform the condition of our men as a whole. However, the answer is in each of us, first we must develop a relationship with God and then take responsibilty and authority for own lives. In doing so we can then reach out and help a brother around us and effect the necessary change one mind at a time. If we change how we think of ourselves society will change how they think of us. Michael A. Fletcher: Amen to that. Thanks for reading and good luck with your conference. Also, if you have time, be sure to take a look at some of the related features at www.washingtonpost.com/blackmen Bethesda, Md.: In l959, a group of white students and a Black student were refused service at a restaurant in College Park, Md. The white students then took a stand which eventually resulted in integration. That incident recalled and written up in an op-ed article was refused by The Washington Post. Why??? Michael A. Fletcher: That's a question for the editors of the editorial page, as we are not involved in that operation. Washington D.C.: I really would like to hear what you both consider success to be as it pertains to an AFRICAN AMERICAN MAN. Kevin Merida: Success can be defined in many ways. There is success in employment, success in raising children to be productive citizens, success in helping others find their way. To me, contributing to the lives of other young African American men is one of the most meaningful things I can do. Greenbelt, Md.: How were the persons for your photograph chosen? Michael A. Fletcher: We were looking for a cross section of people who could represent the wide spectrum of black men. We also wanted to have a couple of prominent faces to help communicate this idea of black male identity and commonality that extends across class lines. Washington, D.C.: Good morning. Loved this article and I'm very much looking forward to the series. I am wondering who or what inspired this project and how many folks at the Post are working and contributing. Kevin Merida: The project grew out of a number of informal conversations among reporters here. There had been talk and attempts going back 5 or 6 years to get a project off the ground. Darryl Fears, a Post national reporter, deserves a lot of the credit for harnessing the informal conversations and bringing people together to talk about what should be done and how. The impetus was the 10th anniversary of the 1995 Million Man March. Darryl and I were having lunch months leading up to that anniversary and he was just posing the question: What had happened to black men in the 10 years since that historic gathering on the Mall, when hundreds of thousands of black men came together and more or less surprised the nation. Greenbelt, Md.: Thanks so much for your article and interactive features! I am happy to see an honest portrait of Black men, one that does not overly hype the failures or successes. For once, Black men in this article seem as dynamic and diverse as they really are. Question: did you encounter (or seek out) Black men uncomfortable with their blackness? This aspect is rarely addressed, but it happens sometimes. When I say "uncomfortable", I mean those who, because of their socio-economic position, feel the need to "prove" their blackness or downplay it altogether. As a Black female, I've seen this from time to time, both with males and females. Thanks again for using the written word to let the world know we are more than a group, but a group of individuals. Michael A. Fletcher: As the stories unfold, I think you'll see that we will at least come close to touching on that issue. Next week, there will be an in-depth profile of a black man who defies racial expectations to work in the Bush adminstration. BTW, thanks for the kudos. Can you explain to me why it is that for a country that is a superpower and that is so technologically advanced..... How is it that people of color, specifically black people, seemed to have been left behind in comparison to attitudes about self and the negative images portrayed? When compared to third world contries, this is not an issue in these countries. I am from the Caribbean and black males from the Caribbean do not question their own ability and self-worth. Kevin Merida: I think the lingering impact of slavery and its offspring (legalized segregation) cannot be underestimated in how some black men--and some black women--see themselves. Rockville, Md.: How do Colin Powell and others African Americans who have "made it" become role models for those who have grown up without fathers, under the poverty line? Michael A. Fletcher: Colin Powell, for one, has dedicated much of his time to mentoring youth. He has adopted a public school in the District, for example, and has mentors coming in to work with students. He also has connected the school with a law firm that offers students a glimpse of what the legal world looks like, by having them in the office, etc. Mr. Powell is the first to admit that not every student is even in a position to benefit from that kind of effort, but at the same time many do. Many other men do the same, to a greater or lesser degree. Maryland: How can an extended series on factors affecting ONE gender and ONE racial group be perceived as balanced coverage? Kevin Merida: I think the story of black men is the story of America. As a nation, there has been tremendous progress in removing barriers so that all groups of people can see themselves represented. And so Barack Obama, Will Smith, Colin Powell represent what you can be now in this country--embraced by people of all races, defined by your individual personas. And yet, the difficult challenges the country faces--increasing global competition, the struggle over immigration, the lack of meaningful jobs for the unskilled--can be illustrated by looking at black men too. Those black men on the margins. So, black men, in some ways, become a kind of bellwether. In black men, you have the American ideal and the American practice playing themselves out. I would not describe a concentrated series on black men or any other demographic group as "unbalanced" coverage--whether it be teenagers, farmers, stay-at-home moms, corporate executives, or any other collection of human beings that helps us understand each other. Indianapolis, Ind.: I read the article and watched the video and I think the article did a much better job than the video. I didn't see anyone I recognized in the video. What I mean is I didn't see anyone I could identify with. Where were the black husband and fathers ages 35 to 50? I didn't see "him" in the video. They live all around me but I didn't see them in the video. Kevin Merida: Thanks for your comment. The video montage was intended to be a snapshot. And there will be more to follow, asking different black men different questions. But included in that opening portfolio were a cook, a mayor, a minister, a gay man, a civil rights veteran, a college athlete and a 97-year-old historian. So there was some attempt to have range of experiences. Arlington, Va.: So many questions! But as this is a year long series and you've mentioned already some forthcoming articles adressing certain subjects, is there a timeline or list somewhere of the topics you plan to cover? Michael A. Fletcher: On page A12 in today's paper there is a list of the other stories that will be part of the first wave of this project. Those stories include a comprehensive poll exploring the views of black men on an array of social issues, a profile of a black man who works in the Bush administration, and a piece on a 8-year-old boy as he begins to understand his racial identity. There are also additional features at www.washingtonpost.com/blackmen Detroit, Mich.: Does your series explore the role of black activists and their value in today's marketplace? Kevin Merida: We don't yet have a specific story planned on black activists and their role, but that is a fine idea. One of the working notions about this project is that it will live and breathe. It is not all in the can. We very much want feedback and to see what our reporting and exploration will yield--and build on that. Thank you for that thought. Hyattsville, Md.: I really didn't like your existential kind of story depicting African American men as victims, powerless, or worse, hopeless individuals. Your intentions seem to reinforce the status quo... and generalize whole black men when you specifically are talking about African American Men in United States....."What the Black Man wants is to be left alone" or else balance your stories and write about White men too... Michael A. Fletcher: It's surprising that you got that out of the story. What we tried to do was present a broad portrait of black men, both successful and otherwise, in America in 2006. Harrisburg, Pa.: Terrific work on the piece! I look forward to further reports in the series. Recently in the Post there was an editorial by Michael Meyers regarding Black Male Initiatives (BMIs). He was largely critical of what he calls the latest "race fad". I am curious to know role you think BMIs can play in the success of African American male students. Kevin Merida: I think all kinds of initiatives are needed to help a specific population of young black men--and I'm thinking of those who are insecure, feel disconnected, lost, uncertain about what the world offers them. We have seen mixed results. But there are people trying lots of different things--all-black-male academies, concentrated tutoring programs, extended group travel to other countries. Northern, Va.: I think there should be a series on "Being a White Man" in this society since we are now the minority in the D.C. Metro Area these days. It's not fair to just point out how it is for a "Black Man." Think about that - I thought we were equal and I have never heard of a White American March ever! Because that would be racist and unAmerican. Kevin Merida: I would love to read a series on "Being a White Man." Alexandria, Va.: As a born African (of mixed West African descent) who believes in solidarity with all Africans despite ethnicity, I struggle with the fact that Black Americans simply don't feel themselves to be American. What must happen in America's future for Black Americans to feel themselves to be Americans first, Region second and Black third? Michael A. Fletcher: I suspect that what you sense may be a bit more complicated than you describe. Many black Americans are ambivalent about their place in this country, largely because of our history here. And many others are disconnected from what we think of as the mainstream of society. Yet, black men are patriotic (just witness our role in the military) and are as American-if not more so--as any other group of Americans. Maryland: I like Will Smith because he is an incredibly talented entertainer. I respect Obama Barrack because I think he is the epitome of taste and decorum and exhibits great grace, intelligence, and compassion. I think Colin Powel is one of the greatest military AND civilian leaders of our time. None of these aspects have anything (in my mind) to do with the fact that these men also happen to be black. I guess I just hope that someday people see people for what they make of themselves, and not their racial background. Or as someone far more eloquent than I could ever hope to be once said "for the content of their character" Kevin Merida: I agree with you. But however the rest of the world sees them, all three of those men see THEMSELVES as black. Not that being black is their only identity. But it is an identity they all have talked about, and don't run from. And, of course, as the series will point out--and started pointing out today--there is no one way to be a black man. New Orleans, La.: Your article starts with three hypothetical kindergarden students, what characteristics whether personal or environmental lead the one student to success, in your opinion? Michael A. Fletcher: It's probably a combination of factors. Parents, opportunity, community, innate talent, discipline, to name a few. Baton Rouge, La.: As a black man, how do I reconcile the stark differences between Colin Powell and Clarence Thomas; Al Sharpton and Armstrong Williams? Kevin Merida: They are all black men, expressing themselves in their own way. Despite popular conception or misconception, all of those public figures relate to being a black man. Washington D.C.: What is the background of the two men writing this article? Michael A. Fletcher: Both of us are black. Kevin grew up in Washington, D.C. and Seat Pleasant, Md. I'm from Queens, N.Y. We are both graduates of Boston University and have been working journalists for 27 years. Washington, D.C..: How is it being an African-American working at the Washington Post? The Post has a long history of being extremely racist inside and outside of their doors. There are more African-American women working in management positions for the Post then there are African-American men. Why is that? Kevin Merida: For me, working for The Washington Post is working for my hometown paper. I know people in this community. I grew up in Southeast and Prince George's County. Being here, overall, has been a good experience. Washington, D.C.: Dear Mr. Merida and Mr. Fletcher: If you truly wish "to present a balanced portrait of black men and where they stand in our society," you'll publish a lot of pieces on the most important issue in the lives of African-American men and boys today: fatherhood. 68% of all black children in the U.S. today are born to an unmarried mother. It's the root of all the other problems. PLEASE write about it. Kevin Merida: Unfortunately, we have to run now. But please tune in to Washington Post Radio, 1500 AM or 107.7 FM or washingtonpostradio.com...We will continue the discussion there....Thanks everyone. washingtonpost.com: Kevin, Michael and other reporters and editors will continue to respond to your comments throughout the run of the project, so come back to this page periodically for those updates. Also, keep checking www.washingtonpost.com/blackmen for new videos, stories and other interactive content as the project expands over the year. Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
Washington Post associate editor Kevin Merida and staff reporter Michael A. Fletcher discuss the impetus behind the "Being a Black Man" project.
140.72
1
8.76
high
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/09/DI2006050900749.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/09/DI2006050900749.html
Jobs Live
2006060219
Derrick Dortch is a career counselor who specializes in government job searching and military transition. Currently, he is president of The Diversa Group , a firm that focuses on career counseling and development, entrepreneurship, leadership and organizational consulting, training and development. He also runs The Career Success Group as well as Targeted Resumes . Find more career-related news and advice in our Jobs section. Derrick Dortch: Good Morning, Good Morning!!! It has been a hot couple of days in DC but I hope you are enjoying the sun after what seemed like a long winter. Well we have a good show in store for you so if you have any questions about security clearances, the government job search or about any topic related to finding success in your career, work and life please make sure you ask. Well as usual here are some interesting things I think you should be aware of and without delay on to the show. Thank you for stopping by and ENJOY!!! WORKSHOP: Writing Federal Resumes & KSAs that Win Interviews! 10:00 AM - Washington, DC The Government is Hiring! Government jobs are out there but so is your competition. Developing a targeted, powerful and persuasive federal resume and targeted KSAs is the way to win interviews and the government job you want. This seminar will teach you how! For more information and to register go to: http://www.careersuccessgroup.com INTERESTED IN CAREERS IN INTELLIGENCE, COUNTERINTELLIGENCE, & FOREIGN AFFAIRS The Institute for World Politics (IWP) offers degrees and courses on intelligence, counterintelligence, American foreign policy, Eurasian geopolitics, Latin America, China, conflict resolution, strategic information warfare, comparative political cultures, and terrorism. All courses are taught by faculty who are experts and practitioners in these fields. There will be two open houses in June: Thursday, June 15th, 6:00-8:30 PM Saturday, June 17th, 2:00-5:00 pm For more information about IWP and the open house go to: www.iwp.edu Defense Systems & Intelligence Career Fair Place: Holiday Inn Express, Springfield Address: 6401 Brandon Ave., Springfield, VA 22150 Facility Contacts: 703.644.5555 Fax 703.866.4557 Defense Systems & Intelligence Career Fair Place: Sheraton Four Points at BWI Address: 7032 Elm Road, Linthicum, MD 21240 Facility Contacts: (410) 859-330 Fax (410) 859-0565 There is no cost to attend this event as a careerseeker; exhibit information for corporate recruiters. Entrance to the career fair is open to candidates listing a U.S. security clearance on their resume. Candidates without clearances may attend if they have prior experience in the U.S. defense or intelligence industries as documented within their resume. All candidates may be asked to provide a U.S. government issued identification card to verify your identity. AT&T Specialized Open House - June 13, 2006 Date & Time: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 10am-4pm Location: Marriott Courtyard - Ft Meade - 2700 Hercules Road Annapolis Junction, MD 20701 Directions: For travel directions, click here. List of exhibitors: scroll down or click here Security clearance required ? -> Yes IMPORTANT: one or several specific types of clearances are required for this event. If your profile does not meet the requirement, you will not be able to register for the event. We invite you to make sure your profile is updated before you register. # Active Top Secret/SCI required for most positions - polygraph desirable. # AT&T will extend employment offers on the spot. For more information and to register for this event go to: http://techexpousa.com/ AFCEA 2006 - June 19 to June 20, 2006 Date & Time: Monday June 19 to Tuesday June 20, 2006- 10am-5pm Location: DC Convention Center - 801 Mount Vernon Place, NW Washington, DC 20001 Directions: For travel directions, click here. List of exhibitors: scroll down or click here Security clearance required ? -> No # Tell your friends who are experienced professionals # US Citizenship is required # TechNet requires attendees present a government-issued photo ID (driver's license or passport) For more information and to register for this event go to: http://techexpousa.com/ Investigators denied clearances for probe of eavesdropping program By Shane Harris and Murray Waas, National Journal An internal Justice Department inquiry into whether department officials -- including Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft -- acted properly in approving and overseeing the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping program was stymied because investigators were denied securityclearances to do their work. The investigators, however, were only seeking information and documents relating to the National Security Agency's surveillance program that were already in the Justice Department's possession, two senior government officials said in interviews. The investigation was launched in January by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility -- a small ethics watchdog set up in 1975 after department officials were implicated in the Watergate scandal. The OPR investigates allegations of official misconduct by department attorneys, not crimes per se, but it does issue reports and recommend disciplinary action. The current Justice Department inspector general has determined that OPR is the office responsible for investigating the professional actions of the attorney general involving the NSA program. FEMA pushes back timeline for meeting hiring target Federal Emergency Management Agency officials last Wednesday released information indicating that they may be behind schedule on meeting hiring goals. In April, FEMA officials said they would have 95 percent of openings filled by mid-May. Then, early last week, the agency's acting director, R. David Paulison, said FEMA would likely reach its goal by the start of the hurricane season on June 1. But in a fact sheet released at a House Government Reform Committee hearing last Wednesday, officials said it will be at least July before the target is reached. Panel members assailed the lack of hands on deck at the beleaguered agency, and some continued to push for FEMA's removal from the Homeland Security Department. DHS Personnel Officer Resigns as Department Tackles Crucial Workplace Issues Tuesday, May 30, 2006; Page D04 The top personnel officer at the Department of Homeland Security, on the job about eight months, has resigned and will leave June 9, a department spokesman said. K. Gregg Prillaman , who has more than 30 years of experience in personnel and management issues, had been tapped to oversee an ambitious revision of pay scales and workplace rules at Homeland Security, which has about 185,000 employees. New York, N.Y.: True story and it happened yesterday. Short version: Job interview at 6 p.m.. Couldn't get a cab. Ran to the subway. Subway broke down for 15 minutes, no A/C. Get off subway, wrong stop. Find cab, no A/C. In such a rush I leave my portfolio in cab. When I arrive at interview at 6:15, I am sweating profusely, no portfolio or resume to show. I probably looked horrendous. They took my "leaving portfolio in cab" story with blank expressions. Should I even bother following-up or chalk this up to a bad day/not going to get a call for 2nd interview experience. P.S. Cab drive called last night and is bringing me my portfolio today. Derrick Dortch: Hello New York, WOW!!! Sounds like you had one of those days. I am sorry to hear about that but sometimes it does happen. Right now you have to go into damage control mode. I would immediately go get some thank you cards and write a nice note thanking each person for the interview and apologizing for your tardiness. I would also then send your resume along with the thank you note. Along with your resume you may want to develop a "Portfolio of your Career Success Stories" that you can send along with your resume. This portfolio would consist of any awards, achievements, articles written on you, samples of your work or anything that makes you more marketable. Go to Kinkos and get it bound and make it look very professional and powerful. Send the thank you card, resume, and portfolio to each interviewer and let them know that you are very interested in the job. That is at the minimum. Now depending on the type of firm and the culture of the employer and the type of people who you interviewed with you may want to send something to lighten things up. Candy, something fun, etc. But you have to be careful about going too overboard. If these are no nonsense people they will not appreciate it. If these are fun loving types then they will. You have an assessment of the people and their work environment. Based off of that do what needs to be done to make a strong impression after the negative one that might have been left. By at least sending the resume, Thank You card, and Portfolio of Your Career Success you will make a good comeback. You may want to follow up with a phone call as well and let them know you sent these materials once you have. Once you have done all of that leave it alone and keep on searching for the next job. Trust me there are more out there. Bad things happen to everyone, it is how you handle these situations that matter. You will succeed. I am sure of it. Take care and let me know how it turns out. Anonymous: I'm not sure if this question belongs in this discussion, but here goes. What is acceptable interview wear for a summer interview? I usually wear a very conservative skirt suit with hose, but I've never needed to deal with a DC summer in those clothes. I don't want to show up at an interview sweaty and overheated. Is a skirt suit sans hose OK, or a pants suit? Or what is the etiquette for linen or cotton suits for women in the summer? I moved here from a much more casual city. Summers and interviewing can be brutal sometimes. In the summer time you still want to dress professional. This means you still want to wear a nice suit (either skirt or pants), with an nice matching blouse, and panty hose. You will want to find a suit and blouse that has material more fitted to the summer (is lighter and allows your skin to breathe and receive air). You can wear linen or certain cottons. There are some very nice suits at Ann Taylors, Nordstrom, Saks, Macy's, Burlington Coat Factory, Marshalls, etc that have a lighter or year around material. You still want to keep your colors conservative but you can use different shades of blue, brown, black, even green (depending on the type of green). The key to not arriving to the interview sweaty is really about preparation. You want to make sure you leave in enough time that will allow you to arrive at least 30 minutes before the interview. You may want to give yourself and hour to get there, go to the bathroom, relax, and compose yourself. I would suggest that you take a cab or drive so that you can be in the air condition as you go. If you take the Metro you definitely want to give yourself plenty of time to get there and relax. By doing this you should be fine. I wish you much success on your interviews. Take care and let me know how they go. Washington, D.C.: I was wondering how much longer will it take to get a Top Secret Clearance after the OPM investigator has conducted the interviews. Thanks Top Secret clearances usually take between 3 - 12 months depending on a number of factors including: your backgroud, the priority level of the clearance, the agency, if you have traveled and lived overseas, etc. After the OPM Investigator has conducted the interviews he/she will still be collecting information to complete the Investigative Report on you. This may take another month or two but it can really depend on the various factors I mentioned. Once the investigation is complete your report will go to the Adjudicator who will determine your suitability. This may take another month but it all depends. I would have to know more details about you and your background to give you a solid number but a good guesstimate would be that it can take another 3 months before you are completely cleared. This is based off of you not having any red flags (drugs, alcohol abuse, criminal record, extensive international travel/living abroad, etc). If you have no red flags and things are moving along smoothly I would say within 3 - 4 months max you should have your clearance. If there are any red flags the investigator finds and the Adjudicator needs to evaluate in more detail it could be longer. I hope this helps. Let me know how it works out. Washington, D.C.: What opportunities are out there for persons holding an active TS/SCI clearance with full poly but no IT experience or degree? Honestly, there are many opportunities out there. There are so many jobs in the national and homeland security field that you have a great deal of opportunity. Various jobs and career fields in national and homeland security include: Facilities Management and Building Operations These are just a few areas. The key is for you to determine what is your career passion and career purpose. Once you find that you will then be able to determine what opportunities to pursue. Let me first suggest that you take time and conduct a self assessment. Determine your loves, your likes, your strengths, your weaknessess, your dislikes, etc. Think about what you want from your career, what kind of work will make you happy and what kind of life do you want to have. Based on those things you want to get a picture of you and your passions and purpose. Then you want to match your career passion and purpose with various careers in the field of national and homeland security. Truse me there is something out there for you. If you need more assistance contact me directly at dtd@diversagroup.com. New York, N.Y: No need to post this (I'm the sweaty NYC guy from the earlier post). I just wanted to say thanks for the great advice. I plan to do what you suggested. Have a great weekend! </p> Derrick Dortch: Thanks for the follow up - I hope it works out. Washington, D.C.: In the case of a private-sector employer, how soon is too soon to provide intimate personal information sufficent to procure an extensive background check (mother's maiden name, SS#, past addresses, etc.)? Particularly given concerns over identity theft and misuse of private information, is it reasonable to withhold this information until at least both parties have had a chance to interview and determine whether the job would be a good fit? It seems many employers -- who, before you're hired, are essentially strangers that have no clear obligation to safeguard your personal information -- expect full disclosure and treat temporarily witholding information suspicious if not an affront. What gives? You raise a very good point. I am a Veteran and I am very disturbed and concerned by what happened with the VA and the employee. It is standard practice now for private sector employers to conduct background checks on their employees but you do have a right to express your concern about the collection of information you. My take is that you should not have to provide SSN# or other critical data until you have been given an offer or you are at least one of the top two candidates being selected. If you are requested to provide this information early in the process you can state your concerns to the HR personnel and let them know that you have no problem providing this information but you would like to only provide it if you are selected for the position and you would also like to know how the information will be used and how it will be safeguarded. Based on the current situation with identity theft I am sure the employer will understand and address your concerns and share will you their policies, procedures and safeguards involving personnel information. We (individuals and organizations) are going to all have to think about who we provide our personal information to and how we provide the information. I hope this helps. Take care. Washington, D.C.: How can I find out where and when the upcoming security clearance required job fairs will be? I have a TS, Full Scope Poly with an graduate engineering degree and am looking for something new. Myself and most of my colleagues are working through a contract with NSA that will end soon. IntelligenceCareers.com and Techexpousa.com are the two top places that hold career fairs on a consistant basis. You can see their schedule of career fairs on their website. Here are some upcoming fairs: Defense Systems & Intelligence Career Fair Place: Holiday Inn Express, Springfield Address: 6401 Brandon Ave., Springfield, VA 22150 Facility Contacts: 703.644.5555 Fax 703.866.4557 Defense Systems & Intelligence Career Fair Place: Sheraton Four Points at BWI Address: 7032 Elm Road, Linthicum, MD 21240 Facility Contacts: (410) 859-330 Fax (410) 859-0565 There is no cost to attend this event as a careerseeker; exhibit information for corporate recruiters. Entrance to the career fair is open to candidates listing a U.S. security clearance on their resume. Candidates without clearances may attend if they have prior experience in the U.S. defense or intelligence industries as documented within their resume. All candidates may be asked to provide a U.S. government issued identification card to verify your identity. AT&T Specialized Open House - June 13, 2006 Date & Time: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 10am-4pm Location: Marriott Courtyard - Ft Meade - 2700 Hercules Road Annapolis Junction, MD 20701 Directions: For travel directions, click here. List of exhibitors: scroll down or click here Security clearance required ? -> Yes IMPORTANT: one or several specific types of clearances are required for this event. If your profile does not meet the requirement, you will not be able to register for the event. We invite you to make sure your profile is updated before you register. # Active Top Secret/SCI required for most positions - polygraph desirable. # AT&T will extend employment offers on the spot. For more information and to register for this event go to: http://techexpousa.com/ AFCEA 2006 - June 19 to June 20, 2006 Date & Time: Monday June 19 to Tuesday June 20, 2006- 10am-5pm Location: DC Convention Center - 801 Mount Vernon Place, NW Washington, DC 20001 Directions: For travel directions, click here. List of exhibitors: scroll down or click here Security clearance required ? -> No # Tell your friends who are experienced professionals # US Citizenship is required # TechNet requires attendees present a government-issued photo ID (driver's license or passport) For more information and to register for this event go to: http://techexpousa.com/ Interviews and pantyhose: Dress professionally sans hose.Get to the interview location or somewhere relatively near early and put on your hose for the interview. Remove after exiting the interview site Derrick Dortch: Thanks for the tip. Bowie, Md.: Hello, Derrick. What exactly goes on in a background investigation? What is the investigator looking for? What are the red flags? What if you are a model citizen but have had a few credit dings, are you barred from federal employment forever? Thanks. Depending on your clearance you can go through a Background Investigation or a Single Scope Background Investigation (SSBI). Here are the details on each: The BI is primarily conducted for High-Risk Public Trust or Non-Critical Sensitive (NCS) positions. Coverage includes: Education 5 years and highest degree verified SINGLE SCOPE BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION (SSBI) The SSBI meets the coverage requirements of Executive Order 12968 for Top Secret, Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI), and DOE "Q" access. Coverage includes: Education 7 years and highest degree verified References 4 minimum, 2 developed Subject and legal status of foreign-born family) Spouse/Cohabitant National Agency Checks (NACs) There are 13 areas that the government is concerned with when it come to suitability for a clearance. This is what the "Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility For Access to Classified Information" says: The The ultimate determination of whether the granting or continuing of eligibility for a security clearance is clearly consistent with the interest of national security must be an overall common sense judgment based upon careful consideration of the following guidelines, each of which is to be evaluated in the context of the whole person. (1) GUIDELINE A: Allegiance to the United States; (2) GUIDELINE B: Foreign Influence; (3) GUIDELINE C: Foreign Preference; (4) GUIDELINE D: Sexual Behavior; (5) GUIDELINE E: Personal Conduct; (6) GUIDELINE F: Financial Considerations; (7) GUIDELINE G: Alcohol Consumption; (8) GUIDELINE H: Drug Involvement; (9) GUIDELINE I: Psychological Conditions; (10) GUIDELINE J: Criminal Condition; (11) GUIDELINE K: Handling Protected Information; (12) GUIDELINE L: Outside Activities; (13) GUIDELINE M: Use of Information Technology Systems In terms of credit and your financial matters this is very important. It is not to say that you can not have any credit dings. Trust me many people in the government have had them. You want to be a responsible with your credit as possible but things do happen and that is not always the case. The goverment Adjudicators do understand this. What they are looking for is that you are now responsible with your credit. If you have late payments or bad debts you are working to pay them off or have paid them off fully. If you have have filed bankruptcy you are working to reestablish yourself and make sure you are financially sound. If you have a government loan or owe the IRS you have take care of that. The key is to show that you understand your financial responsibilities and you are taking care of them. This the what guideline on Financial Considerations says: 18. The Concern. Failure or inability to live within one's means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise questions about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information. An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. Compulsive gambling is a concern as it may lead to financial crimes including espionage. Affluence that cannot be explained by known sources of income is also a security concern. It may indicate proceeds from financially profitable criminal acts. 19. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: (a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; (b) indebtedness caused by frivolous or irresponsible spending and the absence of any evidence of willingness or intent to pay the debt or establish a realistic plan to pay the debt; (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations; (d) deceptive or illegal financial practices such as embezzlement, employee theft, check fraud, income tax evasion, expense account fraud, filing deceptive loan statements, and other intentional financial breaches of trust; (e) consistent spending beyond one's means, which may be indicated by excessive indebtedness', significant negative cash flow, high debt-to-income ratio, and/or other financial analysis; (f) financial problems that are linked to drug abuse, alcoholism, gambling problems, or other issues of security concern; (g) failure to file annual Federal, state, or local income tax returns as required or the fraudulent filing of the same; (h) unexplained affluence, as shown by a lifestyle or standard of living, increase in net worth, or money transfers that cannot be explained by subject's known legal sources of income; (i) compulsive or addictive gambling as indicated by an unsuccessful attempt to stop gambling, "chasing losses" (i.e. increasing the bets or returning another day in an effort to get even), concealment of gambling losses, borrowing money to fund gambling or pay gambling debts, family conflict or other problems caused by gambling. 20. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include: (a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; (b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person's control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce or separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances; (c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control; (d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts; (e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue; (f) the affluence resulted from a legal source of income. You are not barred from federal employment. As a matter of fact I encourage you to pursue it. I would only that suggest you begin a process of working on making sure your bills are caught up, you have made payment arrangements with and creditors, and that you are financially in good shape before you apply. I hope this helps. If you need additional help please contact me at dtd@diversagroup.com. Take care. Interview wear: So, trouser suits are OK for women for interviews? Derrick Dortch: Yes trouser suits are just fine. Here is some good advice for both women and men here: Sterling, Va.: Hi, really enjoy your career chat here. I have been a Web developer/system analyst with a local government contractor supporting various federal agencies for the past 6 years, but have also been wondering about the possibility of transitioning out of the IT sector lately. I have a Master's degree with strong technical, analytic, client service skills. I have an active security clearance. I am a native mandarin Chinese speaker. In fact, I used to work as a bilingual translator and interpreter many years ago. What I am trying to look into is how to best leverage my background and skills as I consider moving into a non- technical career. What kind of opportunities could be the right match for someone in my situation? Any suggestions/advices would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for stopping by the chats. We are very appreciative of you and your participation. If you are interested in making a transition to a non-technical career it is very possible. The key is developing a Career Success Strategy that will guide your transition. It sounds like first you are trying to determine what is out there for you. It sounds like you are in the "Career Exploration" phase of your transition. Since you are doing this let me suggest you take a step back and "Assess Yourself". Take some time to determine your career passions and career purpose. Analyze your strengths, your loves, likes, interests, skills, qualifications, dislikes, values, etc. You want to develop a good picture of who you are today. From there you can begin to determine what your passions are and what is your purpose at this point in your life. Then you can begin to match these with careers you will have passion for and find fulfilling. Based off of what you are telling me there would a number of intelligence and national/homeland security agencies that would be interested in talking to you about the following positins: FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence) DOD (Department of Defense - Various departments in addition to the ones on this list.) These are a few who be interested in you with your background. China is a hotspot right now and very high on the list of countries that are of concern to the national security interests of the United States. With your background in chinese you are definitely a sought after asset to the intelligence and national and homeland security communities. These are just options but I want you to find your passion and then figure out where to go from there. Once you find your career passio then you want to find the jobs that catch your interest. From there you want to determine if you are qualified for the jobs. If so you want to develop a targeted resume or targeted federal resume that shows your relevant skills, education, experience and qualifications. You may also be require to do some KSAs depending on the position. In your resume if you were targeting intelligence you would focus in on your language skills and experience as well your research and analytical skills and experience. As you make your transition you may also want to consider taking additional courses on a graduate level or certificate track. Again if you are pursing intelligence, national or homeland security, or foreign affairs you will want to look at schools like: Each has programs related to these fields. Gaining additional relevant education will make you more marketable as well and will be one of the areas you highlight on your resume. These are just a few suggestions to get you started. I have many but time does not allow for all of them, unfortunately. If you need more assistance please contact me at dtd@diversagroup.com. Take care and I wish you much success. I was wondering if you can tell me what are the chances for someone to get a clearance? She has degrees, and many years of work experience, and will recieve her citizenship in 3 years. However she has 2 misdeameours. One of them is a Class A. I have been trying to convince her that moving overseas is not the solutions, because she feels that after all the hard work she has accomplished she will never be able to get where she wants to be. Once she receives her citizenship she will be able to be cleared if she receives a job with a government agency or contractor. Once she is an American citizen she will be able to apply for the government jobs she is qualified for. With the misdemeanors, I need to know more about the situation but one of the great mitigating factors is time. If these were isolated incidents, has maintained good character, not had any other incidents involving criminal conduct, and a good number of years has passed then these are all mitigating factors. Here is what the "Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility For Access to Classified Information" says about Criminal Conduct. 30. The Concern. Criminal activity creates doubt about a person's judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into question a person's ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules and regulations, 31. Concerns that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: (a) a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses; (b) discharge or dismissal from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (c) allegation or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted; (d) individual is currently on parole or probation; (e) violation of parole or probation, or failure to complete 'a court-mandated rehabilitation program. 32. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include: (a) so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; (b) the person was pressured or coerced into committing the act and those pressures are no longer present in the person's life; (c) evidence that the person did not commit the offense; (d) there is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including but not limited to the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, remorse or restitution, job training or higher education, good employment record, or constructive community involvement. I need to know more about the situation to give you more detailed advice but it sounds like she can get past this and pursue a career with the government in the future. If you need more assistance please contact me at dtd@diversagroup.com. Take care and I wish you and her the best. Arlington, Va.: OPM SSBI: investigations it depends on if there are issues in your case or not and whether or not all the leads have been closed. It can close within 30 days of the interview or literally years after the interview. If you have lived overseas forget about it. OPM has almost no overseas coverage. If you are overseas they cant interview you currently. If you have no issues typically a SSBI close in about 6-9mos. Issues 12 months to infinity. Derrick Dortch: Thank you my friend. Bowie, Md.: Is it possible for an individual to obtain a security clearance independently of an actual position hire? No, you can not get a clearance on your own. You have to either be hired by the federal government, work for a government contractor or be in a position in the military that requires a clearance. Do note, not all positions within the government or military require a clearance. Many require a background check but that is much different than a clearance. If you are hired by an agency or government contractor in a position that requires a clearance they will begin the process of conducting the background investigation and adjudication. You can not get a clearance on your own. Washington, D.C.: Can a Green card holder get any type of security clearance? It is very rare that a Green Card holder (AKA: Permanent Resident) can get a security clearance. There are exceptions for people who have certain skills that an agency my need. These instances are very rare but it does happen. Most clearances require U.S. Citizenship. What you can do is look for positions in the government that will allow you to have a Green Card. Many are language related positions but here is one for example: Department: Department Of The Army Agency: Army Training and Doctrine Command SALARY RANGE: 36,052.00 - 101,538.00 USD per year When you go to USAJOBS or other government agency sites you may want to do a search by the keyword "Green Card". I hope this helps. Take care and I wish you the best. Herndon, Va.: Hi, Derrick. I've been interested for a while in working for the FBI. I have several years' experience as a nurse and several more as a systems analyst (healthcare information systems). Aside from needing to get in better physical shape, what other qualifications would the FBI look for? would my background make me a good fit somewhere in their force? Thank you. Unfortunately I have to get ready to go but let me share this with you. I know a nurse who works for the FBI. I tell you that so you can know it is possible for you to work for the FBI. Contact me and we will talk about what is the best strategy for you to pursue this dream. All dreams are possible, you just have to develop the right strategy to achieve them. Contact me at dtd@diversagroup.com and we will talk. KSAs: So, really, how does one write KSAs for federal applications? And if there is a question or two where you have "no experience in this area," does that automatically disqualify your app from being sent to the next level. I've heard that federal applications are first read by computers, so what kind of criteria is used to determine who gets through? I have to go but let me share with you an answer I wrote to someone about KSAs in April. Here is it, I hope it helps: KSAs (Knowledge, Skills and Abilities) give many people problems in their government job search. The key in writing a successful KSA is to not only be concise but it is to tell your success stories that prove that you have the knowledge, skills and abilities to do the job. I have seen many KSA responses where people put down their duties as it relates to the question but they do not tell their own story. You have to use one of several methods when writing KSA responses. They are the SAR, STAR, or CCAR. As you see each method is asking you to describe a situation or challenge you faced as it relates to the question. From there you start to talk about what action or tasks you took to handle the situation. In telling your actions you want to focus in on who you worked with, what techniques you used, what tools or technology did you use, etc. Then you tell what were the results of your actions and what success stories you have to share. The government recommends that you think about five things when developing your KSAs to reinforce the idea of organizing your thoughts when responding. For each KSA ask yourself these five questions as a "checklist" regarding individual tasks you performed. 1. What action was performed? 2. Why was the action performed? 3. For whom was the action performed? 4. What were the accomplishments? 5. Did the action produce a significant impact on others or the work environment? In the seminars I teach about KSA writing I tell the participants to write the KSAs as if they were answering an interview question. I always suggest the following: State Your Case! - Start off with Power! When you start out answering any KSA question start out immediately telling the HR Representative, Recruiter, Hiring Manager/Selecting Official why you are qualified. Whether it is your extensive experience in relevant positions, your education and training or other qualifications let the reader know from the beginning that you have what it takes to do the work and this is how and where you received the required knowledge, skills and abilities. Tell About Your Relevant Experience! Describe the relevant experiences that have provided you the knowledge, skills and abilities to do this work. Tell about your experience as if you are in the interview and describing what you do and why you are qualified. Sell Yourself & Prove Your Case/Qualifications! From your relevant experience provide success stories that demonstrate provide proof that you have the knowledge, skills and abilities required to do that work. Think of at least 2 - 3 success stories from your experiences that you can use to sell yourself in your KSA response. Use the CCAR, SAR, or STAR methods to tell your success stories and what actions you took in the situation or when faced with a challenge and the positive results your work produced. As far as books are concerned there are several out there but I am not always happy with their content so I cannot put my recommendations behind them but you can go to any career section in the book store and find them. We have a package that we provide that is call "Interview Winners: Samples of Our Success & Work" that has samples of targeted resumes and other materials that we have developed that have won clients interviews. In there we have a sample of a federal resume and KSAs that have made the Cert List and won the client the interview and eventually the job. Contact me directly and I will send you a copy. There are also some services that provide you a critique of your materials. We do an initial free career consultation and resume critique. These are critiques are often times helpful in pointing you in the right direction on what you need to pull out in your KSAs. Do not look at writing KSAs as a chore look at them as preparation for your interview. Also, one more important thing. If you find a KSA that you can not answer at least 80% of the question or it is a KSA that is so specific that you would have had to be in the agency or department to get that experience you need to avoid that job. You can not write fluff or philosophy in responding to KSAs. Either you have the knowledge, skill or ability or you don't. If you don't find another position to apply to and do not waste time on trying to answer a question that you do not have the experience, education or training to qualify. I hope this was helpful. If you need more assistance or want a copy of the "Interview Winner" you can reach me at dtd@diversagroup.com. Well, unfortunately I have to get going because I am out of time. I want to thank my producer Andrea Browne and her intern Stephanie Beer for producing today's show. We will be back next month on July 7th for another good show. I may even have a guest so make sure you come back. Thank you for participating and stopping by today's show. You are truly appreciated. Until next time, take care, stay cool and enjoy each and every day. I wish you much success in your career, work and life. 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.
Career counselor Derrick Dortch specializes in government career search and will be online to discuss getting a security clearance.
407.3
0.9
2.3
high
medium
mixed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/26/DI2006052601490.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/26/DI2006052601490.html
Weekend Now
2006060219
The staff of Weekend , The Washington Post's weekly entertainment guide, covers what's happening in the Washington area. We'll field your questions on everything in the section from performances and new DVDs to weekend getaways and kids' activities. We write about all kinds of fun things to do and we're happy to talk to you about it. The Weekend staff was online Friday, June 2, at 11 a.m. ET to take your questions and comments. This week, Weekend checks out the summer concert season. Have a taste for hip hop? country? reggae? We've got the shows. Plus, Nightwatch directs you to the best places to watch World Cup soccer. And we talk with Al Gore about his big-screen debut, the global warming documentary "An Inconvenient Truth." You'll also find the week's top events; reviews of new movies, music and DVDs; and fun things to do with the kids. Read about the staff of the Weekend section. Joyce Jones: Welcome to the weekend. Well, it's almost here and Weekend is here. I'm Joyce Jones, editor of Weekend, and I'll be hosting our chat. Today, is our huge summer concert issue, with a 16-page pullout section for you to hold on to all summer. Put it in your backpack or toss it in your backseat. You'll need it. This week there's also a story on places to watch World Cup soccer. There's a lot going on this time of year, so let us know how we can help you and let us know what you're up to. McLean, Va.: I've lived in the D.C. area for about two years now and haven't found a great veggie burger. I'm willing to track one down anywhere in Northern Virginia or D.C. But, I don't want to end up at a chain restaurant. Know a place I should try? Eve Zibart: While Northern Virginia is full of good vegetarian ethnic restaurants, "American" is rarer . . . and in fact a few that did have veggie burgers seem to have dropped them, but you might call Vegetaria in Herndon and check. The Hard Times Cafes have them, which should be easy. In DC, Vegetaria has a popular version; the Peacock Cafe in Georgetown, the Black Cat, Polly's Cafe on U Street...get you started? Washington, D.C.: This question goes out to the person who complies the lists. Tonight is the first Friday of the month and Dupont area commercial art galleries usually have "first Friday" openings. Is it not happening tonight? I can't tell from the listings. Christina Talcott: Tonight is indeed First Fridays at the Dupont galleries. Here's the home page for the Dupont Circle Galleries . Wheaton, Md.: Why does all the best live music seem to be in D.C. or NoVa? Why aren't there any decent clubs in the Maryland area? Richard Harrington: A major part of the problem: liquor laws, particularly in Montgomery County, that demand a significant percentage of revenue comes from food sales. Most clubs, particularly those bringing in national acts, have a difficult time meeting that standard. Fairfax, Va.: Will you be showcasing the 'pick your own' farms again this year? (or did I miss it already?) The only farm I know of in Fairfax County that let you do that moved down south somewhere, and I would really like to give strawberry or raspberry picking a try, or peaches in the summertime. Doesn't have to be in Fairfax County necessarily; I'm just not familiar with the farms around here. Jenny Abella: Hi there. Tis definitely the season to pick your own fruit. We published our annual list of pick-your-own farms a few weeks ago, listing places in Virginia, Maryland and West Virginia. One in Fairfax is: Potomac Vegetable Farms. Blackberries. 9627 Leesburg Pike, Vienna. 703-759-2119. There are plenty others to choose from, though, so take your pick! Eve Zibart: PS to the Dupont Circle evenings: the art galleries in Canal Square in Georgetown have "Third Fridays," with jazz and wine and hors d'oeuvres; and the galleries around Seventh Street in Penn Quarter have "Third Thursday" gallery crawls; meeting in the lobby of the Goethe-Institut at 6:30 (202-289-1200). Calvert County: Whatever happened to the fishing report? That was the only reason I bought the paper on Friday. Has it moved to some other section on some other day? Joyce Jones: Thanks for your note. We discontinued the fishing report and we are trying to come up with a shorter version. There is a lot of competition for space in the section. We do hope to have another fish report soon. Stay tuned. Alexandria, Va.: My husband and I recently moved to the area from North Carolina, where there were plenty of nice beaches within a few hours drive. Where do you recommend we head from the D.C. area? We like quiet, clean beaches with good restaurants nearby. Eve Zibart: Sounds like you're the Okrakoke type, or at least Hatteras . . . The most similar places for you to try would likely be Lewes (you'd go over to Cape Henlopen for the "island" part); or Bethany or Fenwick Island, where you could enjoy the fabulous and very barrier-ish Delaware National Seashore and still have access to restaurant. There's also Chincotague and Assateague, but the dining scene is more limited; you could try the area just off Ocean City. Clarendon, Va.: Read the ticket auction story. That seems scary to me. I know people can always pay top dollar to buy from a scalper but at least if you try hard you might get decent seats at face value. Are they going to do anything to keep the average working fan from being shut out of all but the lousy seats? washingtonpost.com : Ticket Auction Trend May Cost You (Post, June 2) Richard Harrington: The average working fan may have to take a second job. Don't forget, auctions now affect only the top acts, and only the best seats, between 5% and 10% of those available. Of course, scalpers and ticket brokers often have control of many of the other good seats. As auctions take off, you can expect the percentage to rise. As for the middling seats, it will always depend on the show; and even nosebleed seats can find buyers, though anyone who pays a premium for such seats has to be an ultra loyal or desperate fan. Conversely, at Nissan, many lawn tickets have gone down in price, starting last year and now this summer. Alexandria, Va.: Do you really still need to get a ticket to see the panda at the National Zoo? I have family coming in town in a couple weekends and I was planning to take my chances and just drop by the zoo without a set schedule. Think that will work? Rumor is: Weekend tickets are hard to come by. Ellen McCarthy: Just chatted with a spokesperson from the Zoo who said there are a few vantage points where you can see the cub without a ticket. He recommended the Panda Cafe. And if your folks are coming between June 5th and 29th, don't even bother trying to get tickets--the actual panda house is closed, so the only place you'll be able to see our darling Tai Shan is outside. Eve Zibart: OOPS: I typo'd in the veggie burger answer. The Herndon restaurantis Vegetaria, the one in DC is Vegetate, Sorry for the confusion. Arlington, Va.: Where can I take my dog for a swim this weekend? We tried the beach off Roosevelt Island last weekend, and it was just okay ... but frankly, the Potomac is a little gross for a human who has to wade in to convince her pup to swim. Is there anyplace better? It would help if the place was fenced or otherwise had a natural barrier (like Roosevelt Island) in case said dog decides to sprint off on a run after his swim ... Eve Zibart: I have friends who love Quiet Waters Dog Beach in Annapolis. I assume you're not planning to drive to the coast, but Bethany is very dog-friendly; the other beaches generally try to limit dogs in the summer season. Arlington, Va.: For several weeks now when questioned about the sparse arts coverage you guys have talked about giving equal coverage across the board and meeting demand. You say that you're listening to us asking for more reviews of our local galleries. You also say that everyone wants more coverage of movies, theatre, music, etc. My question is this: where are all of those people in these chat sessions? You are asked repeatedly about providing more art coverage but I have yet to see one comment asking for more music reviews or theater reviews, etc. Something doesn't jive about this. Could you please really address the issue instead of talking more about this so-called demand for more coverage across the board and lack of print space? O'Sullivan is an asset to our area but he can't do it all himself. Joyce Jones: Thanks for joining our chat. Our first chat had lots of questions about our "sparse" dance coverage. We have many chatters who come to our chats, fortunately, and considering that this is only our fifth week, I hope the numbers will grow exponentially. Maybe when we get 1,000 questions a week, I'll consider the makeup of the questioners to be statistically significant (sorry, i majored in economics, minored in art). Our mission is to cover entertainment. That's a lot. We take our mission very seriously and we try to give a representative sample of the best the area has to offer, while being geographically representative and keeping in mind that we have a broad readership. We are not a guide to the galleries. But we do take the galleries seriously and Michael does a great job of covering all of the arts. But, yes, he is one person. (Though I'm working on cloning him.) You may want to focus on other venues within the paper when pressing for more gallery coverage, perhaps the Arts section or even the Extras, which often can give good space to venues within their area. Bethesda, Md.: I guess this is more for the other people chatting than for your staff. But I wonder if people wouldn't want more stories and fewer lists? If I need to know the time address of something I can google it a lot quicker than I can find where I put a section of the paper. But stories tell me about things I might not otherwise consider going to. Just a thought. Joyce Jones: Sure, we'd like to hear what people think about lists vs. stories. Bethesda, Md.: I see on page 3 that Barry Barriere compiles the lists of the Weekend's Best, yet nowhere is to be found the happening tonight at the Warehouse ... or the artists talk tomorrow. Christina Talcott: Thanks for passing this along! Tenleytown, Washington, D.C.: That concert guide was pretty overwhelming. Can you just tell me what the hottest tickets will be or what the top 10 or so most interesting shows are? Tim McGraw and Faith Hill at Verizon June 29,30 probably Mariah Carey at Verizon Sept. 7, tickets on sale tomorrow hoping the Dixie Chicks at Verizon Aug 4 Paul Simon at Merriweather Post July 12 9:30 shows with Daniel Powter July 16 (he was the real winner from American Idol from having Bad Day played as everybody's exit song) and Editors July 27 Washington, D.C.: Silly question, I know -- but are there any decent ways to get to Nissan Pavilion sans auto? My poor car can't be revived, but I really want to get to some shows this summer ... Thanks! Joyce Jones: It's really not a silly question, but it does highlight the problem of getting around in the newly burgeoning exurbs. There is an Omniride bus that leaves from West Falls Church metro that goes to Gainesville, Va., which is pretty close to Nissan. Unfortunately, the last bus drops off there around 7:30 pm only on weekdays, so you can get to the show, but you're stranded. This sounds like something that the PRTC needs to look into. Any other suggestions out there? Alexandria, Va.: I have not been to the Spy Museum yet because every time I go near it there is a crowd outside. Do you have to wait in a line or something? Jenny Abella: The Spy Museum tends to get very busy during tourist season. The timed tickets sell out pretty fast on the weekends, so it might be best to go during the week if you have time. According to their Web site , they're open until 8 this month (last entry at 6 to the permanent exhibition). Or you can get your tix in advance. Have fun! Jenny Abella: Oops. Bad link there: It's this link . Washington, D.C.: Last Friday, Mr O'Sullivan mentioned an opening for Joe White and Renee Butler at Osuna Gallery (which I think is in Maryland). It is not in the listings. Is the opening tonight? Christina Talcott: That opening will be at 6 on Tuesday (June 6). And you're right - Osuna's in Maryland, at 7200 Wisconsin Avenue in Bethesda. Their number is 301-654-4500. Alexandria, Va.: There's a HUGE Nine Inch Nails fan in my family. Last year, we hit the MCI Center show. I've heard NIN is returning. Did I miss it? Richard Harrington: NIN is at Nissan June 13, with major inspiration Bauhaus (reunited Peter Murphy et al) and impressive newcomers TV on the Radio. Should be a great show, as the MCI show, though it's odd seeing Trent Reznor all buff.... Washington, D.C.: I know that there probably isn't space in the Weekend section to list all of the commercial art gallery and non- profit art spaces. But I have noticed that there seems to be some sort of selective process in the listings, at least with art spaces ... can you give us an explanation so that artists and gallerists know better how to get listed? Face it, no serious art gallery goer considers the National Zoo or the White House Vistor Center to be an "art space." Joyce Jones: Though we have an extensive list of galleries in our computer system, we usually can only run a portion of those each week. We try to rotate which ones get in and we try to give ones that are having openings precedence. We use the term Art Spaces broadly because we get submissions from places that are not art museums or galleries but that are showing art in a space and we try to serve them as well. McLean, Va.: Is The Break-Up really as bad as the reviews say? I've been looking forward to this movie! Jenny Abella: Sorry, but most reviews out there are saying the same thing. According to RottenTomatoes.com, The Post, The New York Times, USA Today, Philadelphia Inquirer and The Hollywood Reporter all gave it a thumbs down. I don't think that'll stop people from going to see it though. Washington, D.C.: Joyce, thanks for your response to the art person. I've been reading these chats since the first one, and I don't clamor for more coverage of anything else because I 'like' what the Weekend section already covers. I don't feel the need to complain about anything. Joyce Jones: Gee, thank you. Herndon, Va.: I want more stories. The lists are just pages I have to flip through while looking for the good stuff. Curt Fields: Here's more on the stories vs. lists question that was raised earlier. Washington, D.C.: Anything worth checking out at the theme parks around the area? Christina Talcott: Definitely, and not I'm not just referring to the funnel cake. You can read all about water parks in my story in next week's section. The most important piece of advice I have for amusement parks in general: Whether you're heading to Busch Gardens, Kings Dominion, Six Flags or farther afield, plan to get to the park when it opens. Get in line early for the most popular, scariest roller coaster, if that's your thing - I've found that nothing wakes you up faster than hurtling through the air, screaming, first thing in the morning. Alexandria, Va.: Are there any salons or other places in the area that do henna painting? Eve Zibart: Many do, but it's not easy to trace, and some mehndi artists work out of their homes. IF you want the very traditional stuff, you might ask in a shop that deals in Indian or ethnic clothes or accessories, or try surfing for mehndi artists. Two salons in Virgina that do have women on staff are the Nail Studio in Reston and Maria's Place in Herndon. But if you mean smaller bracelet-like versions and you're planning to go to the beach this summer, the boardwalks are full of henna tattoos. Some clothing and accessory stores have those do-it-yourself transfers. And lots of amusement parks or festivals have artists doing either henna or spray tattoos. Upper Marlboro, Md.: Is the whole entire Weekend staff just 10 people? Ellen McCarthy: You know what they say about small packages.... Arlington, Va.: I would like to go to the free Shakespeare in the park on Sunday at Cater Barron. I want to pick up tickets at the Shakespeare theater. How early should I get there to wait in line? Thanks! Ellen McCarthy: You're going to have a great time. I saw Pericles at Carter Barron on Wednesday and it was absolutely enchanting. Tickets are easier to get on weekdays, but you should be fine if you get there 15-20 minutes before the window opens. Washington, D.C.: Hi! What's the movie to watch this weekend ... and I mean based on actual quality and not star-power? Thanks! Ellen McCarthy: It depends on your taste in movies, but I'm excited to see "The Puffy Chair." Washington Post movie reviewer Ann Hornaday described it as a "charming, if limited, romantic comedy that examines post-collegiate angst with easy, unself-conscious humor." It's playing at the E Street Cinema. Jenny Abella: I'm looking forward to seeing the global warming documentary "An Inconvenient Truth." Critic Desson Thomson calls it "surprisingly absorbing." North Potomac, Md.: I personally like the lists and think they are much more useful than stories, which sometimes verge on dull or average activities like knitting or playing Monopoly at home. I mean, I'm sure people like the stories, but the lists are really great for finding out about concerts and movies and new video releases. Curt Fields: And here's a defense of the lists. Germantown, Md.: So out of all those names in your concert guide I recognize the famous ones. But it looks like a lot of the free shows and such are by local acts I don't know anything about. Are there some local performers I should watch for? I like intelligent singer-songwriter types and grownup R and B. Richard Harrington: Blackrock Center for the Arts in Germantown MD has some good acts: The Melanie Mason Band June 24, and the roots romping Rhodes Tavern Troubadors July 1; Hickory Ridge Village Center in Columbia has singer songwriters Andrew McKnight (July 6) and Cletus Kennelly (July 13); Lake Kittamaqundi,. also in Columbia, has a lot of good locals, as does Herndon Town Green in Herndon and Mason District PArk in Annandale. And if you like folk of many stripes and nationalities, check out the massive annual Washington Folk festival at Glen Echo Park this Saturday and Sunday. Washington, D.C.: I'm going to the Filippine Festival on Sunday ... are there going to be any other Filippine events going on this weekend or any other time this month? Joyce Jones: If you go to Philippine Festival you may find more events. Bethesda, Md.: I work at the NIH in Bethesda and want to do something fun/ get something great to eat after work. Any suggestions? Eve Zibart: Even though the best restaurants in your area tend to be sit-down, there are some that are both fun and foodish. Flanagan's Harp & Fiddle has good music and surprising good food. The bar at Timpano in Rockville often has good bands, and the bar-fare menu and martinis are fun. South Beach Cafe in Bethesda upstairs has a nice bar with very good mojitos and music. But what about eating someplace like Addie's on the Pike and then going to Strathmore? Or if you're a game type, there's the Dave & Buster's in White Flint. Or you could go to Champion Billiards in Rockville (in the back of 1776 Plaza) and eat at the Seven Seas Chinese next door. Alexandria, Va.: What are y'all in Weekend doing this weekend? Twila Waddy: I figured with the rain it would be a good weekend to catch a few movies I wanted to see. I plan on seeing, The Da Vinci Code and Poseidon. I know both have not gotten great reviews. I cannot resist seeing a big boat pushed over by a hugh wave. Even if it is just in the first 15 minutes of the movie. Curt Fields: I'll be at Imagination Bethesda on Sat. morning. It's an annual children's street festival focused on the arts. There will be performances, displays, etc. Oh, and of course, there's the Sopranos finale on Sunday night. Jenny Abella: I'll be watching "The Break-Up" (bad reviews notwithstanding), and Sunday afternoon, I'm heading to the Philippine Fair on Pennsylvania Avenue. Tons of food and cultural entertainment. And, hey, it's free. Upper Marlboro, Md.: You know what they say about small packages ...? No I don't and that does not seem like an answer to my question. Is the whole staff of the Weekend section just 10 people? Joyce Jones: Wow, are you auditing us? They say good things come in small packages. Anyway, there are 13 full-time positions in Weekend. Group chats are limited to 10 people. Hope that clears things up. Washington, DC: I was down at Nags Head last summer and had heard that my art show got reviewed. I saw a woman from D.C. at the gas stations and she had a Post. She gladly gave me the Weekend section because she "didn't need it because it's just a bunch of lists" That's what the average person thinks of the Weekend section. So at least the lists could be complete. Curt Fields: Sounds like the woman who gave you the section would vote for more stories. Washington, D.C.: Hi! A great section, by the way! Where would you all suggest a nice weekend trip that get me enough time away, but also enough time to get back to work on Monday morning? I don't like the beach so much, so I'm thinking either north or west of here. Thanks! Christina Talcott: Summertime for me means last-minute trips to the mountains, where a few hours in the woods makes me feel like I've been out of the city for days. Shenandoah's my favorite, and it's less than two hours away. You can call the lodge to check for room cancellations, or reserve a campsite at Big Meadows (800-778-2851 for rooms, 800-365-2267 for camping). Cunninghams Falls in Maryland is another great park. Here are links to Maryland , West Virginia and Virginia parks. McLean, Va.: My office just moved to downtown McLean, Va. I can't find Thai food! Is there a restaurant in this area or do I have to drive to the Tyson's area? (hard to do with traffic during a always too-short lunch hour!) Eve Zibart: You know, I don't know of one. I thought I had seen a sign for a pan-Asian place on Old Dominion near the intersection of Dolly Madison, but I can't find any listing for it. But so many restaurants are popping up, I would bet you'll see one very soon. Washington, D.C.: I like both the stories (even the ones on knitting and board games) as well as the lists. You can't please everyone, but I think the Weekend section does a good job of helping people figure out what's happening in the area whether it be through the lists or new ideas in the stories. Curt Fields: Thanks for the kind words. Bethesda, Md.: The Wife has tasked me with planning an outing to celebrate our 10th anniversary, the problem is that it's tomorrow and I haven't done bubkis as yet. The Wife loves photography ... are there any good exhibits in town that would be worth of jumping on the Metro and mixing with the Great Unwashed? Eve Zibart: The National Gallery has a couple of shows at the moment, one exploring the connections between photography, prints and paintings in Charles Sheerer's art; and another of recent photo acquisitions.(And while you're there, there are two fabulous drawings exhibits, one from the Woodner collection of Masters and another of all Venetian classics.)There are also some recent acquisitions on view at the Hirshorn.(PS: Break the stereotype: Wash up.) Washington, D.C.: what are your plans for covering the upcoming Fringe festival? Joyce Jones: No firm plans yet, but it's been on our radar since it was announced. I've been to Fringe Festival in Orlando and it was very cool. Most likely it will be on our cover. Bethesda, Md.: Three 40+ women from Baltimore, Bethesda and Greenbelt want to get together Saturday after 8:00 p.m. (After kids bedtimes) Any ideas? What starts after 8:00 that is fun and centrally located (is that possible?) We usuallly meet for lunch and shopping but have been given the night out. Thank you! Eve Zibart: How about Silver Spring and the AFI? Burtonsville and the Rocky Gorge driving range/mini golf? Gaithersburg/Shady Grove bowling? and it's a little more Bethesda than the others, but it is right off the interstate: contra dancing at Glen Echo? at least it's not shopping! Joyce Jones: Thank you for being with us today. Next week's cover story is on splash parks and we'll also have a roundup of what's new at the theme parks. Of course, there will be all the other topics we usually cover as well, movies, music, art, theater, dance ... Please join us again. 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 The Post's Weekend section staff for "Weekend Now," a weekly discussion about its feature stories and weekly entertainment information.
215.36
0.84
1.24
high
medium
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/26/DI2006052601666.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/26/DI2006052601666.html
Baseball
2006060219
Washington Post sports columnist Thomas Boswell was online Friday, June 2, at 11 a.m. ET to take your questions and comments about the Washington Nationals, Major League Baseball and his recent columns. See a Sample / Sign Up Now Springfield, Va.: Not that I'm asking for you or your crack staff of data gatherers and statisticians to crunch the numbers and do the analysis for me -- actually, that's exactly what I'm asking -- but are the incidences of player injury higher this season than in recent years? Whenever a player frequents the DL, an idle part of my brain now wonders whether a diminution in recuperative powers can be attributed to a lack of steroids. For that matter, just to play the role of paranoid conspiracy theorist for a bit, how do this year's home run numbers compare so far to past seasons? Albert Pujols is on a pace to exceed the likely-steroid-aided record-breaking marks, and the numbers in RFK are a bit higher than in the past. Could a juiced ball be in play to effectively offset any testing-induced power drop-offs? I don't actually believe such a wild-eyed conjecture -- more players would be having remarkable seasons were it true -- but I'd be interested in an assessment of the numbers thus far. Tom Boswell: I've had the same suspicions. There certainly seem to be a lot of injuries, including plenty of well-known names. As for the home runs this year, being a lunatic, I worked it out a couple of days ago. Through the first 759 games (which I think was through Monday's games) there had been 1687 home runs. That would project to +7.7% over the '05 total of 5,017. In summer, there tend to be slightly more homers. (Hot weather = ball travels about 4-feet further for every 10 degree rise in temperature). For reference, the homers in recent years: All these years had exactly the same number of teams and games. Looks like '06 may produce about 5,400 homers, IMO, but not more than 5,500. My guess is that '05 will only be the FIFTH highest HR total since '98. So, while Pujols is benefiting from a cheap-home-run era, he's not playing in one of the MOST ridiculous years. 309 Row 7: I've got mixed feelings...I want great prospects for the future, but I have to see some of these guys go. I feel like we have a pretty likeable team. Tom Boswell: This is certainly a problem. For a 22-32 team, they ARE "likeable." Also, they've played 13-12 since early May and Patterson should be back pretty soon. So, for the time being, they might play fairly well. Still, the reason it's so hard to have a long-term plan and carry it out is that people __you and I__ get antsy. Fans have a terribly hard time deferring gratification. It's just natural. Nobody wants to trade Livan. He's popular. The "prospect" you get in return is unknown or barely known. When the Braves traded Doyle Alexander for (minor leaguer) John Smoltz in a similar deal, I knew every detail of Alexander's (long career) and, I assume, heard of Smoltz. That's typical. This is not like the NFL where the top players coming out of college are often nationally known. In baseball, you may be giving up a player like Hernandez, who has been MVP of the World Series, for someone who is barely out of high school and is unknown, except to insiders. Arlington, Va.: I'm just wondering why it's taking so long to transfer ownership to the Lerner Group. They applied so long ago and surely had time to take care of the paperwork. Every day the team is without an owner is another day when nothing can happen. Tom Boswell: This is just the way MLB works. But the sooner new ownership can do exactly what it wants, the better. However, nothing is currently stopping trades. Bowden comes up with a proposed deal, then takes it to Tony and, of course, being sane, they then "run it by" the Lerners and Kasten. So, no time is being wasted on deals. However, new management could be talking to Soriano and his agent, getting a feel for their chances of resigning him. Washington, D.C.: Any idea whether, as part of RFK's grand re-opening, the Lerners' will repair any of the thousands of broken seats? Trying to watch a 3-hour game while sliding to the right, left or forward is the primary reason I've been going to fewer games this season. Tom Boswell: Good point. I sat in a seat in the 1st base boxes last week that had this problem. Also, at an earlier game in the homestand I went sat in several seats in the upperdeck and bleachers. I was surprised at the number that had minor or annoying damage. Not a big deal, but something to fix. Arlington, Va.: So Clemens is a first ballot hall of famer. But is there any sense that his holding out until the all star break is disrespectful of the game? Aren't there young players and pitchers on a team that could learn from his insights? Instead he can lean back and wait for a pennant race, in either league, before committing. Nice work if you can get it. Tom Boswell: I'm a little tired of Roger's un-retirements. I doubt he'll be nearly as good as he was last year. (Of course, he set the bar ridiculously high last season.) He didn't look good in the WBA. And I doubt the Astros will be in the playoffs with him or without him unless Andy Pettitte duplicated his mid-season turnaround of '05. So far, the Astros, although 27-27, have been outscored by 22 runs this season. They've been a little lucky. (The Nationals have been outscored by "only" 24 runs. At 22-32, they've been a little unlucky.) Rosslyn, Va.: Are the Nationals going to continue with their merry-go-round in CF? Why don't they just pick one guy (Marlon Byrd, Ryan Church, or Bernie Castro) and give him a solid month to perform without being pulled if he puts up back to back 0/4 games? Tom Boswell: How many outstanding plays does Marlon Byrd have to make in CF before they give him a chance to play regularly? On three separate Sunday's in May, he made game-saving catches __one above the CF fence at a full run against the Pirates, another diving as he raced in against the O's and then a splendid diving catch on Sunday when the game was still in the hat against the Dodgers. He also went above the CF wall in Philadelphia to pull a HR back in the park. No, he doesn't LOOK too graceful in CF. He has a football body type. But I think he deserves a shot. Also, his on-base percentage is .354 (about the league average) and, as he's learned to take more pitches and foul off others, he's become a tougher out. He's no star but he's hard-nosed, plays every day and has some speed. Also, the more CFers go out there the more chance that you get Soriano hurt in a collision. Put one guy out there so they can learn to communicate better and minimize risk. Of course, maybe it scares the Nats to put the 230-pound Byrd next to the 180-pound Soriano. Oakton, Va.: How much will it take to re-sign alfonso? Assuming that he wants to stay. Tom Boswell: The Lance Berkman contract was considered a rough "comp" for Soriano before this season. Ballpark, you're talking $12-14M-a-year for four or five years. With the year he's having now and his (excellent) attitude in a tough situation, I suspect $65M/5yrs is the range. But DOES HE WANT TO STAY. Or should he? To illustrate, if a newspaper in Detroit "traded" for me and gave me no choice but to be on the city side beat (where I wouldn't even know the name of the Detroit major and ran the risk of looking like a fool in public every day), would I even care what the paper offered me when I became a free agent at the end of my lovely year covering city hall? Like many (most) I would prefer that Soriano stay. I suspect he's a much more pleasant person than I am; but if I were in his shoes, one of the last teams in baseball I would sign with would be Washington. I'll be interested to see what new ownership does to overcome what I assume is a huge disadvantage in signing a player that they, in effect, kidnapped then sent to LF under penalty of forfeiting a $10M contract. Yes, yes, I know all the counter arguments about how he's making a ton of money and should play where he's told to play. I agree with the theory. But how would YOU feel in his situation? Washington, D.C.: Could you please explain how Aramark can do 'Dollar Dogs' at Citizens Bank Park on Memorial Day, yet can't seem to produce a decent dog at a fair price for RFK? Tom Boswell: I can't explain it. But, when I'm at RFK, I sometimes buy them anyway. Isn't it exciting what's going on with the Tigers? When's the last time they were getting so much attention? Do you think it will last all season. Tom Boswell: They had a fine 9th inning comeback against the yanks last night that I really enjoyed. It helped them that N.Y. didn't have Rivera available. But it was still important that they avoided a four-game sweep. They danced around like they'd just made the playoffs. Now, they host the Red Sox. I suspect they are still too young and raw to win the A.L. Central. Can they get the wildcard? The Mike Maroth surgery (bone chips in elbow) will hurt. If they don't make it this year, it certainly looks like they will soon. Of course, they're the team that the Nats hope to be in a few years. Section 312, Row 4: I know Joey Eischen has stunk up the place this year...but I loved his gamer attitude since last year when he came back after breaking his arm. I am going to miss him. Tom Boswell: Everybody will miss him. But you're going to want to watch Bill Bray, the southpaw reliever who's coming up to replace him. He was the Nats No. 1 draft pick in '04 __between Chad Cordero ('03) and Ziummerman ('05). I asked Bob Boone about him last week. "I never got to see him throw in Florida," I said. "Don't worry," said Boone. "You're going to be watching him for a loooooong time." Are they rushing him too quickly? He'll be 23 on Monday. He went to William & Mary, so maybe we'll see some of the same poise and maturity that Zimmerman (U of Virginia) brought to the party. Sometimes it's actually better for the top talents to develope at the major league level. If it doesn't crack them, it makes them better. But that's the concern. It's hard to repair a broken psyche for a pitcher. From what I've heard, I suspect Bray will be fine. I'm anxious to see him. Lefthanded relievers are as hard to find as anything in baseball. Connecticut Avenue, N.W.: How serious is the Nationals attendance problem in relation to next year, and the new stadium in the future? Will Kasten be able to reverse this trend? Tom Boswell: You can find my thoughts in this week's e-mail column. Attendance is now down by 19.3% __comparing the first 23 home games of '05 and '06. From about 32,000 to slightly under 26,000. The numbers will improve in summer __they do for everybody. My guess is that the Nats will end up 15th in baseball in attendance with 27,000-to-28,000-a-game for the whole year. New ownership should be concerned. I think it would be a very poor business decision to think, "The new ballpark, plus a good team in 3-4 years, will take care of everything." I doubt they will think that way. The Lerner family has great "pride of authorship" as far as I can tell. Right now, we know almost nothing about the "character" of new ownership. A year from now, we will know almost everything. IOW, we will know whether Washington has strong or problematic ownership long before the new park opens and long before the restock-the-minors project shows fruit. Ownership shows its hand in a hundred decisions, not just a few splashy ones. We'll start finding out very soon. New Jersey Ave.: In my opinion, the Nats' farm system isn't as barren as advertised. If it is, then where did guys like Mike O'Connor and Shawn Hill come from? I'm for shopping a few select veterans (Guillen, Church) for prospects, but I don't think a Marlins-esque fire sale is what we need. Soriano is the player we need to build on. He's our Bonds, our Pujols, our A-Rod. Tom Boswell: As I wrote in my e-mail column earlier this week, I think that Guillen will, and probably should be traded if you can get anything of quality for him __which is far from a certainty. If you can't sign Soriano by July 31st, you're very unlikely to resign him after the season as a free agent (even though Kasten was quoted this a.m. along those lines). Stan, no doubt, wants to keep that door open, but I suspect he also knows how slim those chances are. Once a big name takes off your uniform to "test the market," he seldom comes back. I also made the point that I thought both Hernandez and Vidro were of more value to the Nats __for stability, clubhouse leadership, a viable product on the field in '06-'07 and fan appeal__ than they would be to anybody else. IOW, don't trade them for a "good" offer. Only trade them for a great one. The minors aren't as utterly terrible as some thought. (Larry Broadway now has some people in the organization who like him.) But there are NO "A" players, just people like O'Connor and Hill who, with limited talents and lots of moxie, might make a 4th or 5th starter. On the other hand, I'm impressed with both of them. O'Connor is a "type" __the cunning lefthander who competes. Like everybody, I'm pulling for him. There is NO WAY to tell what will happen as the league learns him. The hitters and the stats will tell the tale, not our eyes, IMO. Hill is very mature, understands his talents and his limits as well as any young pitcher I've talked to in a while. He reminds me of Josh Towers when he first came up with the O's, but with a little better stuff. (Don't laugh at Towers. Before this year (ugh) he was 38-31 and went 13-12 last year.) Nazabat, Va.: Hi Tom, do you think that if he stays in DC Soriano might be as bg of a hero to the kids and community as HONDO was wen you and I were kids? If fans want him back, they better show him. Human beings like to be cheered. They like fans to vote for them for the All-Star team. "Show Me The Love" matters, too, because everybody is going to show this guy the money. Washington, D.C.: Should you add Nick Johnson to your max-purge list, that currently consists of Guillen, Hernandez, Soriano and Vidro? Larry Broadway is doing well playing first base at AAA New Orleans, where he is one of the Nats top prospects, and Johnson's injury proneness adds a certain amount of risk that the new ownership might want to shy away from. Tom Boswell: Nick is an absolute keeper, IMO. The routine ground ball that he beat out in Cincinnati illustrates it. Also, he's on a 36 home run pace. That may not be "real." But lots of fine hitters develop more power with age. I think you HAVE to find out how good he can be as a hitter and if his early-career injuries are a fluke. OTOH, he throws himself around on the field with more wildness __especially sliding into home__ than a man his size probably should. The genuine hustle (not the fake kind) and the injuries may go together. Washington, D.C.: My entire family has stayed loyal to the Orioles; I'm the lone Nationals fan. My younger brothers have simply grown used to DC being the football city and Baltimore being their baseball city. Sigh. I know who is to blame for this... No one inspires loyalty like a class act. Tom Boswell: I'm sorry. I know some others disagree. But I've waited my whole life to have a N.L. team in Washington and an A.L. team in Baltimore. This is my idea of heaven. I follow them both. (The Orioles ALMOST made a wonderful comeback in the ninth last night against Tampa Bay. After a rain delay with almost nobody left in the stands, they put themselves one swing away from a "miracle" comeback with Mora at the plate and Tejada on deck. Lots of teams would have considered this game lost and "mailed it in." They didn't.) Alexandria, Va.: Tom, I love reading your Nats columns and commentary. When are the Lerners going to crack down on all the illegal merchandise, and the vendors outside the stadium? I can't believe that they would allow all this merchandise to be sold by people hawking them through the crowds secretively (hats for $5 - pulling out a stack of 20 from nowhere)! The worst has to be that god-awful hat with the fake W on it - you can always tell who doesn't know better and is a fair weather fan when you see that hideous thing on anyone in the stadium. It's clearly infringement...but I don't see anything being done about it! Mount Vernon, Va.: Readers get inundated with Post stories leading up to the NBA and NFL drafts. The MLB draft is next week and aside from a throwaway line about a couple guys working out at RFK on Sunday, all we have is one article on Jeffrey Maier (taking nothing away from Sheinin, it was really good). Are there any plans to even acknowledge the draft on Tuesday? Tom Boswell: I'M going to be interested in the draft! But it makes more sense to focus on the MLB draft AFTER the fact when the Nats have the 15th and 22nd picks. With the No. 4 overall pick for Zimmerman, you could speculate sensibly on who they might take last year. But right now, it's nuts to pretend that you have any clue. Bowden and Co aren't going to tip their hands __and shouldn't. The permutations are endless. This is NOT the NFL draft. Wasn't Sheinin's piece on A1 on Jeffrey Maier FABULOUS. A must read. Fascinating that Aneglos' first reaction was that it might be a good idea to draft him. That was my first thought, too. However, every ex-Oriole that Dave interviewed (except Cal, of course) didn't seem to like the idea much. Scott Erickson, who pitched in that game, was priceless. Said he hoped Maier made the majors "just so I can drill him __I'd like to get one shot at him." It was nostalgic for me to read about a baseball player from Wesleyan. As a freshman in college, I hit a ball into the parking lot beyond right field at Wesleyan. In batting practice. It tells you everything you need to know about my "career" that I still remember a ball in BP! Pretty sad. Good news for a change on the customer service front. Not only did the Nats send me free tickets for the June 11 picnic in the park along with passes to get on the field after the game, the tix were not for the nosebleeds in center field but were for seats that are comparable to my regular 20 game plan seats (my plan doesn't include the June 11 game). I don't know whether Messrs. Kasten and Lerner had a hand in this but it is a worthy start to the new era. Brooklyn, by way of Falls Church, Va.: At the beginning of the season you said that the Mets were maybe a 90 win team. Do you still think so or can they really win the East? I'm not trying to gloat I trying to know if I should get ready for the big slump that brings them back to 2nd or 3rd place. Tom Boswell: I play with my run-differential numbers every week or so to see if W-L records seem to be in line with common-season reality. One team jumps out that should be better. The Pirates (-12 runs) are an awful 20-34. Others that "should" improve __though not a lot probably__ are the Indians, Seattle, Nats (-24) and (yes) Marlins (-36) who aren't 17-34 bad. No team looks FAR over its head this season. But, after a third of the year, I'd say the Rockkies, Brewers, Reds and Mets are the best bets to slow their pace a bit. The O's (-38) are probably a bit fortune to be as decent as 25-29. The head-snapping number is Kansas City: -131. This team could get outscored by 400 runs __which projects to 37-125. Rockville, Md.: Boz-The Caps have Ovechkin and the Wizards have Arenas. In the next couple of years, do you think Zimmerman can rise to their level as a top-three young player in his sport? Ovechkin in the top three in the NHL someday, yes. In the NBA and MLB, that's mighty rarified air. Section 314: You and Barry both have discussed and identified a number of factors contributing to attendance decline - beautiful RFK. I just want to throw in a reminder that MLB, having profited enormously in both short term revenue (estimated $10 Million last year) and capital gain (a neat escalation from something like $130 M to $450 M on the franchise price) off had the cajones to hit us with a 12% ticket price increase on our season tickets. Could have played a roll in folks deciding they could scale back from say 6 to 4 season tickets. I'm sure the additional income would have been plowed into stadium improvements, but season ticket holders were just too cynical or short sighted. Tom Boswell: The price hike was dead flat moronic. As is now obvious. More nice work, MLB. Arlington, Va.: I hope this isn't a sign of things to come, but it seems the Lerners are cutting corners by not paying to build the parking garages underground at the new stadium. Having them above ground is not only unsightly but will also hinder development in the immediate neighborhood. Tom Boswell: This may be one of those early "litmus test" issues. Your Wednesday emailed columns are awesome. I saw in Barry's online chat this week that July 21 is suppposed to be "Re-open RFK Day" or something like that. Have the Lerners given any details about what will be new or better at RFK? (I have no tickets beyond June, but might buy some if I knew what to expect.) Tom Boswell: Thanks. I'm really looking forward to July 21. What a nice test of imagination (and competence) for new owners. This shows quite a bit of confidence on their part. It's an invitation: "Test us." Herndon, Va.: Mr Boz: I'd love to have Soriano stay with the Nats, but, is there is any realistic possibility that he'll still be in Washington when "trading season" is over? Tom Boswell: I checked with Soriano on that ritzy condo I heard he'd moved into downtown. "Yes, it's very nice. I like it," he said. "I'm renting." Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
Washington Post sports columnist Thomas Boswell discussed baseball and his latest columns.
385.461538
0.923077
3.846154
high
medium
mixed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053102044.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053102044.html
Between a Rock and 'Reform'
2006060219
"Why should we bother to reply to Kautsky?" Lenin asked. "He would reply to us, and we would have to reply to his reply. There is no end to that. It will be quite enough for us to announce that Kautsky is a traitor to the working class, and everyone will understand everything." The immigration debate, which is mostly among, and dangerous primarily to, Republicans, is becoming like that. Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, denounces as "selling American citizenship" the provision in the Senate bill that requires illegal immigrants to pay back taxes and fines, a provision that its supporters, such as John McCain, call "earned citizenship." And last week McCain said that denying illegal immigrants Social Security and other entitlements is akin to forcing them to "ride in the back of the bus." Regardless of what one thinks of his immigration policy and his aggressive rhetoric in its defense, one must admire his willingness to undo, by teaming with Ted Kennedy to pass "earned citizenship" provisions, much of what he has assiduously done to ingratiate himself with conservatives. As members of the House and Senate head for a conference to try to reconcile the stark and probably irreconcilable differences incorporated in their two immigration bills, Republicans are between a rock and a hard place. And another rock. And another. First, if the conferees agree to anything like the Senate bill, the House will reject it -- if it comes to a vote. Speaker Dennis Hastert has a "majority of the majority" rule: Nothing comes to the floor that does not have the support of a majority of Republicans. Probably 75 percent of House Republicans -- including Sensenbrenner, who will probably be the lead House negotiator -- oppose the two pillars of the Senate bill, a guest-worker program and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already here. Actually, there are three paths: one for those who have been here five or more years, one for those who have been here between two and five years, and a path away from citizenship and the country for those who have been here less than two years. This plan, which is a huge incentive for the sort of traffic in fraudulent documents that is already pandemic, is to be enforced by a government that will not or cannot enforce existing immigration laws. Second, if the conference agrees to anything like the House "enforcement first and, for now, only" bill, it will be rejected or filibustered to death in the Senate. All but six Democrats voted for the Senate bill, which a majority of Republicans opposed, so it has no momentum for respect among House Republican conferees. Third, if any legislation is passed that contains any provision that can be stigmatized as "amnesty," come November some of the Republican base, which is already boiling, will emigrate from the political process by not voting. Fourth, if no immigration legislation is enacted, voters of various stripes may say, as voters said of congressional Democrats who were in disarray over a crime bill in the summer of 1994, that these people cannot govern and should be given, like unruly 8-year-olds, a timeout. The timeout is now in its 12th year. But if Congress fails to pass immigration reform, that will not really deserve to be called a failure, for two reasons. First, the moment may not be ripe for reform, because the country is of two minds -- actually, more than two -- about the issue. Second, the system the Framers created, with two legislative bodies having different dynamics because their constituencies have different characteristics, is in this instance performing approximately as the Framers intended. Senators, only one-third of whom are ever facing imminent elections, are somewhat insulated by six-year terms from the public's fevers. And senators represent larger, less homogenous, more complex constituencies than most House members do. There is more to democracy than government by adding machine -- merely counting numbers. There also should be institutional ways of measuring, venting and accommodating the intensity of factions. The Senate does that by permitting filibusters. In the House, two-year terms guarantee that intensities are registered. As Rep. Gil Gutknecht (R-Minn.) recently told The Post, "House members' elections are not periods with us, they're just commas. We keep our finger on the public pulse all the time, not just every six years." The House is supposed to be the barometer that measures the political weather of the moment. It is not failing to do that.
Failing to pass an immgration bill won't be a failure -- but a reflection of the public's division over what the law should be.
33.259259
0.740741
1.111111
medium
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053102043.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053102043.html
An Accidental Tax Boon
2006060219
Sometimes in Washington, good things are more likely to happen by accident than by congressional or executive design. Treasury secretary nominee Henry M. Paulson Jr. is no doubt aware of this fact, but it's one worth keeping in mind in the continuing debate over tax reform, which is sure to command a good deal of the new secretary's attention. I'm thinking of one program in particular: the alternative minimum tax, or AMT. The AMT is viewed by many as a bad thing. Yet, consider this: There is wide agreement among economists on the benefits of a federal "flat tax" on income that would apply a uniform rate to every taxpayer and eliminate most current deductions and tax credits. A flat tax would get rid of a large number of economic distortions resulting from the many tax "subsidies" that often benefit narrow interest groups. This is tax "pork," and Congress is as addicted to it as to the ordinary spending kind. In places around the world, including Eastern Europe, governments creating new tax systems have been turning to a flat tax to avoid this sort of thing. What does this have to do with the AMT? Just this: As Post business reporter Albert B. Crenshaw has noted, the AMT "approaches a modern-day flat tax." It imposes a uniform rate of 26 percent up to $175,000 in income, and above that 28 percent. Tax revolutions are few and far between. Taxes are so important to the economy that major changes in tax law are best achieved incrementally, giving notice well in advance and avoiding potentially large disruptions from big surprises. That's part of the genius of the AMT. If it is left alone, it will move us gradually but steadily toward a flat tax on income as inflation brings more people within its ambit. Some leading Republican conservatives have long advocated a flat tax. Yet few of them are speaking out vigorously for retention of the AMT. In fact, many are joining the clamor in Congress for its repeal or limitation. It would seem that they were either hypocritical in advocating a flat tax or have somehow failed to recognize that the AMT is in essence a new, evolving form of flat tax. Many Democrats are joining the calls for drastic cutbacks in the AMT. This shows a certain disregard for the fact that the existing system of tax subsidies is most generous to higher-income groups and does less for the bottom half of the income distribution -- their supposed constituency. The alternative minimum tax dates to the 1960s -- and in its present form, to the 1980s. It was never intended as a major tax reform but rather was simply a political expedient to provide some cover when a few very rich people were revealed to be paying little in income taxes. But as Americans' incomes have risen, more and more people have been finding that their tax payments are now determined by the AMT. Congress has already taken steps to reduce the AMT's impact. The recently enacted tax bill raises the special AMT "standard exemption" to $62,550 for a couple filing jointly and to $42,500 for a single filer. At these levels, some 5 million taxpayers will be subject to the AMT for their 2006 taxes. But these changes are for one year, and absent new congressional action, the exemption will fall back to $45,000 for couples and $33,750 for individuals in the 2007 tax year. If that happens, as many as 25 million taxpayers might be affected by the AMT. We would be moving toward a nationwide flat tax. If we wait long enough, and with some continuing degree of inflation, the AMT flat tax eventually will apply to most taxpayers. The AMT will, in effect, have become the federal income tax system. And unlike most other important policy changes, this is one in which Congress need do nothing, although at some point it would probably be desirable to modify details of the current AMT that limit its effectiveness as a flat tax. If the present AMT rates were applied as a universal flat tax -- and especially if the AMT exemption were reduced and certain remaining AMT exclusions eliminated -- the resulting federal revenue might even come to exceed current expenditure levels. The solution would then be to reduce the flat tax rate (the AMT rate) so that revenue and expenditures were brought back into balance. In the longer run, the AMT could open the way to more radical reforms that might even change the basic nature of Washington spending habits. One option would be as follows: Each year the president would submit his budget proposal, and Congress, in response, would enact final appropriations. A neutral expert commission would then estimate the resulting federal revenue requirements, and a new flat tax rate, calculated to balance the budget, would be set for the forthcoming tax year. If Congress wanted to go on a spending spree, taxpayers would see the consequences directly and immediately in their pocketbooks. The Social Security system is another area in which the AMT might facilitate radical change. Social Security taxes could be abolished and the flat tax adjusted upward to compensate for the lost revenue. The Social Security trust fund is largely an accounting fiction, and it is time to integrate the Social Security tax with the income tax system. Alternatively, Social Security tax payments could become a deductible credit from the required AMT payment. Such major changes in tax law, and some needed refinements to the existing AMT, can be debated and discussed. Right now, the most important step is to keep Congress from ruining a good thing. If it can be persuaded to leave the AMT alone next year and in future years, Congress will continue progress toward a flat tax revolution that has been in the works for many years. Such a gradual process is probably the only way the United States will ever adopt such a major change. The AMT is a tax policy windfall that ought to be protected and preserved. The writer is an economist and professor in the School of Public Policy of the University of Maryland.
The Alternative Minimum Tax is close to being the flat tax that many economists and members of Congress support. Let's not ruin a good thing by repealing it.
37.483871
0.741935
1.516129
high
low
mixed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053102190.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053102190.html
If This Column Were a Web Site, This Would Be Its Home Page
2006060219
· Web better, but still like ants on LSD . · New book helps explain screensucking . Okay, newspaper fans, that was the end of my column as Web site. I allotted myself only 20 words, because that's all most visitors read on any home page, according to Web design guru Jakob Nielsen. Twenty words! Sheesh. I guess the next generation will popularize "Web bites" the way the baby boomers did with sound bites. Nielsen says three-quarters of visitors don't even bother scrolling down Web pages to see what's below the first screen. There's nothing new about people info-snacking online. But Nielsen drills down more deeply into the phenomenon of hyperactive Web browsing than I've seen before in "Prioritizing Web Usability," a new book co-authored with Hoa Loranger. Their key message is that while the Web has gotten easier to use, it still has far to go before becoming human-friendly. Partly that's because site designers don't take time to understand how people use the Web. People spend an average of only 27 seconds on each page, mostly skimming for links and other visual clues about where to go next, Nielsen and Loranger report. People spend slightly more time on interior pages but still under a minute, even when viewing product details and lengthy articles. Nielsen predicts site visits will continue to grow shorter, so he urges designers to abandon the "sticky site" approach of trying to keep people with more content. Instead, he says they should offer loyalty tools such as e-mail newsletters. The good news is the Web's "success rate" has passed a crucial milestone, Nielsen and Loranger say, with more people succeeding than failing at basic tasks. That's a reversal from seven years ago, when most folks failed at anything they tried to do online. But the bad news is designers still routinely ignore research about how people navigate the Web and drive visitors nuts by using pop-up windows and code that breaks a browser's "back" button.
Design guru: · Web better, but still like ants on LSD .
28.714286
0.928571
8.928571
medium
medium
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053102492.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053102492.html
Mora Helps Orioles Win in the Eleventh
2006060219
BALTIMORE, May 31 -- It started in the top of the fifth, when the game looked lost and it appeared reliever Chris Britton was doing mop-up work. Then the Baltimore Orioles batted around and scored four times in the bottom of the fifth to tie the game and suddenly the bullpen's relief work grew in importance by leaps and bounds. And by the time Melvin Mora delivered a game-winning single in the bottom of the 11th, five relief pitchers had trotted in and done their job as the Orioles rallied for a 6-5 victory over the Tampa Bay Devil Rays before 16,134 at Oriole Park at Camden Yards on Wednesday. "I don't think you could even think about scripting something like that from your bullpen," Orioles Manager Sam Perlozzo said. After starting pitcher Bruce Chen was hit hard yet again, the Orioles were in a 5-1 hole. But one by one, Britton, Kurt Birkins, Todd Williams, LaTroy Hawkins and Sendy Rleal trotted in from the bullpen. Some had been successful recently and some had not, but on this night each rose to the occasion, combining to leave seven runners on base. Rleal, who pitched the final two innings, earned his first major league victory. It was a display of resolve for a team that had gone through some internal questioning during its recent West Coast trip, but now has started its 10-game homestand with consecutive victories. No one had a better turnaround than Hawkins, who faced three batters and gave up three hits in his most recent appearance on Sunday. On Wednesday, he entered to start the eighth and retired six of the seven batters he faced. "I think that's the best I've seen him," Perlozzo said. Said Hawkins: "It was definitely pleasing to see [the bullpen's success]. But we've got to keep doing it, not every other series. We've got to be more consistent." Mora has been steady throughout the season, though Perlozzo said Mora has been more patient of late and has stopped trying to do too much. After Luis Matos singled to lead off the 11th and was bunted to second, Mora came to bat with two outs and worked the count full against Tyler Walker (1-3). Mora then hit a line drive the opposite way toward the left field corner. Carl Crawford sprinted to his right and dove, but the ball was well past his glove and Matos scored easily, sending Tampa Bay (21-32) to its eighth loss in nine games. "I think it was a slider," Mora said. "They [had] been throwing the slider all day long [so] okay, then let me hit a slider." The game-ending celebration was quite a contrast from the way the Orioles felt early on after Chen allowed three home runs, bringing his season total to 16, most in the majors. Crawford hit a three-run shot to right in the second, Toby Hall and Damon Hollins each hit solo homers to left in the fourth. That was all for Chen, who entered 0-5 and saw his ERA rise to 7.71. The Orioles' rally started innocently enough in the bottom of the fifth. Jeff Conine, the benefactor of a double in the second inning when his line drive bounced off the glove of Crawford, hit a sky-high popup to shallow center. But center fielder Joey Gathright never saw the ball -- holding both hands in the air to let his teammates know -- and the ball landed in the grass as three other fielders converged. By the time the inning ended -- on a Conine fly to center with the bases loaded that Crawford saw all the way -- the Orioles had scored four times. Kevin Millar drove in Conine with a double to the gap in left-center and scored on a line-drive single to left by Nick Markakis. Miguel Tejada -- who had ended two earlier threats by grounding into double plays, putting him in the American League lead with 12 this season -- sent a grounder between first and second for an RBI single. After Tampa Bay starter James Shields, making his major league debut, struck out Javy Lopez, Ramon Hernandez singled to center to bring in Roberts and tie the game at 5-5. "I think when the bullpen held them like that, we got excited, and they know they need some help from us and know we're going to score sooner or later," Mora said.
Melvin Mora drives in the winning run with a two-out single in the 11th inning and rookie Sendy Rleal earns his first win as the O's rally past Tampa Bay, 6-5.
22.512821
0.846154
1.512821
medium
medium
mixed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053102403.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053102403.html
Moreno's 100th Goal Kicks Off United Barrage
2006060219
It just seemed so unfair. A few minutes into D.C. United's 5-1 victory over the Columbus Crew last night before 11,725 at RFK Stadium, Jaime Moreno stepped up to attempt a penalty kick, which, if successful, would make him the second player in MLS history to score 100 goals. Twelve yards away stood Dan Popik, who had not played an MLS game in two years and had turned his attention to college coaching until the injury-depleted Crew called last week. As expected, Moreno scored without a bit of difficulty, the beginning of an impressive session of attacking soccer by United, which stretched its unbeaten streak to four and matched Dallas for the best record in the league (6-1-3). Columbus (3-4-2) tied it before halftime, but Popik was overwhelmed in the second half by an own goal, Josh Gros's simple put-away, Alecko Eskandarian's partial breakaway and reserve Lucio Filomeno's first goal of the year. "You can see we create like three, four good chances in the first three minutes" after intermission, Coach Peter Nowak said. "The energy level was very good, we got the goal and we still kept playing." The second-half uprising was spurred by what Nowak said in the locker room during halftime: absolutely nothing. "He was in here but he didn't say anything -- we pretty much knew what we needed to do," midfielder Brian Carroll said. "Peter didn't have to step in or yell at us. Everyone said what needed to be said, we came out with a stronger mentality and a smarter approach to the game, and we got goals." Lots of goals -- the most by United since last August and enough to match the worst loss in Crew history. Columbus's goalkeeping misery certainly was a factor. Starter Jon Busch tore a knee ligament against United 11 days ago and was lost for the year; veteran Jonny Walker had already been ruled out for the season with a back injury; and Bill Gaudette, in his second year, and rookie Andy Gruenebaum are not available because each has a broken hand. So the Crew scrambled to acquire former Maryland Terrapin Noah Palmer (no career appearances) from Real Salt Lake and signed Popik, 27, who had played a total of 61 minutes in 2003-04 for Los Angeles, was not on an MLS roster last season and had become the goalkeepers coach for North Carolina State. Eight minutes into his return, Popik allowed Moreno's penalty kick. Moreno had slotted the ball through to Eskandarian, who ran onto it just inside the box and was taken down by the charging goalie. As Popik lunged the other way, Moreno slid the penalty kick into the lower right corner for his team-best sixth strike of the year.
It just seemed so unfair. A few minutes into D.C. United's 5-1 victory over the Columbus Crew last night before 11,725 at RFK Stadium, Jaime Moreno stepped up to attempt a penalty kick, which, if successful, would make him the second player in MLS history to score 100 goals.
9.568966
1
58
low
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053102193.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053102193.html
Microsoft Aims to Clean Up Its Own Mess
2006060219
After years of insisting that security and maintenance software was best left to other developers, Microsoft is moving to grab that business for itself. Yesterday, Microsoft stepped on some of its most faithful third-party developers when it unveiled its new Windows Live OneCare service, a $49.95-a-year package of security and maintenance tools ( http://www.windowsonecare.com/ ) that provides most of the services that Microsoft's customers have traditionally bought from Symantec and McAfee. This is no reflection of OneCare's merits compared with the likes of Symantec's Norton Internet Security and McAfee's Internet Security Suite. (Look for a full review of OneCare later this month.) Offering OneCare is just the right thing to do -- even for a company that's repeatedly lost court cases for bolting once-separate programs onto its operating system. OneCare's components -- a new antivirus program, the Windows Defender anti-spyware software, a firewall application, a system tune-up utility and a backup program -- all address basic computer maintenance. If you don't perform those everyday housekeeping tasks, you will find your computing experience ever more unpleasant. That sets OneCare apart from Microsoft's earlier adventures in adding software to Windows. Listening to music files, ordering prints of your photos and editing home movies are entertaining pastimes, but if you avoid them all, your computer will still work perfectly well. And yet those features came stitched into Windows XP, while virus and spyware protection did not. The fallout of that decision has been inevitable and painful: Users have found their computers invaded and hijacked by rogue software, then have received little or no help from Microsoft in cleaning up these problems. They haven't even gotten a simple way to back up their data before reformatting the sick computer's hard drive and reinstalling Windows from scratch. Helping you keep your computer safe and functional should have been Microsoft's job all along. OneCare finally makes some amends for that. But if you don't want to use OneCare, you don't have to. Unlike Microsoft's most infamous bundled program, the Internet Explorer Web browser, OneCare is completely optional. You can spend your money on somebody else's bundle of security, maintenance and backup software -- or you can put together your own combination of free programs if you're willing to tinker a little more. It's fair to argue that something like OneCare ought to be built into Windows. But think about what would happen next: The competition would probably find its air supply cut off, as people flee from the cost and complexity of adding third-party replacements for something built into Windows. And recent history has shown that Microsoft tends to slack off if it doesn't feel a competitive threat -- witness how Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer stagnated until iTunes and Firefox got Microsoft's attention. With OneCare, Microsoft is trying to clean up its own mess while preserving competition. That's especially important in the security-software market, where many of the companies that have dominated it so far seem to have adopted Microsoft's worst habits of sloth. The all-in-one suites from Symantec, McAfee and other third-party developers can work just fine, but too often they break in one way or another, jamming the machinery of Windows in the process. These problems can be some of the hardest to diagnose and fix, thanks to the complicated ways these security applications embed themselves into the system. Readers tell these stories all the time: A mail program stops getting new messages, or a Web browser mysteriously fails to load certain Web sites -- and only after prolonged trial and error does it become clear some component in some security suite has gone bad. And each new annual release somehow fails to do much to address these issues. Why shouldn't Microsoft, a company that knows -- or ought to know -- Windows better than anyone, take a stab at fixing these problems? If OneCare can do the job better than other companies' security software, Microsoft will have earned every penny of whatever profit this service generates. If, on the other hand, not even Microsoft can reliably defend its own operating system, then things are even worse than we've thought. Living with technology, or trying to? E-mail Rob Pegoraro atrob@twp.com.
After years of insisting that security and maintenance software was best left to other developers, Microsoft is moving to grab that business for itself.
31.769231
1
26
medium
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/31/DI2006053101267.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/31/DI2006053101267.html
Broder on Politics
2006060219
Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and Washington Post columnist David S. Broder was online Friday, June 2, at noon ET to answer your questions about the world of politics, from the latest maneuverings on Capitol Hill to developments in the White House. Broder has written extensively about primaries, elections, special interests and the business of politics. His books include "Democracy Derailed: The Initiative Movement & the Power of Money," "Behind the Front Page: A Candid Look at How the News Is Made" and "The System: The American Way of Politics at the Breaking Point." Virginia Beach, Va.: Good morning, Mr. Broder. I always enjoy your commentary. What did you think of Peter Beinart's op-ed re: liberalism and the war on terror? Did you read the chat he had about it? Very interesting. Do you think that the Democratic party is honing in on this at all or are they continuing on their feckless way? I really loved his points about the bogus way the Republican party has hijacked President Truman's words and deeds. washingtonpost.com: Opinion: Bush is No Harry Truman (Live Online, June 1) David S. Broder: Thank you for your message. I read Peter Beinart's article, but not the following discussion. I think he articulates the position of one set of Democrats very well, and it speaks to a tradition that I respect and share. But there are many other Democrats who have become much more skeptical about the use of military forces and interventions abroad. That issue will have to be fought out in the choice of the next Democratic nominee. Oxford, Miss.: I moved from Capitol Hill to Mississippi on September 1, 2001. My folks weren't too happy about the move at first but, as you can imagine, they were thrilled about it ten days later. Now that DHS has declared D.C. safe and other more rural states as big al Qaeda targets, do I have to move back? And just as I've perfected my southern accent! David S. Broder: You would be welcomed back to Washington, with or without your Mississippi accent. But I would not assume that the city is safe from attack. Secretary Chertoff has a lot of explaining to do, but the allocation of grant money is always subject to political tugs. Nothing new about that. Anonymous: What do you think of U.N. Ambassador Bolton's statement on one of the news channels that it is time for Iran to "put up or shut up"? Can this comment be taken as an indication that we are on our way to a pre-emptive strike on Iran? David S. Broder: The only conclusion I can draw from the recent statements and actions on Iran is that the Bush administration and its allies have decided to bring the Iran nuclear program to a head--sooner rather than later. No one expects Iran to accept the terms we laid out for the start of direct negotiations, so the path will then be open for UN sanctions. We have seen this sequence before, with Iraq, and we know where that led. I am not certain that President Bush wants a second (or third, counting Afghanistan) war, but it could be a prelude to some sort of preemptive strike against Iran. Sims, N.C.: When can we expect an article from you on the marriages and divorces of the top Republican contenders for the presidential race of '08? David S. Broder: Why would I write such an article? I know of no occasion for that. After reading Joel Achenbach's article on global warming in the magazine section, I was further convinced that the Republicans are rather out of the loop when it comes to this issue. It strikes me odd that say 97 percent of climate scientists believe there is human-caused global warming, but only say 50 percent of our legislators (who do not generally have science degrees)? My guess is that the Republican party is being strongly influenced by the oil and coal industries. Would you concur? Or are they just becoming hostile to Science in general (the people that brought us evolution and a 6000-year-old Earth)? washingtonpost.com: The Tempest (Post Magazine, May 28) David S. Broder: The reluctance of Congress and the administration to move strongly on the global warming issue has many roots. A major one is their philosophical opposition to meddling in the market. But that happens to coincide with the interests of some of their major financial supporters--not a coincidence. Beaumont, Tex.: It seems that the Senate and House will be unable to work out a compromise, and Bush just made some remarks about "holding employers accountable." Do you think a concentration on enforcing the existing immigration laws will ultimately win out? Or will status quo (i.e., doing nothing) prevail? Many thanks for the chat. David S. Broder: The likelihood of a stalemate between the House and Senate on immigration legislation will put more pressure on the administration to enforce current laws on employers and on illegal residents. The problem will not go away, and that means the issue is likely to come up again in the next Congress. Houston, Tex.: Mr. Broder, do you find irony in Rice's comment Iran needs to be transparent? David S. Broder: If you are suggesting a parallel to the Bush administration, I would say that the differences are greater than the similarities. There is no free press in Iran and I doubt that whistle blowers have much chance of surviving in that regime. Arlington, Va.: Secretary Chertoff, regardless of the wisdom of any particular decision, seems to have a tin ear for politics that's very bad. This is not only the terror grants but how he responded during Katrina. This is interesting because the White House managed to badmouth the perfectly innocuous John Snow at Treasury for not having the ability to articulate policies politically. David S. Broder: I would have to agree with your comment about Secretary Chertoff's political skills. As for Secretary Snow, when I watched him at congressional hearings and news conferences, it was not an impressive or persuasive performance. New Hampshire: Thanks Mr. Broder for taking my question! Yesterday an article was published in Rolling Stone written by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. It documents a chilling and very well sourced account of the deliberate machinations of the Republican party in actually stealing the presidential election of 2004. Why is there no coverage of this important and devastating article in the Post this morning? Have you read it? From the Rolling Stone article: "Republicans derided anyone who expressed doubts about Bush's victory as nut cases in ''tinfoil hats,'' while the national media, with few exceptions, did little to question the validity of the election. The Washington Post immediately dismissed allegations of fraud as ''conspiracy theories,''(1) and The New York Times declared that ''there is no evidence of vote theft or errors on a large scale.''(2)" When will the MSM take up this issue as a real one, instead of dismissing it out of hand? David S. Broder: I have not read the article, but I will do so. Springfield, Va.: At the end of his recess appointment will President Bush renominate Amb. Bolton for the U.N. job? Can he sidestep the Senate with another recess appointment? David S. Broder: My guess is that he will renominate Ambassador Bolton and my guess is that the Senate would confirm him. Nashville, Tenn.: Really enjoy your commentary Mr. Broder. What is a concerned citizen like me to do? I have grown so tired of the back and forth in Washington. They can't seem to act on anything of any importance and spend so much time developing spin instead of focusing on real issues. Any sign that this is going to change? Will it take mass riots by the American people in order for our elected officials to actually solve problems? David S. Broder: Your frustration is widely shared among the voters I have met this year in half a dozen states. I certainly hope that it will not take riots to bring political change. I expect a significant turnover in the November election, and if that should occur, those serving in office will have a clear message to shape up. At least that's my hope. Washington : To whose advantage would a deadlocked immigration bill be towards if it lasted until elections this fall? Would conservatives in the House back down if they survived the fall elections? Thanks for your commentary. David S. Broder: I don't think deadlock on immigration helps either party. The public clearly wants something done, and failure would hurt everyone. You can make the case that one party or the other could exploit such a deadlock, but my guess is that neither can benefit. Yonkers, N.Y. : If its not Jeb, who do you think that the Bush family would like to support for President in 2008? David S. Broder: I don't know the answer to that question. No one named Bush has whispered in my ear the name of the favored successor. washingtonpost.com: Was the 2004 Election Stolen? (Rolling Stone Magazine) Bethesda, Md.: I'm amazed at what seems to be both incompetence and political pork in the allocation of anti-terrorism funds by DHS Chertoff. New York and D.C. aren't likely terrorist sites? Sec. Chertoff got a pass on Katrina incompetence. Do you think he'll survive this? I think he's on his way out. David S. Broder: I doubt that this will be a firing event, but I would not be surprised a bit to see DHS having to back down on the allocation of funds. The reaction has been so negative that the plan may not survive. Bethesda, Md.: Mr. Broder, I'm normally a huge fan of yours. I have to say though that I was pretty disappointed with your recent column which covered Senator Clinton's energy policy speech by talking all about her marriage (and clothing choice). You did get around to talking about her proposals in about the eighth paragraph I think, which was nice -- but then seemingly couldn't help jumping obsessively back to the "elephant in the living room" for a finale paragraph. Frankly it wasn't worthy of the Post's fine reputation. So far it seems like the party line at the Post is: "we are focusing on Mrs. Clinton's marriage in our coverage of her because it is likely to be a main focus in the media's coverage of her". The tautological nature of this chicken-or-egg rationalization should be painfully obvious. Please try to leave this kind of commentary to Soap Opera Digest in the future. Many thanks, and I look forward to enjoying your future columns. David S. Broder: Thank you for your message. I received a lot of criticism for the column on Senator Clinton, and I take the criticism seriously. As a general rule, I would shy away from discussions about the personal life of a public figure. But the Clintons have presented themselves to the public as a couple--beginning with his statement as a candidate, "Buy One. Get one free." They are deeply involved in each other's public life, as witness his role at the New York Democratic convention that just nominated her for a second term. It is a fact of political life--as reflected in the New York Times story--that political people contemplating the possibility of her presidential candidacy are concerned about the role he would play in the campaign and in the administration. That concern is heightened by the history of the Clintons' marriage, which I do not have to rehearse here. But I cannot pretend that the concern does not exist when, in fact, it is a major topic of discussion. As for Senator Clinton's policy views, they are not being neglected by the Post. My colleague Dan Balz wrote an exhaustive piece about her policy views just a day or two after my column. Chicago, Ill.: What is your take on the wannabe scandal of Senator Reid accepting tickets to a boxing match? Have there been any retractions that you know of when it was found out he couldn't have paid for the tickets and that the commissioner tried to refund John McCain's money? I know that even the hint of scandal means big news, but shouldn't the facts be clear first? David S. Broder: Of course, the facts should be first. But Senator Reid has said that he would change his policy about attending boxing matches, so he must have felt uncomfortable with his past practice. Houston, Tex.: For years, the economy down here has been dependent on immigrants -- legal and undocumented. This has been true on the farms and ranches, in the oil fields, and more recently the service industries. No that the president has taken on businesses' obligations, has anyone looked at the background of his employees as a rancher, oilman, and owner of a baseball team? David S. Broder: I am aware pf any such examination as you suggest. Annapolis, Md.: Who do you see as the conservative favorite for the 2008 Republican nomination? There are still a lot of conservatives who don't like John McCain. Mitt Romney's not quite their kind of guy either. Forget about Rudy Giuliani. David S. Broder: Several other Republicans have indicated an interest in the 2008 nomination, among them Sen. George Allen of Virginia, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas. There may be others as well, so I don't think Republicans, conservative or otherwise, will lack for choices. Madison, Wisc.: Wisconsin Representative Sennsenbrenner (pardon my spelling) recently echoed the president's comments about enforcing current law as it regards employers hiring undocumented workers. Perhaps a bridge is being build between the House and Senate on this issue. The remaining question is: Would a Republican administration actually fine or imprison employers for violating the immigration/hiring laws? David S. Broder: You raise a very good question. The reason that existing regulations on hiring illegal immigrants have not been enforced is the understandable reluctance of any government to crack down on hundreds of businesses, many of them small firms owned and operated by individual families. The reality is that this labor force has been built into our economy, and the president, I think, is right in saying it's time to make it a legal force by having a regulated guest worker program, and then trying to eliminate the hiring of illegals. Silver Spring, Md.: In your estimation, have the wide variety of voter suppression techniques used in the past two presidential elections been primarily used by Republicans, Democrats, or both? If voter suppression and systematic disenfranchisement is going on in the U.S., do you think that it is an important issue? David S. Broder: I have not looked at this issue enough to warrant any conclusion. That does not mean it's not important. You have given me a nudge to do something I have not done. Annapolis, Md.: First I want to say how much I enjoy your online chats. Do you think the administration will reverse the Homeland Security terrorism payouts? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. I am about 35 minutes (in good traffic) from D.C., and for the life of me why would anyone state that D.C. and New York need less funding. I did not see any other cities hit on 9/11. Granted all the states need to be protected. There are new people in charge at the White House. If the new White House team is in charge then this Homeland Security fiasco falls squarely at their feet. David S. Broder: As I said in response to an earlier question, I would not be surprised to see the formula changed or the DHS allocation revised. Bethesda, Md.: Liberals (and liberal politicians like Al Gore) have been trying (mostly in vain) for about 15 years now to get this country to listen to the scientific community when formulating policy on scientific matters. The country is finally acknowledging that they were right, and (shockingly) scientists actually know more about scientific phenomena than industry lobbyists. Do you think the public (and our media) has learned its lesson, or will K Street routinely trump scientific reality again in the future? David S. Broder: I think public opinion on global earning has changed as more and more scientific evidence has been publicized. The reaction in Congress has been less swift, for reasons I discussed a few minutes ago--an ideological reluctance to mess with the marketplace and the influence of important interest groups. New York City: You told Gov. Wilson, in my presence, during the RNC that after the night of Sen. Romney, Sen. Miller, and VP Cheney's speeches that though you were leaning towards Sen. Kerry winning, after that night you were leaving more towards Pres. Bush. How much of your opinion was affected by Sen. Romney, if at all, and is any big-name Republican on the Hill rooting for a Romney nomination? David S. Broder: I do not recall the incident you describe involving Gov. Romney. But to answer your question, I think there are Republicans on Capitol Hill who are sympathetic to Gov. Romney's candidacy, but it is early in the process, and I do not expect endorsements to flow at this time. RE; Gov. Wilson: To be clear -- you were giving your impression who will win in '04, not your personal choice David S. Broder: Thanks for clarifying that. Rochester, N.Y.: Over the past few years, it appears that fewer and fewer newsworthy stories are being reported using traditional, time-consuming in-depth research methods. It also appears that more and more, reporters are becoming commentators. If you accept these observations, to what would you attribute the cause? The business of the news department is business? David S. Broder: In-depth reporting is time-consuming and therefore expensive. Journalism is going through a transition period, as the audience moves from print to Internet, and the economic squeeze is real. Fortunately, some papers, including the Post, are still making the investment it takes to have substantive reporting. All of us wish there were more of it. Rochester, N.Y.: I think that there is a necessary distinction that isn't being made regarding coverage of the Clintons' marriage. You seem to be saying that, given Bill Clinton's stature, Hillary's marriage will inevitably be a topic of discussion since Bill might be likely to influence her policy decisions and so on. But that isn't the same thing as asking personal questions about how much time they spend together and such. Wouldn't you agree there is a distinction? And that the NYT article (which you defended) focused not only on the relevant issues but also on irrelevant personal issues? It came awfully close to asking "do they really love each other"? Wouldn't you agree that that is inappropriate? washingtonpost.com: The Shadow of a Marriage (Post, May 25) David S. Broder: I agree that it is the Clintons' business, and no one else's, how they manage their personal lives. Cap Hill Manager: I see that Bush is going to give a speech about the proposed amendment to prevent gay marriage. Is this just a bone to get his right wing failing fan base? I cannot believe that people still care about this issue when we have so many other horrible things happening! Your thoughts sir? David S. Broder: Yes. The gay marriage amendment is on the agenda because a part of the Republican base cares deeply about the issue. And yes, there are a lot more pressing matters Congress should be working on. Nashville, Tenn.: Where do you see the NSA phone logging issue heading? Will it be kept alive by a lawsuit, like the Paula Jones one that eventually led to Clinton's impeachment? David S. Broder: Congress seems reluctant to challenge the NSA practices, so it is likely the issue will find its way to the courts. This has to be my last question for today. I've enjoyed visiting with all of you. Dave Broder Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
Washington Post Columnist David S. Broder answers your questions about the world of politics, from the latest maneuverings on Capitol Hill to developments in the White House.
137.793103
0.965517
17.931034
high
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053102050.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053102050.html
Exxon Mobil Shareholders Defy Board
2006060219
Exxon officials said they believed it was the first time in the company's history that a resolution had been adopted over the objections of the company, and it was seen as a sign of anger over the board's decision to award outgoing chief executive Lee Raymond a final-year pay package of $69.4 million and a retirement lump sum of $98.4 million. "I think there's some unhappiness about the way [Raymond's] compensation was handled, and I think that's what we were seeing" with the shareholders who voted for the resolution, Tillerson said at a news conference after the meeting. The nonbinding resolution, which passed with 52.2 percent of shares voting, said directors should be required to get a majority, not just a plurality, of votes to win a spot on the board. As usual, all of the company's directors this year ran unopposed. In a further sign of shareholder discontent, four members of the board's compensation committee received 79.4 percent to 82 percent of the shares voted, after proxy advisory firm Institutional Shareholder Services urged stockholders to withhold their votes to protest the Raymond package. State treasurers in Connecticut and North Carolina said they would withhold their votes. Other directors received no less than 94 percent of shares voted. But the shareholders' anger at Raymond and the board didn't seem to spill over to Tillerson, who was applauded after a shareholder praised his "candor and friendliness" and denounced "disrespectful, rude and uneducating" treatment shareholders had received in recent years. Raymond had been known to reduce questioners to tears and brush off queries he didn't like, but Tillerson relaxed more as the meeting went on and joked about playing golf with a critic of the company's sponsorship of the Masters Tournament at the restrictive Augusta National Golf Club and not taking a wager offered by a clergyman because of Texas gambling laws. To his sharpest critics, those unhappy about Exxon's meager investment in alternative energy sources, Tillerson said in a conciliatory manner: "I don't think we have as big a difference as it seems." At the same time, he gave no ground to advocates of alternative energy, saying it would be of minor significance without technology advances. Several shareholders urged Tillerson to diversify investments for the good of the company, but he said that most alternative energy sources weren't worth Exxon's investment. "I'm looking at the world 15 to 20 years out," he said. "That's where I'm living." He said that the mix of energy sources 20 years from now would resemble the mix today. "It's a question of whether these are going to make a meaningful difference or not," he said. "We're going to do what's in the best long-term interests of shareholders." Exxon has drawn criticism from a several quarters, including Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman, the California Employees' Retirement System and Sierra Club, for doing what they say is too little to develop alternatives to petroleum. Tillerson was most combative with critics of Exxon's funding of scientists and institutes that cast doubt on global warming. With reference to the global warming debate, he said that the phrase "scientific consensus" was an "oxymoron." And he denounced those who said the company was underwriting "junk science," arguing that Exxon was simply taking part in the "debate" over global warming.
DALLAS, May 31 -- The performance Wednesday of Exxon Mobil Corp. chief executive Rex W. Tillerson at the company's annual meeting might have been downright warm and fuzzy compared with his predecessor's, but that didn't stop shareholders from adopting a resolution over the objections of the...
12.692308
0.634615
1.288462
low
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053102206.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053102206.html
Washington Post Staffers Take Early Retirement
2006060219
About 70 reporters, editors, photographers and newsroom administrators have taken early retirement offers from The Washington Post Co., as the company's flagship newspaper works to contain costs while circulation continues a slow slide. Some familiar and veteran bylines will exit The Post's pages, such as those of political writer Thomas B. Edsall, science writer Guy Gugliotta, foreign correspondent Daniel Williams, Metro reporter (and panda chronicler) D'Vera Cohn, and business columnists Jerry Knight and Leslie Walker. Staffers age 54 and older with 10 years of service were eligible to receive up to two years of full-time pay and benefits in exchange for leaving the newspaper before retirement age. Some, such as television critic Tom Shales and Metro columnist Courtland Milloy, are taking the offer but will keep writing for a period under contract. Others will become Post freelancers. The deadline for taking the early retirement offer, known colloquially in the industry as a "buyout," was Tuesday, but those who took it have a week to change their minds, so the final number of employees taking it is not set. Many have left The Post or will exit this week; others will stay on for a few months. About 100 Post employees outside the newsroom, such as those in the newspaper's pressrooms or on the advertising staff, took the offer. "This offering allows the news and business departments to reorganize their staffs in ways that work well today," said Post publisher Boisfeuillet Jones Jr. Buyouts are a common tool for businesses seeking to cut payroll costs. They generally are offered to older, higher-salaried employees. Their positions either remain unfilled or are filled by younger employees at lower salaries. For many Post staffers, the buyouts offer a chance to start second careers at a youthful age or pursue hobbies while receiving a steady pension check. Walker, the Business section's technology columnist, for instance, will work to finish a novel she started last year. Gugliotta's wife, Carla Anne Robbins, recently accepted a job writing editorials for the New York Times. They will move to the New York City region, and he will freelance. Horse aficionado Alison Howard, a Metro editor, will start an equestrian-services business with friends. Circulation at The Post and most daily newspapers has decreased in recent years, as readers turn to television and the Internet for news and information that once was the province of newspapers. The most recent year the average circulation for U.S. newspapers grew was 1987. Since then, it has been all downhill. Daily circulation at The Post peaked at 832,232 in 1993. The Post's daily circulation for the first three months of this year averaged 690,700, the company reported last month. Newspapers get about 75 percent of their revenue from advertising, and ad rates rise and fall with circulation figures. Ad revenue from The Post's Web site is increasing, but not fast enough to offset revenue loss from declining newspaper circulation. "Our newsroom has grown a lot over a number of years, in both size of staff and other expenses," said Post executive editor Leonard Downie Jr. "And as circulation has declined some and advertising revenue has leveled off at the moment, and we continue to have to pay higher costs for travel and those sorts of things and continue to give raises to members of our staff, we had to find some way to reduce the overall size of the newsroom." The 2006 newsroom budget was about the same as last year's, Downie said, and will shrink next year. Post Co. executives asked the newsroom to cut expenses but never threatened to take control of the news budget, Downie said. Top newsroom editors decided to cut what they called 80 "full-time equivalent" positions -- hoping to achieve the number through buyouts, trimming part-time employee hours and keeping some positions on the staff of more than 800 unfilled. At least 69 newsroom staffers have accepted the buyouts; Downie said there are no plans for layoffs. "We're going to be all right," he said.
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.
17
0.478261
0.478261
medium
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053101364.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053101364.html
Anti-Terror Funding Cut In D.C. and New York
2006060219
The Department of Homeland Security yesterday slashed anti-terrorism money for Washington and New York, part of an immediately controversial decision to reduce grant funds for major urban areas in the Northeast while providing more to mid-size cities from Jacksonville to Sacramento. The announcement that the two cities targeted on Sept. 11, 2001, would suffer 40 percent reductions in urban security funds prompted outrage from lawmakers and local officials in both areas, who questioned the wisdom of cutting funds so deeply for cities widely recognized as prime terrorist targets. The decision came less than five months after Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff unveiled changes in the grants plan intended to focus funding on areas facing the gravest risk of attack. Potential targets outside the Northeast also took painful hits, including New Orleans, San Diego and Phoenix. New Orleans's grants for security and disaster preparedness were cut in half even as it struggles to rebuild after Hurricane Katrina. In Washington, where the funding dropped from about $77 million to about $46 million, Mayor Anthony A. Williams called the decision "shortsighted." New York's grant plummeted from about $207 million to $124 million. A DHS risk scorecard for the city asserted that the home of the Empire State Building and the Brooklyn Bridge has "zero" national monuments or icons. "As far as I'm concerned, the Department of Homeland Security and the administration have declared war on New York," Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, told the Associated Press. "It's a knife in the back to New York, and I'm going to do everything I can to make them very sorry they made this decision." Homeland Security's grant programs have drawn criticism from cities both large and small; many have felt slighted by what they maintained was a haphazard and unfair distribution plan. This year's round of grants was supposed to ensure that enough money goes to areas at highest risk of terrorist attack by employing risk scores, effectiveness tests and 17 "peer review" panels consisting of homeland security professionals from 47 states. But department officials struggled yesterday to defend the latest outcome even as lawmakers in both parties denounced them. Most experts and many government officials had expected that the new review process would lead to more money, rather than less, for major terrorist targets such as Washington and New York. Tracy A. Henke, assistant secretary for grants and training, told reporters that the new funding distribution was the result of a better review process and does not indicate lesser risk for cities such as Washington or New York. Officials noted that Congress had cut the program by about $125 million in 2006, to $711 million, and that New York, Washington and other major cities still would receive the largest shares. "We have to understand that there is risk throughout the nation," Henke said. "We worked very hard to make sure that there was fairness in the process." The department refused to release the names of panel members or other details about the review boards. I. Michael Greenberger, director of the Center for Homeland Safety and Security at the University of Maryland, said the plan doesn't pass the common-sense test.
The Department of Homeland Security yesterday slashed anti-terrorism money for Washington and New York, part of an immediately controversial decision to reduce grant funds for major urban areas in the Northeast while providing more to mid-size cities from Jacksonville to Sacramento.
13.319149
1
47
low
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053101999.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053101999.html
FEC Adopts Hands-Off Stance on '527' Spending
2006060219
The same rules that allowed independent "527" groups such as America Coming Together and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to pump more than $400 million into the 2004 election campaigns will remain in place for now, the Federal Election Commission announced yesterday, a decision that invites even larger sums to be spent influencing races this year and in 2008. The FEC ruling, made on a vote of 4 to 2 in closed session was a response to an order by U.S. District Judge Emmett G. Sullivan. Noting the apparent "complete failure" of the FEC's regulatory efforts in 2004, Sullivan required the agency either to start crafting new rules or to issue a better explanation of how it will be able to regulate the groups effectively under existing rules. Commission Chairman Michael E. Toner was one of the two dissenting votes. "The stage is set for 527s to once again spend hundreds of millions of dollars in soft money to influence the 2006 midterms and the 2008 presidential election," he said. Money donated to 527 groups -- the name comes from the section of the federal tax code under which the organizations operate -- must be disclosed under election law. Unlike contributions to candidates or major parties, there are no limits on what an individual can give. In the 2004 presidential campaign, this allowed donors such as financier George Soros and insurance magnate Peter Lewis to be the major supporters of the liberal groups America Coming Together (ACT) and the Media Fund, which organized field operations and bought television ads against President Bush in swing states such as Ohio. On the other side, Texas developer Bob J. Perry helped fund the Swift Boat Veterans, which attacked Democratic nominee John F. Kerry's Vietnam War record. Committees aligned with the Democratic Party outspent their GOP competitors $320 million to $109 million, according to the Campaign Finance Institute. House Republicans have passed legislation to limit the money individuals donate to 527 groups to $25,000 for voter registration and turnout activities and to $5,000 for TV commercials. Senate Democrats, however, appear determined to block the measure. Toner said he sought to write a rule severely restricting contributions to 527 groups, but lost the vote yesterday. He was joined by fellow Republican Hans A. von Spakovsky. All three Democrats on the commission -- Robert D. Lenhard, Ellen L. Weintraub and Steven T. Walther -- joined Republican David M. Mason in the majority vote. The pro-Democratic tilt of 527 spending in 2003-2004 prompted opposition at the Republican National Committee, the Bush-Cheney campaign and among Republican members of the House and Senate. Republicans did not become actively involved in 527 fundraising until May 13, 2004, when the FEC rejected proposals to issue strong regulations governing contributions to the groups. The 527 activity in 2004 may not recur. Since the 2004 contest, ACT and the Media Fund effectively folded when Soros and some other Democratic heavy hitters withdrew support. Reps. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) and Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.), co-sponsors of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, had sued the FEC demanding tougher regulations and enforcement.
The same rules that allowed independent "527" groups such as America Coming Together and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to pump more than $400 million into the 2004 election campaigns will remain in place for now, the Federal Election Commission announced yesterday, a decision that invites even...
11.377358
0.981132
51.018868
low
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053101506.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053101506.html
Fundraiser Admits Illegal Bush Donations
2006060219
TOLEDO, May 31 -- A coin dealer and prominent GOP fundraiser at the center of an Ohio political scandal pleaded guilty Wednesday to federal charges that he illegally funneled about $45,000 to President Bush's reelection campaign. Tom Noe, who also raised money for Ohio Republicans, also is charged with embezzlement in an ill-fated $50 million coin investment that he managed for the state workers' compensation fund. The investment scandal has been a major embarrassment for Ohio's ruling Republicans and has given Democrats a better shot at winning state offices this year, including the governor's office, which has been under GOP control since 1991. Investigators do not know whether Noe used money from the coin fund for campaign donations. Noe was charged with exceeding federal campaign contribution limits, using others to make the contributions and causing the Bush campaign to submit a false campaign-finance statement. He said that he pleaded guilty to "spare my family and many dear friends" the ordeal of a trial. Noe, 51, has been free on bond since he was indicted in October, and he is living in Florida. Prosecutors planned to recommend a sentence of two to 2 1/2 years. The maximum sentence would be five years on each of three counts and a combined $950,000 in fines. A sentencing date was not set. In the other case, Noe has pleaded not guilty to stealing at least $1 million from the coin investment. A trial is scheduled for Aug. 29. Investigations into Noe's coin investment led to Gov. Bob Taft's no-contest plea to and conviction in August on charges he accepted golf outings and other gifts that he did not report. Noe personally gave more than $105,000 to Republicans during the 2004 campaign, including donations to Bush and Taft. The Bush-Cheney campaign donated $6,000 it received from Noe and his wife to charity. The rest of the money donated at the 2003 Bush fundraiser remains with the Republican Party.
TOLEDO, May 31 -- A coin dealer and prominent GOP fundraiser at the center of an Ohio political scandal pleaded guilty Wednesday to federal charges that he illegally funneled about $45,000 to President Bush's reelection campaign.
9.55
1
40
low
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053100831.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060219id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053100831.html
Clashes in Paris Suburbs Recall Riots of Fall
2006060219
PARIS, May 31 -- Small gangs of youths pelted riot police with rocks and set cars and garbage bins ablaze late Tuesday in a second night of unrest in the Paris suburbs, raising fears of a return of the disturbances that inflamed 300 French towns and suburbs last fall. The violence of the last two nights -- in which youths attacked police cars, government buildings and riot police -- was sparked in part by mounting resentment toward the mayor of the northeastern Paris suburb of Montfermeil, who in recent weeks imposed a law prohibiting 15- to 18-year-olds from gathering in groups of more than three and requiring anyone under 16 to be accompanied by an adult on city streets after 8 p.m. The French government last fall promised to improve living conditions and job opportunities in suburbs heavily populated by immigrant families and where unemployment is rampant, but little has been done and the government's main initiative -- a youth jobs bill -- ended with this spring's politically disastrous student demonstrations. At the same time, police have said crime has increased in poor suburban neighborhoods, and frustration with the government has continued to fester. "We have the painful sense that nothing has been fixed," Francois Hollande, leader of the opposition Socialist Party, said in an interview on France-2 Television. At 9:30 Tuesday night, an estimated 15 young people threw rocks and projectiles at police patrolling an apartment complex area. At 11 p.m., youths tossed a makeshift explosive into a police car. The officers inside barely had time to escape before the vehicle exploded in flames. Marauding youths set afire about a dozen private cars and torched numerous garbage bins in Montfermeil and the adjacent town of Clichy-sous-Bois, where last fall's three weeks of violence began when two teenagers were electrocuted as they tried to hide in a power substation. They believed police were chasing them. Muhittin Altun, a third youth who survived with severe burns in that incident, was arrested Tuesday night on charges of throwing rocks at a police car. He was later released, according to French news media. Six police officers were reported slightly injured and 13 youths were detained in Tuesday night's incidents. In Montfermeil, a suburb of high youth unemployment and government-subsidized housing projects, young people have been growing increasingly angry at Mayor Xavier Lemoine's attempts to crack down on gang violence. Although a local court earlier this month overturned his effort to limit youth gatherings, he vowed to seek other measures. On Monday, residents said, police roughed up a woman who protested police efforts to arrest her son, a suspect in the beating several weeks ago of a bus driver. Police ended up arresting both the mother and son, according to police. Monday night, hooded youths hurled stones and other projectiles at Mayor Lemoine's house and at City Hall, and the police who responded were attacked with baseball bats. The clashes lasted three hours and seven police officers reportedly were injured. French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, whose characterizations of rioters as "scum" inflamed last fall's violence, visited police officers who had responded to Monday night's incidents. "More than 100 hooligans set upon you -- masked and carrying weapons," he said. "We are confronting not a spontaneous revolt, but hooligans who have only a single purpose -- to create the most damage and injure as many people as possible." Transportation Minister Dominique Perben, of the ruling Union for a Popular Movement party, described the incidents as a "reminder" of last year's violence. "The question of the suburbs is a question for the entire political class," Perben told I-tele television. "We must have the courage to look things in the face."
PARIS, May 31 -- Small gangs of youths pelted riot police with rocks and set cars and garbage bins ablaze late Tuesday in a second night of unrest in the Paris suburbs, raising fears of a return of the disturbances that inflamed 300 French towns and suburbs last fall.
13.788462
1
52
low
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/01/AR2006060100714.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/01/AR2006060100714.html
N. Korea Invites U.S. to Bilateral Talks on Arms
2006060119
TOKYO, June 1 -- North Korea on Thursday invited Washington's chief delegate in nuclear disarmament talks to hold bilateral negotiations in Pyongyang, but only if the United States effectively demonstrates a commitment to working with the government of North Korea's ruler, Kim Jong Il. In a statement carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency, the Foreign Ministry invited Assistant Secretary of State Christopher R. Hill to Pyongyang. But it called on Washington to first prove that it "has made a political decision to carry out" an agreement struck last year at six-nation talks in Beijing that offered unspecified economic and diplomatic rewards to North Korea in exchange for its nuclear disarmament. Previously, the Bush administration has rejected bilateral talks with Pyongyang, insisting instead on the six-nation framework that also includes China, Japan, Russia and South Korea. North Korea has refused for months to return to those talks, citing U.S. "sanctions" imposed last year on financial institutions linked to Pyongyang's alleged counterfeiting operations. Thursday's statement reiterated the call to lift those financial restrictions. "The United States sticks by its position," White House press secretary Tony Snow said.
TOKYO, June 1 -- North Korea on Thursday invited Washington's chief delegate in nuclear disarmament talks to hold bilateral negotiations in Pyongyang, but only if the United States effectively demonstrates a commitment to working with the government of North Korea's ruler, Kim Jong Il.
4.46
1
50
low
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053102516.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006060119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053102516.html
Pistons Top Heat To Remain Alive
2006060119
AUBURN HILLS, Mich., May 31 -- Like every fan base in the NBA, the folks who fill the Palace of Auburn Hills appreciate a well-run fast break, they rise up and scream with delight when a three-pointer rips through the net and they holler with enthusiasm when one of their players throws down a hard dunk. But what really turns them on is defense, the kind of grind-it-out, possession-by-possession commitment to stopping an opponent that has allowed the Detroit Pistons to dominate the Eastern Conference for three seasons. In Game 5 of the conference finals on Wednesday night, the Pistons recaptured some of the "mojo" Coach Flip Saunders said they had lost by playing determined defense from the opening tip and swarming the Miami Heat down the stretch en route to a 91-78 victory in front of a sold-out crowd of 22,076. The Pistons avoided elimination and gave themselves a chance to host a deciding Game 7 on Sunday because they held Miami to a series low in points and kept the Heat's Dwyane Wade (23 points) from controlling the fourth period as he had in the first four games. Game 6 is Friday night in Miami. "We finally got to the point where we put a little pressure on them," Saunders said. "We've been in a funk here for two weeks and I told them before the game that it's time to get out of it and play the way we can play." On a night when they shot 42.9 percent and made only 2 of 15 three-point attempts, the Pistons were carried by their defense and by lanky forward Tayshaun Prince, who scored a playoff career-high 29 points on 11-of-17 shooting. Prince kept the Detroit offense going in a game in which Chauncey Billups (3-of-12 shooting, 17 points) and Richard Hamilton (7-of-21 shooting) missed several wide-open looks, forcing the Pistons to endure an extended fourth-quarter scoring drought. The difference was that, unlike Games 1, 3 and 4, the Pistons locked in on Wade and the rest of the Heat on the defensive end. Wade made 69.5 percent of his shots in the first four games while averaging 30.8 points, but he faced constant double-teaming in Game 5 and never looked comfortable. After scoring at least 10 fourth-quarter points in each of the first four games, Wade scored six points in the final period Wednesday night. He missed a three-pointer and a point-blank layup attempt down the stretch. "They came out like we knew they were going to come out," Wade said. "Pressure and energy. And we took the first couple of punches and we still were there. Tonight, they beat us to a lot of loose balls, tips, plays like that. Give them credit. They played hard, they played like a desperate team." A pair of possessions personified Detroit's victory. The first occurred in the third quarter when Detroit's Ben Wallace rose up, met Shaquille O'Neal in the air and emphatically blocked his shot. That play -- and its replay on the arena's screen -- drew the night's wildest roar and appeared to spark the Pistons, who took a 73-65 lead into the fourth quarter. The other key play happened in the fourth, with the Pistons clinging to a five-point lead. O'Neal blocked a shot by Hamilton but the ball kicked out to Prince, who was open behind the three-point line. Prince squared up and made the shot, giving Detroit an 82-76 lead with 4 minutes 28 seconds remaining. Miami Coach Pat Riley, who compared Prince's unorthodox style to former Los Angeles Laker Jamaal Wilkes, called Prince's shot a "backbreaker." Miami managed 13 fourth-quarter points on 6-of-14 shooting and also missed 7 of 8 free throws in the final period, and the Heat failed to score after O'Neal made a short jump hook with 3:30 to play. "They played the game with super energy," Riley said. "They took their defense up to another level. They were very intense in denying the ball inside, in pressing out on Dwyane. I think 13 [fourth-quarter] points is very indicative of what happened tonight." The Pistons have won eight of their last nine games in which they have faced elimination and they will face another must-win situation Friday night in Miami. "I think they understand what's at hand," Saunders said. "You can't be afraid to lose and you can't be afraid to fail. If you're going to be afraid to fail, then you usually play timid and this team has not really done that in these types of situations."
AUBURN HILLS, Mich., May 31 -- Like every fan base in the NBA, the folks who fill the Palace of Auburn Hills appreciate a well-run fast break, they rise up and scream with delight when a three-pointer rips through the net and they holler with enthusiasm when one of their players throws down a hard...
14.5
0.984375
62.015625
low
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/25/DI2006052501073.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/25/DI2006052501073.html
Post Politics Hour
2006053119
Don't want to miss out on the latest in politics? Start each day with The Post Politics Hour. Join in each weekday morning at 11 a.m. as a member of The Washington Post's team of White House and Congressional reporters answers questions about the latest in buzz in Washington and The Post's coverage of political news. Washington Post White House reporter Michael Fletcher was online Thursday, June 1, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the latest in political news. Political analysis from Post reporters and interviews with top newsmakers. Listen live on Washington Post Radio or subscribe to a podcast of the show. Philadelphia, Pa.: What do you know about the "experts" called to the WH a few days ago? Did you know that one of the "experts" was a man named Taheri, the op-ed in which the "Iran makes Jews wear yellow stars" rumor was started? I thought the "experts" were there to give honest opinions, according to Tony Snow. Michael Fletcher: Good morning. Sorry for the late start. I hadn't heard that about Taheri. I know that the president has been meeting regularly with a wider range of people-even some ardent critics-to hear a wider array of ideas about how to move forward in Iraq. Whether this causes him to change his policy is another question altogether. British Columbia, Canada: Good morning, and thanks for the chat. I'm sure I'm not the only person who sees the "core values" training in Iraq as purely PR and politically motivated. The well-trained members of the US services have had all kinds of training in sensitivity and dealing with civilians. Perhaps more training in dealing with fellow soldiers who allegedly commit these kinds of atrocities and how to deal with the aftermath and ensure that all guilty parties are dealt with, would be a better spending of time and resources. The effect on the outfit that had to clean up the allegedly massacred bodies is apparently overwhelming and horrific, and not what they signed up for. Michael Fletcher: Agreed. But soldiers in combat form a special bond, I'd imagine, one that is probably not unlike that formed between police officers who form a blue wall of silence, or whatever the term is. So some of that training might be to try to break through that wall. Indianapolis, Ind.: Speaking of politics, many conservative opinion makers in the media who said George Bush and the real thing; folks like George Will for example; owe Republicans voters some kind of explanation of how they misread Mr. Bush. Especially since they are once again writing editorials and blogs claiming to know who is a real conservative and who isn't. Some of us would like to know why we should take their advice. Michael Fletcher: Interesting. All along, the president presented himself as a compassionate conservative, a vague term that nonetheless conveyed the sense that he believed in the role of government. I guess no one would have predicted that federal spending would grow as it has on his watch. But at the same time, he has had to contend with some unexpected calamities, 9/11, the war, Katrina. Also, his tax cutting policy certainly fits anyone's definition of conservative. So the pundits weren't all wrong. New York, N.Y.: It's hard to read how the MSM is framing Bush's outreach to Iran. One report has it as "an honest offer, a hand extended." Another tags it "Well, they had no choice but to cave." Any idea on how the public at large will eventually regard it. (Yes, I am aware of the difficulty of making predictions, particularly about the future). Michael Fletcher: My best guest is that people will see the administration as making an appropriate effort to engage Iran. But this is a tough issue to measure because so few people in the U.S. public seem to have any idea of--or apparent interest in--the Iranian point of view on this. I know, they were the hostage takers. They promote terrorist groups, etc. But one look at the Web site of the Iranian news agency gives one the idea that we are dealing with a country where people are fed an entirely different stream of information than we are. They get "news" of Zionist plots and such. I get the sense that the nuclear program is a source of national pride in Iran, despite the many fissures in that country. It seems like engaging Iran is the only hope of bridging that gulf, at least a little. Arlington, Va.: Will McCain's support for the current version of the Senate immigration bill doom his chances at winning his party's nomination in 2008? Michael Fletcher: I think not. But as I often say, I've been wrong before. Immigration strikes me as an issue that is pressing to the point of influencing votes only in a relative handful of places in the country. Moreover, there is a powerful argument to be made that a liberal immigration policy is in keeping with the founding ideals of America. Anybody who's been to Harlem, or Northwest Washington, or parts of South Florida, or North Carolina or Omaha, for that matter, can can see not only the strains immigration causes, but also its renewing energy. That may be enough to counter the anger many people feel about the issue. Germantown, Md.: I'm telling you, I don't think Hilary Clinton runs for President in two years. I think she knows its smarter to look like she is, take the hits from now until the last min, then say she's staying put. Let all those folks who attacked her for years look stupid. She's still young, and could wait another 4-8 years. Michael Fletcher: Interesting. I'd bet the other way, if only because the opportunity seems ripe in 2008 for Democrats. But I also believe Hillary Clinton is a cautious politician and would only run if she truly thought she could win. Princeton, N.J.: A few ago, there was a spate of articles saying that Iran had only made 14% (or something like this) pure uranium while 90% was needed for weapons, and that they were 10 years away from a bomb. Now they have become a imminent threat again. What is the truth? Michael Fletcher: I don't know the technical ins and outs here, but what I keep hearing is that they would have the technical know-how in a year or less--at least, those are the worst-case estimates. After that, some say, they would have passed the point of no return and building a bomb would be only a matter of time, even if it is a decade or so. Wilmington, N.C.: You are in the room with the President sometimes and I've just got to get your sense on this: I watch him joking, joshing, nicknaming and winking with reporters and it reminds me of people I know with the kind of towel-snapping sense of humor that flows from ridicule and insult. I hear you all laughing, and I wonder, is it better-natured than it sounds and looks? Or, is it like a "laugh at the boss' jokes" thing? Michael Fletcher: The president seems to have a good sense of humor. And he has a playful personality and is personable. He hasn't been successful in politics for nothing. But just below that you can sense the intensity of the job he is in and a kind of prickly personality. So that might account for the half smiles in the press corps. Denver, Colo.: One of President Bush's largest expenditures is coming from the military budget and the Iraq war. His decision to fight in Iraq in response to 9/11 is a real departure from the traditional conservative values. I'm not sure compassionate conservative is an apt description at this point. Michael Fletcher: It's his description, not mine. Bethesda, Md.: Building in a different direction on Indianapolis' question... back in 2000 many of us observed Mr. Bush for a month or so and concluded that the man was just not very bright or qualified for the position. We were dismissed as partisans, of course. Using the Forrest Gump definition of "stupid", don't those in the MSM who worked hard to prop up the man's image during the early years owe the country a big "mea culpa"? Michael Fletcher: Huh? The question of the president's intelligence was one that was debated throughout the 2000 campaign. I regularly read, rightly or wrongly, that the president is not curious. I didn't see any members of the press propping him up on that. But, you know, how does one define intelligence? It comes in many forms. Pittsburgh, Pa.: What's the scoop on this new Treasury Secretary? Articulate? Charismatic? Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound? Can he convince Americans the economy is in great shape when job creation is so crummy, to wit 1.519 million private sector jobs created since Bush took office? Michael Fletcher: I don't Hank Paulson will convince anybody that they're doing well if they are not. But he is highly regarded as a crisis manager and a master of the ways of Wall Street, who has a keen understanding of, as the president says, our "global world." The problem in the economy is less job creation, which has been decent, than the flat (actually slightly declining) median household income over the past five years. Add to that the increase in poverty and rising gasoline prices and there can be little wonder why most Americans anxious about what's in their wallets. San Jose, Calif.: Good morning, It appears that there has been a strategy to slowly release details to the public of the killings in Haditha. Two questions: 1. Is this also your perception? 2. Why do you believe this strategy has been adopted? Michael Fletcher: It seems that way. But White House officials say the Marines are still investigating. And no one wants to get anything wrong here, because if Abu Ghraib caused an international sensation, can you imagine the reaction to this if it turns out to be as rumored--or worse? Arlington, Va.: What do you think will be the big issues for November? Some of the expected stances are now being thrown away. I would say that the Republicans are going to have a hard time picking Immigration (squabbling) and the 'hold the line on spending' vs the Democrats who will have a hard time pushing corruption, i.e. Jefferson may. One other thought, is an election always about individual races or a broader dissatisfaction (Iraq)? Michael Fletcher: I'm one of those who believe that the vast majority of elections come down to local issues. Most House seats are tailor-made for the incumbents. Incumbency has always been powerful, and may be even more so now. But that is not to say that you can't have a big wave election. And this could be one. While Iraq is the big issue in my mind, I don't necessarily see how it will play in House races. I think Iraq will dominate in 2008 presidential race, unless there is phenomenal progress in the war before than. Iranian POV: Ask ten Americans on the street why Iran does not like us and you will get regurgitated propaganda mumblings about nutcase Islamic extremists who hate Israel and us by proxy (well, the latter has some truth to it). But not one of them will have any idea how we undermined Iran's attempts at self-determination for decades for the benefit of our oil companies. And you guys in the media never mention it, so who can blame them??? Michael Fletcher: I think we mention things like that more than you suggest, but perhaps not often enough. As a general matter, I think we should take more seriously the points of view of some "enemies" of the U.S. Hugo Chaves is criticized for selling cut-rate oil to his friends. Castro for clinging to Communism. I think if we understood more about the views of people in other countries it would promote deeper understanding. Washington, D.C.: RE: FBI raid on Rep. Jefferson: Michael, thanks for the chat. I've been submitting this question all week to your colleagues so am hoping you'll tackle it. I am struck by how ardently the House GOP leadership has attacked the White House for the FBI raid, even though it would seem to trip up the GOP's attempts to claim Democrats are just as corrupt as they are. My question is, do you see this counterintuitive (aka "boneheaded") move as indicating a stand on principle or a desire to defend congressional perks? And do you think they will continue on this course? Thanks! Michael Fletcher: I think they are interested in defending the prerogatives of members of Congress. Period. The Post Web site reports that Bush is pushing Congress for a deal on the impossibly incompatible immigration bills that the two houses are negotiating. I think the House is stuck with the "no earned legal status," i.e. amnesty, while the Senate coalition depends upon it. What can an increasingly lame duck executive bring to the table? Michael Fletcher: Not much, it seems. The president has been pressing this issue for months now, and it seems that few in the House are listening. Michael Fletcher: Gotta run. Thanks for the great questions. Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
Washington Post White House reporter Michael Fletcher discusses the latest buzz in Washington and The Post's coverage of political news.
122.681818
0.954545
8.954545
high
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053102039.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053102039.html
Hijacking Harry Truman
2006053119
No matter how polarized Washington becomes, there is still one Democrat Republicans love: Harry Truman. Last December, on this page, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declared the Bush administration's democracy promotion efforts "consistent with the proud tradition of American foreign policy, especially such recent presidents as Harry Truman." Last weekend President Bush devoted his West Point commencement address to an extended analogy between himself and the 33rd president, invoking Truman no fewer than 17 times. Conservative commentators are fond of the analogy, too. Indeed, it is a virtual article of faith on the contemporary right that today's conservatives -- not today's liberals -- are the true heirs of the anti-totalitarian tradition with which we associate Truman's name. The truth is rather different. Bush and Rice are correct that Truman saw tyranny as a threat to world peace and believed in resisting it, by means that included force. At West Point, Bush quoted Truman's famous declaration in his March 1947 speech proposing military aid to the besieged governments of Greece and Turkey: "It must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." But there are other Truman classics that Bush conveniently overlooked. For instance: "We all have to recognize, no matter how great our strength, that we must deny ourselves the license to do always as we please." Truman did not believe merely in promoting democracy and peace; he believed that doing so required powerful international institutions, which could invest American power with the credibility that the Soviets lacked. In the years immediately after World War II, the United States encased itself in a web of such bodies -- from the United Nations and NATO to the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (now the World Trade Organization). And Truman was frank in recognizing that such institutions gave weaker countries an influence over American actions. As the historian John Lewis Gaddis has written, "It was not that the Americans lacked the capacity to force their allies into line . . . [but] what is surprising is how rarely this happened; how much effort the United States put into persuading -- quite often deferring to -- its NATO partners." Bush, by contrast, more than any president in recent history, has sought to liberate the United States from international treaties and institutions -- from the Kyoto global warming treaty to the International Criminal Court to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. To be sure, even Bill Clinton sometimes had trouble getting international agreements through Congress. But in the Bush administration, opposing infringements on U.S. sovereignty has become a cardinal foreign policy principle. In Bush's view, American power legitimizes itself -- we don't need to listen to other countries, because sooner or later they will realize that we were right and they were wrong. Had Bush been around in the late 1940s, he might well have accused Truman of seeking a "permission slip" before defending the United States. Indeed, some conservatives said almost exactly that at the time. It is they -- not Truman -- who are Bush's true ideological forefathers. Truman also believed that spreading democracy required combating economic despair. He allocated between 2.5 and 5 percent of U.S. national income over four years to the Marshall Plan, in the belief that unless Europe's fragile postwar democracies improved their people's lives, they were likely to fail. Then, in his 1949 State of the Union address, he went further and proposed a Marshall Plan for the Third World. In fact, while Truman increased military spending, he and his advisers repeatedly described economic development as more important to the anti-communist cause. In 1947 his defense secretary, James Forrestal, noted that "at the present time we are keeping our military expenditures below the levels which our military leaders must in good conscience estimate as the minimum which would in themselves ensure national security. By so doing we are able to increase our expenditures to assist in the European recovery." Try to imagine Donald Rumsfeld saying that. Indeed, while the Bush administration has boosted foreign aid over its appallingly low pre-Sept. 11, 2001, levels, such increases have been trivial compared with the massive new allotments for defense. And one of the primary reasons for mounting anti-American sentiment in Afghanistan is America's failure to fulfill our promises to help rebuild that country after we toppled the Taliban. As The Post's Barton Gellman and Dafna Linzer reported in October 2004, "The president and his most influential advisers, many officials said, do not see those [economic] factors -- or U.S. policy overseas -- as primary contributors to the terrorism threat." Again, there is a Cold War precedent for this view. But it lies in the arguments of conservatives such as Barry Goldwater, who ridiculed claims that Third World poverty aided communism's appeal. Harry Truman, by contrast, believed in fighting totalitarianism fiercely, but with more than just guns, and through international institutions that made U.S. power legitimate in the world. George W. Bush should remember that the next time he takes Truman's name in vain. Peter Beinart is editor at large of the New Republic and author of "The Good Fight: Why Liberals -- and Only Liberals -- Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again." He will take questions today at 2 p.m. athttp://www.washingtonpost.com.
Harry Truman fought totalitarianism with both guns and international institutions. George W. Bush should remember that the next time he takes Truman's name in vain.
37.178571
0.928571
12
high
medium
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/31/DI2006053101791.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/31/DI2006053101791.html
Opinion: Bush is No Harry Truman
2006053119
Peter Beinart , editor-at-large at The New Republic and author of "The Good Fight: Why Liberals -- and Only Liberals -- Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again," was online Thursday, June 1, at 2 p.m. ET to discuss his op-ed on the Bush administration's comparisons between the President's foreign policy and that of Harry Truman . Beinart says that despite their common anti-totalitarian rhetoric, the two leaders differ greatly in their approach to spreading democracy in other nations, and that Truman favored international institutions and economic aid more than the defense-oriented Bush team. Read the op-ed: Hijacking Harry Truman , ( Post, June 1, 2006 ) Washington, D.C.: You draw connections between the War on Terror and the Cold War, yet you also supported the war in Iraq. (Your more recent repudiation had more to do with 'facts on the ground' than core logic.) If this were the Cold War, we'd be holding Moscow (even assuming Iraq can be compared to that) in the hopes that the rest of the Soviet Union would fall around it. Wouldn't the lessons to take from the Cold War be to surround the enemy with working democracies, and only attack when attacked? Iraq was never purported to have anything to do with 9/11, and the 'domino' theory has never been tested -inside- the enemy stronghold. Peter Beinart: Actually, my repudiation is all about "core logic." As I write in my book, The Good Fight, I was wrong on the facts (thinking Saddam had a nuclear weapons program) but also wrong on the theory (not recognizing sufficiently the interplay between the war's illegitimacy in the world and its illegitimacy in Iraq. Yes, expanding democracy in the Islamic world, leading strong alliances and making America stronger at home--so we have the internal fortitude for a long struggle--is the lesson of cold war liberalism for today, I believe. Bethesda, Md.: Peter, I'm not sure I buy into your belief that the threat of terrorism is on the same level as communism. In retrospect, it obviously makes sense that liberals would put anti-communism at the center of their platform - the Cold War after all lasted almost half a century, cost countless lives and threatened nuclear holocaust. Is terrorism - which is not a phenomenon that originated with 9/11 - truly worthy of being the central focus of a liberal foreign policy? Peter Beinart: I'd say two things. First, terrorists are dangerously precisely because they don't control a state---because deterrence works against states that have something to lose. And the increase in technology, particularly in biowarfare, gives individuals potentially the ability to do what only states could once do. But jihadism is only one of a range of threats we face today--all linked by the fact that they exploit globalization. pandemics, global warming, loose nukes, financial contagion--begin with one countries failures and rapidly affect other countries. That's the larger prism, which I think requires proactive, but legitimate American action, through empowered international institutions. Los Angeles, Calif.: Outside attacking liberals and ridiculing Al Gore, what else interests "The New Republic" these days? Peter Beinart: I'd suggest you read the magazine. In every issue, you'll extremely strong criticism of the Bush administration and its domestic and international projects. As well as disagreement with liberals where we feel they aren't living up to liberal principles, as we define them. Atlanta, Ga.: Harry Truman famously said, "How can I trust a man if his wife can't?" I think Truman would be shocked by the way the Democratic Party responded to Bill Clinton's initial lies to his wife and subsequent lies to a grand jury. That Democrats would consider nominating his wife (who must either be incredibly gullible or else too cravenly ambitious to stand up for herself) would send him through the roof. Where am I wrong? Peter Beinart: Truman also served at a time when politicians' private lives were private. That may have had costs (to the women exploited, for instance), but I don't think there is any logical relation between personal and public conduct. People are just too complex for that. Clinton was reckless personally, cautious politically. Bush is perhaps the opposite. I disagreement with Truman on that. Silver Spring, Md.: Mr Beinart, I must confess that I am not sure I can trust someone who now promotes Truman's liberal foreign policy yet only a few years ago supported a war (Iraq) that was so obviously against the Cold War liberal tradition. Why should liberals follow your vision liberalism if it could lead to another Iraq war? Peter Beinart: My argument is about marrying power and legitimacy. Iraq fails that test, which is why I was wrong to support it. My view would be--if we're directly, imminently threatened, we can act alone, if need be. Perhaps even in some extreme moral emergencies (unfolding genocide) we should do so, if we can do good. But absent that, we should seek at least democratic legitimacy--our NATO allies of not the UN. That standard--which I should have applied in early 2003--would not have led to us to go to war the way we did, and probably not at all. Chicago, Ill.: Mr. Beinart, I enjoy your commentary. Do you see any Democrat who can bring the party back in 2008 to a foreign and defense policy that is both strong and conveys a progressive, helpful agenda in the traditions of Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy? Peter Beinart: It's too early to tell. We don't know what Hillary Clinton, Mark Warner or anyone else will be saying in 2008. But I'd watch Barak Obama and his forthcoming book, which has a foreign policy chapter. He may break new ground. Lexington, Ky.: Mr. Beinart: I am not a liberal, but I find your arguments fascinating and respect your willingness to get out your message even if it entails being unfairly demonized on Fox News. I think rooting liberalism in its foreign policy achievements of the late 40s and the intellectual force of its historic champions makes more sense than promoting DailyKos-Pelosism, for lack of a better term. Likewise, I found Howard Dean's appeal to Scoop Jackson admirable. But, what of the liberal instinct to tax and spend? Much of what hurts liberalism today is the belief that no matter what the problem is liberals will always claim that the solution is to increase taxes and spend the revenue on controversial programs disfavored by a majority of individual Americans and yet supposedly "in the public interest" or "for the common good". I'd appreciate your thoughts on this issue and hope to see you continue to engage in public debate with liberals, libertarians, and conservatives. Peter Beinart: Thank you for the kind words. What Bill Clinton showed, I think, is that what should matter for liberals is the end results, particularly: is life getting better for poor and working class Americans, the least of these. That's the acid test. If you can improve their lives with market mechanisms like the Earned Income Tax Credit, which he did, with impressive results, that's fine. (The EITC is partially responsible for the great gains among poor Americans in the 1990s). I suspect it will take some new programs too, and some higher taxes--on unearned wealth, while perhaps cutting taxes on actual wages. My view is we should focus on ends--and be pragmatic on means when it comes to domestic social and economic policy. Bethesda, Md.: Of course Bush is no Truman (and vice-versa). But isn't the principal distinction that their respective programs were implemented under very different international circumstances? President Bush inherited a dysfunctional global collective security apparatus that failed to respond effectively to the morass of dictatorships in the Middle East incubating terrorists -- and international institutions that favored indefinite toleration of Saddam's murderous regime. Isn't it true that under similar circumstances Truman might well have eventually rejected collective security and turned to those allies who would assist the United States in pursuing its preferred policies. Or at least, shouldn't we acknowledge that we don't know what Truman would have done? Peter Beinart: Excellent question. Efforts at institution building can fail, and leave America with only coalitions of the willing. But the costs--as we have seen--are very high, in practical capacity and legitimacy on the ground. What Bush hasn't done--and Truman and FDR did--is try to empower, rebuild and build institutions. If the UN is too weak, let's make it more able to intervene in fail states and do peacekeeping (which, contrary to perception, it is pretty good at). But that will require effort by the United States--and a willing to help ourselves. Right now we don't participate in peackeeping at all. And besides the UN, we should be strengthening institutions of democracies, like the Community of Democracies. While I agree with your premise that only Liberals can win the war on terror, I'm not hopeful that enough of those true liberals exist. Do you see any hope that liberalism in the U.S. can break out of its current moral equivalency/isolationism cocoon? Peter Beinart: Sure. I don't there is some rise in liberal isolationism in response to the Iraq war and alienation with Bush, as expressed in polling. But during the 1990s, and right after 9/11, there was very little difference in how seriously liberals and conservatives took the threat. With the right leadership and as Bush changes from the scene, I think attitudes could change. American Univ: Mr. Beinart, I must say that when I read your article "The Rehabilitation of a Cold War Liberal" I became excited to read your book. However, now having looked back at your essay "A Fighting Faith" I have some serious misgivings. Most important, as a supporter of the Afghan war but against the Iraq invasion (but against withdrawal), and as an early supporter of Moveon.org and Michael Moore (who later canceled his MoveOn membership and refused to watch Fahrenheit 9/11), I feel as if you severely mischaracterized liberals like me, lumping us all together in a group of soft, anti-GWOT doves. Do you still hold the same opinions as those presented in your earlier essay? Peter Beinart: I don't think I did characterize liberals like you that way. The criticism was of Moore and MoveOn for opposing the Afghan war. And I further argued that liberals hadn't made fighting terrorism a central part of liberal identity, as I think it must be, because of the threat it poses to liberal values at home and abroad. Bethesda, Md.: Other than your belief in international institutions, how do you differentiate yourself from neoconservatism? Peter Beinart: On the domestic requirements for foreign policy strength. Neocons support the right's larger attempt to defund government, which runs smack into government's ability to act in the world--whether it be military spending, foreign aid or even homeland security spending. And by not making real efforts to address the economic insecurity of Americans--their lack of health care, child care etc--they make it harder for Americans to be generous abroad. As I write in my book, The Good Fight, Cold war liberals understood that to be generous abroad, government must be generous at home. Boca Raton, Fla.: I have not heard any of you liberals say why places in Africa deserve liberation and the people of Iraq should not. Last night with Tucker Carlson, you ducked his question. You also gave an example of how people in Africa show in their polling they want to be liberated, yet you seem to have missed the elections in Iraq which show they want to be liberated as well. I feel that the hatred for President Bush overrides any clear thinking on the part of liberals and what he is trying to accomplish. It is not Africa or that region that wages attacks on the world. Please tell me what is the liberal plan for peace and safety for America in the Middle East. Peter Beinart: I don't know if Iraqis wanted to be liberated in March 2003. There was no way to tell. But right now, it is debatable whether we have really improved their lives. For some, yes. For others, with the death and destruction, certainly not. And there is the question of opportunity cost--moral as well as economic--our inability to act in Darfur because we're overstretched. The increasing deficit. Our weak position versus Iran. These have to factored in. Montreal, Canada: Thanks for doing this chat. Surely another way that Bush is not comparable to Truman is the latter's very public campaign against war profiteering. How do you think Truman would have reacted to some of the Iraq reconstruction contracts signed in the last five years? Peter Beinart: I'd like to think he would have more generally insisted on a policy of openness and accountability. His administration wasn't perfect on that score--but he didn't take power, as Bush and Cheney did, with a conscious desire to strip the executive of as much legislative and judicial oversight as possible. Silver Spring, Md.: At the U.N. building in New York, and at SAIS here in D.C., there is a sculpture dedicated to Dag Hammerskjold and honoring his "Zealous Pursuit of Peace". When was the last time you ever heard anyone talk about the zealous pursuit of peace? Do you think that it is an honorable goal that should be occasionally included in foreign policy discussions? Peter Beinart: Absolutely. What makes it complicated is that the threats to peace today are less often state on state wars, and more often non-state actors, and what governments do to their own people. The UN didn't address that when it was founded. But it has been moving in that direction, and the US must lead the effort. Because peace is also about an individuals ability to live safely in their own country, without fear of their own government. Washington, D.C.: Do you think that being "strong" in the arena of national security also means that presidents should sometimes resist the clarion call for self-destructive wars? Lyme, Conn.: Did you read some of the journal articles from the 1990s from some of today's neo-cons arguing for an invasion of Iraq even back then? There was a sense that America has a responsibility to itself to do as it pleases to protect its economy through protecting our access to oil. I fear our acting alone and acting only in our own self-interest in foreign relations decisions is making other countries lose their regard for us and that our regard for other countries aw comes through in other means, such as our lack of following international law during prison brutality. How would Truman have reacted to something similar to the prison abuses? Peter Beinart: Truman wasn't perfect. But he did say that America must improve its own democracy in order to inspire others to struggle for democracy. That's one argument he made for civil rights. So I think he'd have a different view than Bush on torture, I think. Annapolis, Md.: How can we liberals convince the candidates to be themselves -- and stand up for their beliefs -- and not listen to the handlers who seem to have molded them into mindless puppets? Don't you agree that Gore and Kerry might have done a whole lot better without their handlers? Peter Beinart: I do, and I suspect future candidates won't make that mistake. Democrats know the cost of inauthenticity--it may be as costly as the most unpopular positions. Bush said: you may not always agree with me, but you know where I stand. Democrats should try that. Petaluma, Calif.: In "The Future of Freedom", Fareed Zakaria argues that there is a certain level of per capita income that is necessary for democracy to take root in a country. That seems to accord with Truman's interest in economic development as a tool of foreign policy. Given that, regardless of one's views on the Iraq war, now or at its beginning, do you see any hope of a successful democracy there? Peter Beinart: Iraq is complicated because of oil. States with oil--even if they have high per capita income--often don't create the right kind of middle class necessary for democracy. On the other hand, its unlikely a dictator will ever be able to put the lid on in Iraq anymore, so they may have to create a more representative government, long term. Reston, Va.: In a Utopian world, economy-related support of less fortunate nations should eventually solve the problems currently inherent in emigration to the US and other more economically advantaged nations that is based primarily on poverty (as opposed to oppression) in the home country. Do you see America and other more fortunate nations ever reaching a point where such an initiative becomes feasible and generally accepted? Peter Beinart: There are rising calls from European leaders, evangelicals and others for more of a commitment to global poverty. Blair is excellent on this. With American leadership, I think a lot could be done. washingtonpost.com: Thank you all for joining us today. 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.
Peter Beinart, editor-at-large at The New Republic, discusses his op-ed on the Bush administration's comparisons between the President's foreign policy and that of Harry Truman.
95.611111
0.972222
17.472222
high
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053100488.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053100488.html
U.S. to Join Talks With Iran If Uranium Enrichment Stops
2006053119
The Bush administration offered for the first time yesterday to join European talks with Iran over its nuclear program, but only if the Iranian government suspends efforts to enrich uranium and reprocess spent nuclear fuel, which the administration calls part of a covert attempt to make bombs. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced the U.S. policy shift at a State Department news conference, warning that if the Iranian government chooses not to negotiate and to continue pursuing its nuclear ambitions, "it will incur only great costs." "We urge Iran to make this choice for peace, to abandon its ambition for nuclear weapons," Rice said. Refusing to do so, she added, "will lead to international isolation and progressively stronger political and economic sanctions." A senior administration official said there is substantial agreement from Russia and China -- two nations that have resisted sanctions against Iran -- on an escalating series of U.N. penalties that would be imposed if Iran does not comply. He said negotiators are expected to finalize a package that includes potential sanctions for noncompliance, as well as benefits if Iran accepts a deal being crafted by several nations during a meeting in Vienna today. Rice left for the meeting shortly after her announcement. The Bush administration previously refused to engage in direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program, preferring to let three European Union nations -- Britain, France and Germany, known as the E.U.-3 -- conduct negotiations. But Germany lately has increasingly urged Washington to deal with Tehran directly, as have a growing roster of foreign policy experts and at least two U.S. senators. "I thought it was important for the United States to take the lead, along with our partners, and that's what you're seeing," President Bush told reporters. "You're seeing robust diplomacy. I believe this problem can be solved diplomatically, and I'm going to give it every effort to do so." John R. Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, called Javad Zarif, his Iranian counterpart, before Rice's announcement to inform him of the administration's willingness to engage in direct talks. Meanwhile, Rice's remarks were also given to the Swiss ambassador to the United States for transmission to Iran. Iranian officials offered no clear, immediate reaction. The official Islamic Republic News Agency expressed skepticism on its Persian-language Web site, underscoring Iran's line that "halting enrichment definitely doesn't meet [its] interests." By this morning, however, its English-language site was led by an interview with former president Mohammad Khatami, who had promoted renewed contacts with Washington. Without mentioning the U.S. overture directly, Khatami said "the flag of dialogue and understanding, which was slightly on the verge of extinction, is again gaining momentum." In extending the offer to enter the nuclear talks, Rice made it clear that the United States would not contemplate restoring diplomatic relations with Iran, which were severed during the 1979 hostage crisis, until the regime made changes, including renouncing its support of terrorist groups. Senior Chinese and Russian officials welcomed the U.S. offer of direct talks, saying it showed an increased willingness to pursue diplomatic means to resolve the budding nuclear crisis. Still, Wang Guangya, China's ambassador to the United Nations, said the United States should provide Iran with security assurances and drop its demand that Iran cease uranium enrichment before such talks could begin. "I think it in a way proves that the U.S. is more serious about the negotiations than about other options, but I do hope that this offer could be less conditional," Wang told reporters. Wang said China may be prepared to take a tougher line with Iran if the United States and Europe offer more "attractive carrots" to the Iranians, including security assurances, and a pledge to allow Tehran to pursue a peaceful nuclear energy program, including a small research-and-development project on uranium enrichment. The United States and key European allies oppose such a project, saying it would provide Tehran with the technical know-how to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Estimates vary, but some experts think Iran could master the expertise needed to produce a nuclear weapon by the end of the year, though U.S. intelligence agencies estimate that it would take Tehran a decade to build a bomb. The shift in U.S. policy came after mounting calls for a dialogue with Iran from foreign policy experts and lawmakers, notably former secretaries of state Henry A. Kissinger and Madeleine K. Albright, and Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.). The pressure increased in early May when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote a rambling 18-page letter that was dismissed by Bush but was seen in much of the world as an invitation for talks with the United States. The letter was followed by back-channel communications making it clear that the Iranians were seeking direct talks. Administration officials, meanwhile, said they began seriously discussing a plan to enter talks with Iran two months ago. Rice, on her way to New York in early May for what turned out to be a contentious meeting on the Iran issue, sketched an outline of a plan, a senior State Department official said. Later, a small group -- including officials from the State Department, the White House and the Defense Department -- was assembled to flesh out her ideas. Bush discussed them with British Prime Minister Tony Blair during his visit to Washington last week, and Bush followed that up with phone calls to the leaders of France, Germany and Russia on Tuesday to ensure that they were on board. Rice, meanwhile, discussed the idea with her Chinese counterpart, Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing, before Bush gave final approval to the offer. Rice and other Bush administration officials said the offer of direct negotiations would eliminate the argument that the U.S. refusal to deal directly with Iran on the nuclear issue was the impediment to resolving the impasse. "This is the last excuse in some sense," she said. "There have been those who have said, 'Well, if only the negotiations had the potential for the United States to be a part of them, perhaps then Iran would respond.' So now we have a pretty clear path." Staff writer Colum Lynch at the United Nations and correspondent Karl Vick in Tehran contributed to this report.
The Bush administration offered for the first time yesterday to join European talks with Iran over its nuclear program, but only if the Iranian government suspends efforts to enrich uranium and reprocess spent nuclear fuel, which the administration calls part of a covert attempt to make bombs.
24.42
1
50
medium
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053100937.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053100937.html
Condoleezza Rice Holds News Conference on Iran
2006053119
SPEAKER: CONDOLEEZZA RICE, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE The pursuit by the Iranian regime of nuclear weapons represents a direct threat to the entire international community, including to the United States and to the Persian Gulf region. In defiance of repeated calls from the IAEA Board of Governors and from the Security Council, the Iranian government has accelerated its nuclear program, while continuing to conceal its activities from international inspectors. Working with our international partners, the United States is making every effort to achieve a successful diplomatic outcome. But the international community has made clear that Iran must not acquire nuclear weapons. The vital interests of the United States, of our friends and allies in the region, and of the entire international community are at risk, and the United States will act accordingly to protect those common interests. Today, the Iranian regime can decide on one of two paths, one of two fundamentally different futures for its people and for its relationship to the international community. The Iranian government's choices are clear. The negative choice is for the regime to maintain its current course, pursuing nuclear weapons in defiance of the international community and its international obligations. If the regime does so, it will incur only great costs. We and our European partners agree that path will lead to international isolation and progressively stronger political and economic sanctions. The positive and constructive choice is for the Iranian regime to alter its present course and cooperate in resolving the nuclear issue, beginning by immediately resuming suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, as well as full cooperation with the IAEA and returning to implementation of the additional protocol which would provide greater access for the IAEA. RICE: This path would lead to the real benefit and longer-term security of the Iranian people, the region and the world as a whole. The Iranian people believe they have a right to civil nuclear energy. We acknowledge that right. Yet the international agreements Iran has signed make clear that Iran's exercise of that right must conform with its commitments. In view of its previous violations of its commitments and the secret nuclear program it undertook, the Iranian regime must persuasively demonstrate that it has permanently abandoned its quest for nuclear weapons. The benefits of the second path for the Iranian people would go beyond civil nuclear energy and could include progressively greater economic cooperation. The United States will actively support these benefits, both publicly and privately. Furthermore, President Bush has consistently emphasized that the United States is committed to a diplomatic solution to the nuclear challenge posed by the Iranian regime. We are agreed with our European partners on the essential elements of a package containing both benefits, if Iran makes the right choice, and costs, if it does not. We hope that in the coming days the Iranian government will thoroughly consider this proposal. Our British, French and German partners have rightly required that Iran fully and verifiably suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities before the sides can return to negotiations. This is the condition that has also been established by the IAEA Board of Governors and by the U.N. Security Council. RICE: The United States is willing to exert strong leadership to give diplomacy its very best chance to succeed. Thus, to underscore our commitment to a diplomatic solution and to enhance the prospects for success, as soon as Iran fully and verifiably suspends its enrichment and reprocessing activities, the United States will come to the table with our E.U. colleagues and meet with Iran's representatives. This morning, United States representatives have conveyed my statement to Iran through the good offices of the Swiss government and through Iran's representative to the United Nations. Given the benefits of this positive path for the Iranian people, regional security and the nuclear nonproliferation regime, we urge Iran to make this choice for peace, to abandon its ambition for nuclear weapons. President Bush wants a positive relationship between the American people and the people of Iran, a beneficial relationship of increased contacts in education and cultural exchange, in sports and travel and trade and investment. The nuclear issue, though, is not the only obstacle standing in the way of improved relations. The Iranian government supports terror. It is involved in violence in Iraq. And it is undercutting the restoration of full sovereignty in Lebanon under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559. These policies are out of step with the international community and are barriers to a positive relationship between the Iranian people and the people of the United States, as well as with the rest of the world. RICE: Iran can and should be a responsible state, not the leading state sponsor of terror. The United States is ready to join the E.U.-3 to press these and other issues with the Iranian government, in addition to our work to resolve the nuclear danger. At the same time, we will continue to work with our international partners to end the proliferation trade globally, to bar all proliferators from international financial resources and to end support for terror. We also intend to work with our friends and allies to strengthen their defensive capabilities, their counterproliferation and counterterrorism efforts, and their energy security capabilities. Those measures present no threat to a peaceful Iran with a transparent, purely civil nuclear energy program, but provide essential protection for the United States, our friends and our allies should the Iranian regime choose the wrong path. If the Iranian regime believes that it will benefit from the possession of nuclear weapons, it is mistaken. The United States will be steadfast in defense of our forces and steadfast in defense of our friends and allies who wish to work together for common security. The Iranian people have a proud past. They merit a great future. We believe the Iranian people want a future of freedom and human rights: the right to vote, to run for office, to express their views without fear and to pursue political causes. We would welcome the progress, prosperity and freedom of the Iranian people. The United States looks forward to a new relationship between our peoples that could advance those goals. RICE: We sincerely hope that the Iranian regime will choose to make that future possible. Sean, do you want me to call on people? QUESTION: Yes, Madam Secretary, thank you. Two questions. One is, is the offer to sit down at the table with the E.U.-3 linked to any concessions from Russia and China to support eventual sanctions if the talks stall? And secondly, the idea of security discussions with the Iranians, is the United States willing to engage in -- if the subject turns to security is the United States willing to engage on that subject as well? RICE: Let me take the second question first. First of all, we have many issues of concern with Iran that do not relate to the nuclear issue. And the security issues that we're concerned about are Iranian behavior in Iraq that endangers both the Iraqi people and our own forces, the terrorism that Iran continues to support in places like the Palestinian territories and, indeed, in Lebanon. Those are the security issues that are of concern to us. And so as I said some time ago, we have not been asked about security assurances and I don't expect that we will be. Now, as to the question, nonetheless, of how we brought this all together, we've obviously had extensive discussions with all of our partners who've been trying to find a resolution of this nuclear issue. RICE: And we have made clear that we believe that the offer to join the E.U.-3 talks, should Iran verifiably suspend all of its enrichment-related activities -- that that offer gives the negotiating track new energy. We want this to work on the negotiating track. The president's made that very clear. But we've also been in discussions with our partners about a package which we agreed to design when we were in New York a few weeks ago, and that package represents two tracks. One is a set of benefits should Iran agree to negotiate and negotiate in good faith, having suspended its program, but quite clearly also a set of penalties or a set of potential sanctions should Iran not be willing to act in good faith. Our political directors have been working on that package. They have made good progress. I think that we have substantial progress. There are some outstanding issues that I would hope to be able to work on in Vienna. But let's go back to what is really at stake here. There is a strong international consensus that Iran must not have a nuclear weapon, that Iran must adhere to the international community's demands that it suspend its enrichment activities and return to negotiations, and that if Iran is to have a civil nuclear program it needs to be one in which the international community can have confidence that they're not trying to build a nuclear weapon under cover of civil nuclear power. RICE: We have complete and total agreement on that. We are working on ways to make that choice clear to Iran. I think the last year and half or so -- year or so has really been about creating a climate of opinion about what is demanded of Iran. That we have done. And now we hope that this offer, this proposal that we would join the talks should Iran suspend, will help to create a climate for action, either in the negotiations or in the Security Council. QUESTION: To follow on that, do you have agreement then from Russia and China that if you got to that point, having made this overture, sort of, taken the last best hope here for diplomacy, that if it fails at that point they would be willing to back what they have been thus far unwilling to do? RICE: I think there is substantial agreement and understanding that Iran now faces a clear choice. This is the last excuse, in some sense. There have been those who have said, "Well, if only the negotiations had the potential for the United States to be a part of them, perhaps then Iran would respond." So now we have a pretty clear path. We have negotiations if Iran is prepared to suspend. If Iran is not prepared to suspend -- and by the way, this an understanding that comes out of New York -- that there is another path. RICE: And while we have worked to get agreement on what had been some tactical differences, I think you can be sure that our friends and our partners understand the importance of the step and the importance that the Iranians must now see of making a choice and making that choice clearly. I think we have very good understanding with our partners about that. QUESTION: Madam Secretary, two questions. One, in the past when this issue has come up and I've asked you about it directly, you've said that there's no need for the United States to be a part of the negotiations, because Iran knows full well what they need to do. What's changed your thinking on that? And secondly, if this works and if Iran does what you hope they will do on terrorism and on the nuclear issue, do you hold out the possibility of full diplomatic relations with the government of Iran? RICE: I'm not going to speak hypothetically about the last point. This is not a grand bargain. I want to make very clear we're not talking here about what some would characterize as a grand bargain. What we're talking about here is an effort to enhance the chances for a successful negotiated solution to the Iranian nuclear problem, something President Bush has said that he very much wanted to do. We have always been determined to do what we could to support the negotiations. If you remember, about a year ago, we made some steps to support those negotiations. We now believe that having created a strong climate of opinion in which all states are united -- in which a great number of states are united around a clear concept of what Iran must do -- and that, by the way, includes a precondition of suspension for negotiations -- that the United States might be able now to add weight to the negotiating track by joining these discussions. RICE: Let's be very clear: Things are moving along on the ground. When the Iranians decided to walk out of the Paris agreement -- Paris talks and began accelerating their nuclear activities, the concern is growing that Iran cannot be allowed to continue that path of acceleration of its nuclear activities unchecked. So we now have an opportunity to either check their movement toward further sophistication of their nuclear program by negotiation, to which we would be a party, or to check it by greater pressure on the Iranians through sanctions and other measures through the Security Council and, if necessary, with like-minded states outside of the Security Council. But it's time to know whether Iran is serious about negotiation or not. We cannot continue in a circumstance in which every few days, an Iranian official says, "Well, you know, we're, sort of, interested in the Russian proposal," or, "Maybe we're interested again in going back to the E.U. negotiations," but nothing happens. And so we think it's time now to have a clear choice and a clear -- two very clear paths. RICE: We are not in a position to talk about full diplomatic relations with a state with which we have so many fundamental differences. But the Iranians can, by seriously negotiating about their nuclear program and seriously coming to a civil nuclear program that is acceptable to the international community, begin to change the relationship that it has with the international community, change the relationship that it has with the United States, begin to open the possibilities for cooperation. RICE: That ought to be an important step that Iran is prepared to take. QUESTION: Madam Secretary, in the past this administration has been very reluctant to do anything that might be seen as giving legitimacy to a government that you, at least in the past, always talked about as being led by the unelected few. By agreeing to sit down with this government, are you now providing that legitimacy to this administration which has been in power for 27 years in Iran? And are you also saying that the U.S. is not going to actively try to undercut, overthrow, undermine the Iranian government? RICE: We've been very clear, and nobody is confused about the nature of this Iranian regime. We know precisely about the nature of this Iranian regime. We know that this is a regime that does not give rights to its people for political participation. We know that this is a regime that is engaged in supporting terrorism around the world. Nobody is confused about the nature of this regime. But the president made very clear that we are going to do everything that we can to find a diplomatic solution to the nuclear problem. And the only thing that is being provided legitimacy here is the international community's consensus that Iran must suspend its current enrichment and reprocessing activities, return to serious negotiations, find a civil nuclear program that does not have proliferation risks associated with it through the fuel cycle and negotiate in good faith. RICE: That's what's being provided legitimacy. What's being provided legitimacy here is the negotiating process to which we have long been committed. We will continue to have our differences with the Iranian regime on the vast number of issues that are before us. But it is our view that the a diplomatic solution to the nuclear program is necessary, a diplomatic solution to the nuclear program is in sight by a unified response of the international community, and that this is our best way to get that response. Yes, you can follow up. QUESTION: You can give legitimacy to a process, but, in fact, you have to give legitimacy to the representatives who are sitting there. And also, European diplomats have said that in the course of these talks, or perhaps in other fora, security issues would be discussed; not that U.S. was being asked to give security guarantees to anybody, but that the U.S. obviously would be willing to talk to Iran about its concerns about the security of the Persian Gulf. Is that true? RICE: Let me go back to the first point. We have been a party outside of these negotiations supporting these negotiations all along, so nothing is changing in that regard. The fact that we would sit to actually try and resolve the nuclear program diplomatically, I think it goes without saying. By the way, we have done this with regimes with which we have serious problems. We have been doing it with the North Korean regime also in a multilateral setting. But let's remember what is not happening here. This is not a bilateral negotiation between the United States and Iran on the whole host of issues that would lead to broader relations between Iran and the United States. RICE: This is an effort to reinforce diplomatic negotiations that we believe should succeed and have a chance to succeed with the strongest possible way. In terms of security, we have found ways to make our concerns about security known to the Iranians. We've done it, for instance, in Afghanistan through a channel between our ambassadors. Of course, we'll make our concerns about security known to the Iranians. But we're not going to negotiate about the terms of terrorism. You don't negotiate about terrorism. It's is wrong to engage in terrorism, and there isn't anything to negotiate. But will we make concerns known? Absolutely we'll make our concerns known. QUESTION: So far, Madam Secretary, you have always ruled out -- sorry, you have always refused to rule out the military option against Iran. But are you prepared to consider taking that option off the table at least temporarily while negotiations go ahead? RICE: The president is not going to take any of his options off the table temporarily or otherwise. I don't you think really want the American president to take his options off the table. But the president has said that we are committed to a diplomatic solution to this problem. And we believe that there are many things that we can did diplomatically. I can remember being asked several times, "Well, is diplomacy coming to an end?" And those who travel with me will remember that I've said, "There are many other arrows in our diplomatic quiver." RICE: Well, this is one of those arrows in our diplomatic quiver; that if, in fact, the Iranians are prepared to suspend, then the United States is prepared to reinforce these negotiations at the table. But the principled condition here has not changed. It is not our condition. It's the condition that the Europeans set. It is also the condition that the Board of Governors affirmed. And it is the condition that the Security Council presidential statement affirms. And so, what we will do, I believe, by making this step is to make clear that these paths are now available to the Iranians and to, in a sense, expect that the Iranians are going to soon demonstrate which of these paths they intend to take. QUESTION: Madam Secretary, just to return to the first question you were asked, to pin you down a little bit closer on it, is the United States decision to sit down with Iran contingent on the behavior of any country except Iran? And by that I do mean Russia and China. There are reports, as you're probably aware, that the U.S. does expect Russia and China to support stronger sanctions. And also, is the package that you're going to discuss in Vienna -- can you give us any more details about it? For instance, is there a light water reactor in the package or is the United States prepared to let this be an E.U.-3 package and not a P-5-plus-1 package? RICE: Well, as to the package, we're going to be discussing the package in Vienna. I also think that it's only fair that we have the discussions with our partners before we have the discussions in public about the package. The package is one that we believe represents the instructions that the ministers gave when we were in New York, which is a series of positive benefits if Iran is prepared to abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions and a set of penalties or steps that could be taken if Iran will not take that choice. RICE: In terms of what we expect, we do expect from the international community, particularly from our partners, that if Iran demonstrates that it is not prepared to take the negotiated path, that we are going to go along the path of strong action in the Security Council. And that includes measures that may be able to bring pressure on Iran to do so. Our choice is the following. We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon; that everybody is agreed to. Therefore, our choice is to provide an atmosphere in which Iran comes back to negotiations and we solve this by a negotiated track -- we're trying to give that the very best chance -- or if Iran is not prepared to do this through a negotiated track, to bring isolation on Iran so that Iran realizes it doesn't have any other option. Those are two choices. And we are going to -- we are not going to stop work with our friends and allies on what we might do if Iran makes the wrong choice. We are going to continue those discussions. We have options that are very near-term options should they not make the right choice. But I want to emphasize the diplomacy again here. This is a real opportunity. It's an opportunity for the world to clarify Iran's intentions. And it's an opportunity for Iran to make its intentions clear. If Iran really wants a negotiated solution, it can suspend its enrichment and enrichment-related activities, as it has been required to do in a Board of Governor's resolution, and we can sit down at the table and talk about how to get to a civil nuclear program that is acceptable to the international community. QUESTION: What is unclear to you about Iranian intentions? RICE: Well, I think most of the most of the evidence thus far is that Iran does not intend to have a civil nuclear program that is acceptable to the international community; thus far that Iran does not intend to accede to the Board of Governors' demands or those of the Security Council presidential statement. But this is another opportunity for Iran to demonstrate that, in fact, they do intend to come into the international consensus about this. We're prepared to go either way. We're prepared to do the negotiations, and the United States is prepared to be a party to it. But Iran must suspend its enrichment activities, fully, verifiably, and then we can have negotiations. Those negotiations I think will open up new opportunities and new benefits for the Iranian people. But that is only possible if Iran makes the choice to follow the path that has been put forth before them by the international community. There's another path, which is a path of isolation and considerable cost. And we are working along both those paths, but obviously with the hope that diplomacy and negotiation is going to succeed.
MAY 31, 2006 SPEAKER: CONDOLEEZZA RICE, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE
350.769231
0.846154
6.384615
high
medium
mixed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053101644.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053101644.html
Sun Microsystems to Cut Up to 5,000 Jobs
2006053119
SAN FRANCISCO -- Computer server maker Sun Microsystems Inc., whose revenue has declined four years in a row, said Wednesday it planned to cut 4,000 to 5,000 jobs in an effort to return to consistent profitability. The cuts, which will reduce Sun's 37,500-person work force by 11 percent to 13 percent over the next six months, will cost Santa Clara-based Sun from $340 million to $500 million over the next several quarters, the company said. Sun executives expect the plan, which also includes selling real estate and exiting leases, to save the company from $480 million to $590 million, once it is fully implemented sometime around June of next year. The company, a major supplier of computer servers that run corporate networks and Web sites, was once a Wall Street darling but has struggled since the dot-com bubble burst in late 2000. Servers that run processors based on Intel Corp. designs and Microsoft Corp.'s Windows or the free Linux operating systems have grown increasingly powerful, often performing the same jobs at a fraction of the cost of Sun products. Investors have driven down Sun shares from a high of about $64 in September of 2000 to a range of about $3.50 to $5 over the past year. Some analysts have criticized Sun's management for not cutting costs more dramatically. "It's a lot of fanfare without a lot of change to street estimates," said Brent Bracelin, an analyst with Pacific Crest Securities. "The company did the minimum they needed to do based on analyst estimates out there." Thursday's announcement comes a month after Scott McNealy stepped down as Sun's chief executive, and it's one of the first major initiatives to be taken under the watch of Jonathan Schwartz, who was named to replace McNealy. Schwartz, speaking on a conference call with analysts, said the cuts are part of a plan for Sun to simplify its research and product offerings around a core set of technologies that include its Solaris operating system and Niagara microprocessor. Rather than trying to win business from the broadest number of customers, Sun will focus on companies that see Internet usage as a key differentiator in the way they compete. "Our industry is littered with companies that are trying to be all things to all people, and that is not Sun," Schwartz said. The company also said it planned to sell property it owns in Newark, Calif. and to exit leases at a site in Sunnyvale. The cuts still don't cut costs as deeply as some analysts have said is necessary. McNealy had argued against more drastic work force reductions, saying talented employees are needed once business returns. Sun shares fell 1 cent in extended trading following the release. Earlier they rose 8 cents, or 1.8 percent, to $4.63 in regular trading Wednesday on the Nasdaq Stock Market.
SAN FRANCISCO -- Computer server maker Sun Microsystems Inc., whose revenue has declined four years in a row, said Wednesday it planned to cut 4,000 to 5,000 jobs in an effort to return to consistent profitability.
14.102564
1
39
low
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053101331.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053101331.html
Fed Kept Options Open on Rates
2006053119
Federal Reserve officials were so concerned at their last meeting about rising inflation that they considered raising interest rates more aggressively than they had in six years. The U.S. economy has grown briskly this year, despite signs of cooling in the housing market. Payrolls and wages have risen. Energy and other raw-materials prices have climbed. The dollar has weakened. And consumers say they expect prices to keep rising faster. JavaScript is required to display this interactive graphic. If it is turned off, please enable JavaScript in your browser preferences. "In view of the risk that the outlook for inflation could worsen," Fed policymakers agreed to lift their benchmark short-term interest rate to 5 percent from 4.75 percent at their May 10 meeting, for the 16th consecutive quarter-percentage-point increase in nearly two years, according to minutes of the session released yesterday. But Fed officials also considered whether to bump the rate up by a half percentage point, to 5.25 percent, or to leave it unchanged, the minutes said in an unusually explicit description of the options considered. A half-percentage-point increase would have been the biggest since the Fed ended its last period of credit tightening with a similar-size increase in May 2000. Members of the Federal Open Market Committee, the central bank's top policymaking group, "were uncertain about how much, if any, further tightening would be needed" after the May 10 increase, the minutes of the meeting showed . The group issued a statement that day leaving the door open to more increases in the future. The Fed's uncertainty, compounded by reports of higher inflation, has roiled financial markets in recent weeks. The Dow Jones industrial average hit a six-year high May 10 and has been choppy since. Major international stock indicators have also fallen, reflecting anxiety over how high global interest rates may rise and how much economic growth may slow. Hedge funds and other big investors have pulled back from riskier global investments, fund managers said. The Dow and other major U.S. stock indicators fell sharply yesterday after the Fed minutes were released at 2 p.m., as their hawkish tone led many traders and analysts to conclude that more Fed increases were likely. Stocks rallied to close the day with small gains, as many investors applauded the Fed's concern about inflation. "This is good for stocks for them to sound more hawkish," said James W. Paulsen, chief investment strategist for Wells Capital Management, who attributed much of the markets' recent jumpiness to inflation worries. Global markets will remain volatile and the big traders will probably retreat further from risky investment strategies as long as the outlook remains clouded for inflation, interest rates and economic growth, analysts and fund managers predicted. "You've got a Fed that's not sure what they're going to do," said Larry Kantor, managing director of Barclays Capital Inc. The minutes, he said, are "not going to calm anyone down or reduce market volatility." The minutes' implication that interest rates are likely to keep rising contrasted with recent comments by Fed officials, including Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, said Richard Yamarone, director of research at Argus Research Corp. "This is another in a series of confusing messages from the Bernanke Fed." Bernanke told Congress in late April that he and his colleagues might pause after 15 consecutive interest rate increases. Such a pause would be based on the Fed's forecast that the economy will slow this year as higher interest rates cause the housing market to cool, prompting consumers to ease up on spending and tamping down inflation pressures. Some Fed officials have worried about raising interest rates too high, or "overshooting," and triggering a sharper economic downturn. The economy grew at a rapid 5.3 percent annual rate in the first three months of the year, and many analysts forecast it to slow to a pace closer to 3 percent for the rest of the year. Several Fed officials believe an annual growth rate of 3 to 3.5 percent would be "sustainable" over the long term without fanning inflation. Fed policymakers noted at the May meeting that the housing market had lost steam. Sales have fallen from their peaks last year, inventories of unsold homes are rising, and price appreciation is slowing. The Mortgage Bankers Association reported yesterday that mortgage applications fell last week to a level 22.4 percent lower than the corresponding week last year. But FOMC members also noted that their desired slowdown had not arrived. Instead, exports were rising. Business spending on plants and equipment was robust. The economy "had been growing quite strongly, and whether economic growth would moderate to a sustainable pace was not yet clear," said the minutes, which summarize the discussion without identifying participants by name. Moreover, the officials agreed "inflation pressures appeared to be somewhat greater than the committee had anticipated" at its previous meeting in March. Fed officials "expressed some concern about recent price developments." And if the Fed officials worried about overshooting at the May meeting, there was no mention of such concerns in the minutes -- in contrast to the previous meeting. "Not one inflation gauge is trending [down] in a way that would support a pause," said Yamarone, who predicted that the Fed will raise its benchmark rate to at least 5.5 percent this summer. "They're all trending higher, and that has to be addressed by the Fed."
Federal Reserve officials were so concerned at their last meeting about rising inflation that they considered raising interest rates more aggressively than they had in six years.
37.5
1
28
high
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053100891.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053100891.html
Clemens Rejoins Astros for Rest of Season
2006053119
HOUSTON -- The memory of his mother pushed Roger Clemens to come back. The chance to play with his oldest son persuaded him to pick the Houston Astros. "We'll see what happens," Clemens said Wednesday. "Here we go." Clemens agreed to a $22 million contract Wednesday to pitch for Houston for the rest of 2006, ending months of speculation around baseball and in his own mind whether he could _ or even wanted to _ play a 23rd season. "I think I've placed more responsibility on my shoulders than I ever have in my entire career," Clemens said. "But I accept that challenge." His two youngest sons wanted him to walk away. But one of Clemens' sisters swayed him by musing on what his mother, who died last September, would've preferred. "Like my sister said, 'Mom would want you to be working. She doesn't want you to be unemployed,'" Clemens said. "'So go back to work.' The 43-year-old Clemens is agreeing first to a minor league deal that pays $322,000 over the five-month minor league season. He is due to make his first start next Tuesday at Lexington, Ky., the Class A affiliate where oldest son Koby plays. Clemens said Koby was a major factor in choosing the Astros. "Yeah, Koby is the wild card in all this," Clemens said. "Just like he told me this morning, even if he was somewhere else, we've had too many great moments here the last two years to set that aside." A few weeks ago when Clemens was still wavering on whether to return at all, Koby broke his left pinkie finger and came back to the family's home in Houston to recover. Clemens said Koby pushed him toward returning. "Basically, he got me going and that got my body moving," Clemens said.
Roger Clemens has agreed to a $22 million contract to pitch for the Houston Astros for the rest of 2006.
17.272727
0.954545
4.409091
medium
high
mixed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/30/AR2006053001455.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/30/AR2006053001455.html
A Bud for The Ladies
2006053119
In the back of the club, on a bench built for two, a short college guy with a baby face is putting the moves on a miniskirted beauty whose shapely legs, crossed just so, rival Katie Couric's. The only thing between him and his destiny is her girlfriend, squished between the two of them, large lips in a pout. Shakira's "Hips Don't Lie" is blasting from the speakers at U Street's Republic Gardens, rented out for an end-of-school-year bash. There's not much dancing going on, but lots of drinking and flirting among what appear to be mostly students from George Washington University. The young suitor is neatly dressed all in black, his long-sleeved shirt tucked into pressed cotton trousers. In this casual crowd of colorful polo shirts and frayed jeans, he might as well be wearing a sign that says, "Trying too hard." As he presses his end of the conversation, the beauty nods slightly but her eyes roam the room. He ignores her friend, whose pout grows ever more pronounced. If anyone ever needed a wingman, this guy is it. You know the wingman. He's the guy who accompanies his buddy to a bar to help him pick up babes. He does whatever it takes to give his friend some time alone with the girl of choice: telling flattering lies about him, enticing away the sidekick girlfriend, running interference at the approach of a rival male. He's like the fighter pilot flying beside and slightly behind the lead pilot in a hostile environment -- thus the term. You saw the prototype in the 1986 flick "Top Gun": Anthony Edwards's Goose (who was married!) to Tom Cruise's Maverick. You've seen him in a Coors beer commercial, "taking one for the team" by baby-sitting a plain Jane while his pal grinds it out with a hottie on the dance floor. You've heard country singer Toby Keith complain on his latest album about being a "Runnin' Block" for his buddy. You can go online now and rent a wingman or even a wingwoman (who softens up the target first by saying something girly like "Love your shoes!" before turning her over to the guy). Some of you may have been the wingman in middle school, sitting in the back of the movie theater occupying the attention of the clarinet player so your friend could make out with the pompom girl. If your pal got lucky, you lived through him. And when it was your turn to play the game, your buddy became the wingman. "A mutual back-and-forth man love" is how Tony Moniello describes wingman camaraderie. Moniello, 22, and two buddies, Jay Jentz, 22, and Philipp Waclawiczek, 21, have been wingmanning for each other from the first week of freshman year at GW four years ago. They're sitting in Moniello's apartment, talking over plans for the party that night on U Street. Grey Goose, Southern Comfort and Everclear bottles line the bookshelves. Exams are over, graduation is approaching and each of them has several young women on his year-end wish list. (Some senior women, by the way, keep similar lists.) Once they start work in the real world, clubbing will become an occasional thing as opposed to a four-night-a-week addiction. They may actually have to ask women out on dates, take them to dinner. Wingman skills will still be needed, but not as often. Bummer. At college, a good wingman has been as important as a popped-collar shirt. This is a generation that, in large part, dismisses the idea of courtship. Many move fast through relationships: face-booking, instant-messaging, text-messaging. A guy who spots a girl has five minutes to break the ice, another five to decide if he likes her and maybe 10 more to impress her before she moves on. That's a lot to ask of a young man who, his pose to the contrary, is terrified. (At any college bar, says Jentz, guys are the first to start throwing back drinks, particularly if the drinks are free early in the evening, as is sometimes the case at Republic Gardens. "It's all about needing a little confidence," Jentz admits.) Occasionally, both guys will walk over to the target at the same time. More frequently, the wingman makes the first flyby. Say the target has arrived with another young woman who, like Pouty Girl, would not win any beauty contests. "The wingman talks to that girl," Waclawiczek says, "and the girl that your friend is after is like, 'Oh, what's going on? Why isn't he talking to me?' That's when your friend moves in." The wingman delivers the introduction, knowing that his job is to make his buddy look cool.
In the back of the club, on a bench built for two, a short college guy with a baby face is putting the moves on a miniskirted beauty whose shapely legs, crossed just so, rival Katie Couric's. The only thing between him and his destiny is her girlfriend, squished between the two of them, large lips...
14.984615
0.984615
63.015385
low
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/30/AR2006053001468.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/30/AR2006053001468.html
MTV Beach Bunch Gets a Taste of Reality in 'Hills'
2006053119
Apparently, there's, like, way too much drama in the lives of the young, rich and spoiled on MTV's "Laguna Beach" to keep bottled up in just one show. Hence the spinoff "The Hills," the network's newest unscripted drama, debuting tonight. Our pouty heroine, Lauren Conrad -- or "L.C.," as she's known by the "Laguna Beach" devoted -- leaves the privileged life in Orange County for the real world, at least by Hollywood standards: fashion school and an internship at Teen Vogue magazine. The spinoff is stylish, mindless and easily devourable. In other words, "Laguna" fans can safely put out the rallying call: "Run for 'The Hills!' " Lauren might have moved northward, but she quickly surrounds herself with the same types of characters who make "Laguna Beach" so delicious to watch. We only glimpse her newfound friends in the pilot episode (a mere 20 minutes without commercials), but it doesn't take long to see she's in with the advantaged types who have way too much time on their hands. Oh, how we love to hate them. Heidi, who made a few appearances on "Laguna Beach," is Lauren's new roommate. Although technically she is enrolled at the same fashion school as Lauren, most times you can reach her poolside. And in an interview with the school's admissions director -- which should be used by employment agencies everywhere as an instructional video on how not to interview -- she says her goal is to work in PR and be a "fun party girl." We also meet Brian, who over dinner and drinks gibes his friends as they bemoan employment: "Hey, I have a full-time job. I go out every night." Also in the pilot, Lauren's friends promptly get her in the doghouse in her first days on the job, as they drunkenly crash a Teen Vogue party. "The Hills" adopts the same appealing cinematic flair that makes "Laguna Beach" so stylized. Each "unscripted" scene is buffed and polished -- and seemingly well planned by creator/executive producer Adam DiVello. Of course, that calls into question any of the spontaneity that might occur. And some of the older characters seem well too aware of the camera, including Lauren's tough boss, Teen Vogue West Coast editor Lisa Love. She looks uncomfortable as she interviews Lauren for the internship and wanders somewhere between acting and being herself throughout the episode. That is not a problem, however, for L.C. and her like-minded friends. Having grown up on a steady diet of reality TV, they know how to act in their own real world. The Hills (30 minutes) debuts tonight at 10 on MTV.
Apparently, there's, like, way too much drama in the lives of the young, rich and spoiled on MTV's "Laguna Beach" to keep bottled up in just one show.
14.756757
1
37
low
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/24/DI2006052401431.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/24/DI2006052401431.html
Ask Tom
2006053119
In a city loaded with diverse restaurants, from New American chic and upscale Italian to sandwich shops and burritos on the run, finding the best places to eat can be a real puzzle. Where's the best restaurant for a first date or an anniversary? Father's Day? What's the best burger joint? Who has the best service? Ask Tom. Tom Sietsema , The Washington Post's food critic, is on hand Wednesdays at 11 a.m. ET to answer your questions, listen to your suggestions and even entertain your complaints about Washington dining. Sietsema, a veteran food writer, has sampled the wares and worked as a critic in Washington, Seattle, San Francisco and Milwaukee, and can talk restaurants with the best of 'em. You can access his Postcards from Tom to read his recommendations for other cities, read his dining column and the Weekly Dish or read transcripts of previous "Ask Tom" chats . Tom's Sunday magazine reviews, as well as his "Ask Tom" column, are available early on the Web. Tom Sietsema: Good morning, chatters. I'm just back from a swing through Denver and Boulder, where I found some terrific sushi and possibly the best Italian cooking between the coasts. But you'll have to wait til Sunday, July 2, to find out which restaurants I'm talking about. That's when my Postcard from Denver is scheduled to run in the Travel section. Here at home, lots of changes at three of the four restaurants operated by the locally-owned Passion Food company: Chef de cuisine James Clark is leaving DC Coast to oversee a trio of casino restaurants in Colorado. He will be replaced June 15 by Travis Timberlake, who is currently the chef at DC Coast's sister restaurant, Ceiba. Taking Timberlake's job is Victor Albisu, whose background -- his father is Cuban, his mother is Peruvian -- should help make for a smooth transition in the Latin American-themed kitchen there. Meanwhile, both DC Coast and TenPenh are getting makeovers, in the form of fresh curtains, carpets and more. This means the former will close June 18-22 and the latter will close June 4-7. Lots of rumors flying around this morning! But I'd rather dish up the straight story than mere gossip culled from the ol' grapevine. So ... on we march. I am a regular reader of your chats and usually don't weigh in, but I feel the need to on a dining experience I had at Acadiana this past weekend. My husband and I were celebrating our anniversary and chose the restaurant after enjoying meals at DC Coast and TenPenh. The food was incredible. The service sucked. Our waiter was rude, unfriendly, inattentive and made the meal downright uncomfortable. My husband and I decided to cut that part of the evening short and have dessert and after dinner drinks elsewhere. I know you usually advocate for dealing the problem right away. However, we decided to wait and write a letter to the general manager, which I have done. Why did we not want to deal with it at the time? Well, having two small kids (don't worry, we didn't bring them to Acadiana), we don't get to go out very often. Also, I deal with confrontation every day at work and really don't want to when I am out for a good time. Rather than making a scene, we opted to just leave, spend our money elsewhere and write a letter. While I understand your point about bringing up a bad experience at the moment, when I was put in that situation, I chose not to. Tom Sietsema: First, my sympathies. Second, I understand your reason for keeping quiet. But (you knew this was coming, right?) Knowing the owners, I bet someone there would have done something to remedy the situation WHILE YOU WERE THERE had he or she been made aware of a problem. You might even have left happy had you at least given a superior a chance to respond. Instead, you wrote a letter, after the fact. That helps the restaurant avoid FUTURE service problems but not settle PAST issues. I'm a 19-year-old college student who would love to have a job similar to yours some day. Any advice? Tom Sietsema: Find a mentor. Write often. Learn to cook. Eat out as widely as you can. Travel. Read. Become an expert in some area of food. And get a small publication -- even a neighborhood newsletter -- to publish your work, because few media outlets will hire you if you don't have a portfolio of published material. Arlington, Va.: What are some good places to find tasty South Indian cooking in the DC area? Any restaurant devoted to a South Indian menu? As much as my friends love butter chicken and naan, I'd love to introduce them to idlis, dosas, and sambar OUTSIDE of my kitchen! I want spicy, and I want authentic...is it possible, Tom? Thanks! I am addicted to your chats, despite a shoestring budget and disapproving supervisor (eek!). Tom Sietsema: Glad to hear of your addiction! For South Indian fare, try Nirvana on K St. in Washington, Woodlands in Fairfax City and Langley Park, and Amma Vegetarian Kitchen in Vienna. Snap Creperie: I went to Snap in Georgetown with a few friends on Monday morning. A young man and the owner were working behind the counter. Both were dismissive, if not flat-out rude in their treatment of us. It could have been the heat - it tends to bring out the irritability in folks. On that note, when asked if we could have some tap water after our hot walk down to their establishment we were told that the only water we could have was the Fiji 500 ml bottled water, at $3 a bottle. We found this particularly frustrating as the sink was right beside the impolite cashier and we had ordered their bubble smoothies to go with our crepes. Unfortunately, their lack of hospitality left a bad taste in our mouths before receiving our crepes and we ate them without much fanfare. Tom Sietsema: You mean, you ordered food and couldn't get a glass of water with it? That's not very hospitable. Maybe the staff was still smarting from an unfortunate encounter with one of the eatery's noise-hating neighbors ... Denver, Colo.: Tom, forgive me for asking a non-foodie question, but where did you stay while you were in Denver? Tom Sietsema: The Hotel Teatro on 14th St. Great location, pretty good service, BIG rooms -- and free, 24/7 car service within a 2-mile radius of the hotel, which is great if you're out late and don't want to worry about drinking and driving. Bethesda, Md.: Tom, can you give me your three favorite local steak houses? Tom Sietsema: In no particular order: Capital Grille, Ray's the Steaks and Charlie Palmer Steak. Dupont: So, what do you think of Mark & Orlando's? I think they've passed the 6-month mark now and would love your take. Tom Sietsema: Honestly, I haven't returned since I reviewed the place. But my memories -- of delicious soups, very good crab cakes, hearty stuffed pork and friendly service -- would make me eager to return. Falls Church, Va.: I know vegetarianism is not your specialty, and you probably don't keep an eye out for veg. versions of items, but is there any place that comes to your head where I might be able to get a vegetarian pho? I miss it since giving up meat! Tom Sietsema: Wait a minute! I DO keep an eye out for vegetarian dishes. And I count among my regular dining companions a handful of friends who eschew meat. Alas, I don't have an answer for your pho craving. Maybe a chatter can point us in the right direction? We're planning on seeing Faust at the Kennedy Center Saturday night. Where should we dine beforehand? We'd like to take advantage of some of the pre-theater menus out there but if there is something else fabulous out there, we'll give it a try. Looking to spend 30-40/person before wine. Thanks! Tom Sietsema: The place that I continue to recommend -- and continue to hear good reports about - is Notti Bianche on New Hampshire Ave. Dupont Circle: Hi Tom. Love the chats. I'm heading to Colorado Kitchen on Saturday for brunch. Any menu items I shouldn't miss? Also, not sure if they take reservations, so should we show up early to get a seat without much of a wait? Thanks! Tom Sietsema: I'm a sucker for chef Gillian Clark's donuts myself. I can't predict your waiting time, but I'd encourage you to arrive earlier rather than later for brunch. The place is very popular. Washington, D.C.: Tom--I had to write and thank you for the stellar recommendation for a dinner in NYC. My husband and I went to Bellavitae in April and loved everything we ordered. So many of the items on the menu tempted us and so, of course, we ordered and ate way too much. Wonderful and simple food combinations, good wine, great service despite the Saturday night rush, and an over all fantastic experience. We were also pleased by the bill--a good deal for a quality meal. Thanks again. We have been singing Bellavitae's praises to all who will listen. Tom Sietsema: Glad to hear you enjoyed the place. Truth in advertising: I'm familiar with the guys that own Bellavitae. Vegetarian Pho: -it's GREAT at Nam Viet in Cleveland Park! Lots of veggies! Tom Sietsema: There you go, my friend. More on complaining in person: Tom, I've read your advice forever but I don't know that I agree. Bad food is one thing, that can be fixed. But when service is the problem, you raise the ante by complaining. First you have to have a taste for confrontation, since you at least need to ask your waiter(the source of the problem) to see the manager. Then what is he gonna do ? make him apologize ? Ever deal with someone who's just been chastened by his boss ? That's not pleasant. Seat you someplace else ? The problem is still walking around the restaurant. Or will he not do anything ? Then you really have to have a taste for confrontation. All because you're out to have a good time. Tom Sietsema: A lot depends on what the problem is. In my view, the best solution is to get a fresh waiter -- no pun intended. Vegetarian Pho: Pho Cyclo, in Falls Church - Gallows Rd. and Route 50 (near the Giant) has a vegetarian pho that is very good. Tom Sietsema: Another good suggestion. Arlington, Va.: Hi, Tom. I don't know how you feel about the Ted's Montana Grill chain, but during a recent visit, I noticed a card displayed very prominently on the table. It basically read: The only reason we are here is to show you a good time. Please let us know at any time if we are not providing that good time for you now, or contact us about it at etc. I thought it was a good idea to put something like that front and center to encourage people to speak up about their treatment. I've noticed in so many other places that there are comment cards for the post-dining response, but never have I seen something that states the issue so plainly to the customer. Since it was Monday night, there were no crowds and we had an excellent server and a good time,and I can only imagine that the servers see that card every time they go to a table and it reminds them of providing good service. Tom Sietsema: I like the pro-active approach -- the restaurant equivalent of keeping cows in their place with an electric fence! Tenleytown, Washington, D.C.: Tom: I just wanted to thank you for your reminders about Bistrot Lepic. I took my wife there for her birthday yesterday and we thoroughly enjoyed it, even though it is crowded - the staff can't navigate without bumping gently into patrons, particularly overstuffed patrons like myself. It reminded both of us of the bistros in Paris. My cassoulet was quite good, but her salmon inside a potato crust was exceptional, as was my wild mushroom appetizer. We also enjoyed the gruff staff, and their thick accents - they would occasionally squabble with one another, but with tongues firmly planted inside their cheeks. Again, thanks for the recommendation. Tom Sietsema: Crowded, sometimes chaotic, a wee bit snarky -- that's the Lepic I know (and enjoy) too. The snail risotto and boudin blanc are worth any discomfort. Logan Circle, Washington, D.C.: Hi Tom: I enjoy your chats. Just an observation. There seems to be an increasing number of comments about poor service. Frankly, it's the reason I don't eat out much. A great meal can be ruined by a surly server, and this town has no shortage of them. I'd rather get a burger in New York City than a steak in DC; the difference is the service. Thanks for listening. Tom Sietsema: Poor service is my No. 1 complaint, closely followed by (insert drumroll here) noisy restaurants. Broader smiles --and sound-absorbing panels -- would make a lot of diners out there much happier. Mark and Orlando's: I haven't actually eaten at Mark and Orlando's (yet), but if my experience there a couple of weeks ago is anything to go by, I fully expect nothing but great service. I was in Dupont with friends from out of town, and we were looking for a place to grab a beer before meeting another friend (still at work) for dinner. I'd remembered your great review of Mark and Orlando's so I suggested we go there, not realizing that they weren't open yet (it was about 4:30 and they opened at 5:00). A very nice waiter met us at the top of the stairs and explained they weren't open yet. I apologized, explained we were just looking to get a quick beer, and he immediately offered to take us to the bar and serve us, even though they weren't yet open and he was obviously busy finishing the prep for a large group expected shortly after opening. We didn't stay (we appreciated the offer, but we didn't want to impose when they were obviously busy trying to get ready to open), but he was so nice and so willing to accommodate us when he had absolutely no obligation to, that Mark and Orlando's is now near the top of my list of restaurants to visit in the coming weeks. Tom Sietsema: I love sharing stories such as yours. And I appreciate your taking the time to let me -- and this chat's many participants -- know about someone doing something positive. Washington, D.C.: From a Restaurant Manager, PLEASE, we would rather know if anything is wrong while you are still in the restaurant than via an email or letter after you've left. Our employees are human and sometimes they make mistakes and have bad days...but a huge part of my job is to fix mistakes. The best example I can give was when a couple and one of their elderly parents came into the restaurant. The first few minutes of their experience weren't up to par - long wait on drinks, didn't care for the server, etc. The man excused himself, went and asked the host for me, and let me know that it was a special occasion and that their night hadn't gotten off to a great start. He didn't ask for anything for free, and wasn't a jerk about it, but I appreciated that heads up more than anything...it gave us a chance to turn their night around before it was too late. Please! Ask for the manager (just say you're going to the bathroom and ask the host - there are ways to be subtle) and explain the situation; 9 times out of 10, you'll be a lot happier you did. Tom Sietsema: Thanks for the confirmation, Mr. Restaurant Manager. Washington, D.C.: Hi Tom - I just noticed Bobby Van's Grille on New York Ave.. Is this new? Is it decent? Thanks. Tom Sietsema: I recently took my editor there for lunch. Let's just say, I think she doesn't want to join me for another visit there anytime soon. The food is very big and very bland. At least it matches the decor. Arlington, Va.: A friend is coming to visit with her 8 year old son and I'm trying to find good places to take them, without having to go to Applebees and the like. He is not an adventurous eater, so ethnic food is largely out. Two Amy's fits the bill almost perfectly. Looking for more places like that in DC. They'll be here for a weekend, so I'll take as many suggestions as you've got. Tom Sietsema: I bet your young charge would dig the mini-burgers at Matchbox in Chinatown and the chance to watch boats speed by, and planes land, from the outdoor deck of the newly christened Indigo Landing in Alexandria. Georgetown, Washington, D.C.: Hi Tom, We're new to the area, and would like to have Greek food this weekend. We noticed Taverna Cretekou in Alexandria and were wondering whether you'd recommend it, or any other thoughts? Tom Sietsema: The best Greek cooking is at Zaytinya in Penn Quarter. If you visit Taverna Cretekou, ask to sit outside in the lovely brick courtyard, and be sure to share the appetizer sampler plate. Washington, D.C.: I can't emphasize enough that although the server is ultimately responsible for his or her own attitude, the support and care the server receives his or her restaurant go a long way to upping the quality of service. Restaurateurs, take heed, please. Tom Sietsema: Whenever I experience inferior service, I make it a point to find out who runs the show. With very few exceptions, and there ARE exceptions, the manager/owner turns out to be a bad apple. Good training and a respectful work environment generally translate into satisfied customers. Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C.: Hi Tom, enjoy your chats. Quick question about pitchers of margaritas. I was Alero on U on Sunday, my friend and I ordered a pitcher of margaritas and when the waitress was pouring it, like half the pitcher was spilled on the floor, her explanation, oh that always happens when the first drinks are poured. And I said well I hope that means we'll get another glass of margarita after this pitcher is done since we're paying for a full pitcher, and now there's a whole bunch of liquid on the floor. She just responds with, well this happens all the time. We were a little miffed about that esp. since in essence we got less then what we paid for. Also we were seated on the patio, and it was a little disconcerting because all the wait staff just stood around, basically right behind our table just surveying the scene and then when they had to do something then they would move, but it was just a little weird having them hover like that. You deserved an "extra" margarita. The staff needs more to do. Can't they find silverware to polish, floors to sweep, wine glasses to wipe, customers to check on? Just like, Home: It seems to be a bone of contention among many DC dwellers from elsewhere in the country and the world that you can't find real (fill in the blank) outside of (fill in the blank). As a well traveled and well-fed restaurant critic - what DC restaurants would you say accurately reflect the ingredients, cuisine, and experience of the city or country whose food they offer? Tom Sietsema: Le Mannequin Pis was actually BETTER than most of the restaurants I sampled in Brussels...Islander Caribbean reminds me very much of the tropical fare I've had in the Caribbean ...Guajillo does a respectable job of playing Mexican ... Al Tiramisu tends to whisk me to Rome ... Johnny's Half Shell has the spirit of the tiny seafood spots I loved during my tours in San Francisco and Seattle ...that enough? University Park, Md.: Hi, Tom. I wanted to call your attention (and your readers') to a very good Kosher restaurant in College Park. It's called Pita Plus and it's located on Lehigh Road--not to be confused with Pita Place on Route One! We have eaten at Pita Plus several times and enjoy it more each time. The falafel alone is worth the trip! The hummus and baba ganoush are excellent. We haven't tried many meats, but found both the shwarma and the sausage delicious. Please let your readers know this restaurant is open--we have so few dining options in and near College Park. Tom Sietsema: Sounds like a most promising tip! Thanks for sharing the news. I heard a rumor that Vidalia has a wine-tasting on Tuesday nights. Any truth to this? I would love to try Vidalia via the bar. I have checked their web site and it does not mention anything about this. Tom Sietsema: The "rumor" is fact. Just yesterday, Vidalia's sommelier Doug Mohr hosted a wine tasting with the theme "There's No Place like Rhone." The fun unfolds on Tuesdays from 5:30-7 p.m. and typically features flights of wines (splashes of three selections). Finger food is included in the deal, which is free. Go, Vidalia! McLean, Va.: My father really loves Turkish food. Are there any Turkish restaurants in the area worth looking into? Tom Sietsema: Near you, there's Nizam's in Vienna. I like the kitchen's manti (beef dumplings), fried eggplant and doner kebab (shaved lamb topped with tomatoes and yogurt). In Washington, try the sunny Cafe Divan in Georgetown, best for its mezze platter, doner kebab and Turkish-style pizzas. Or the newer Tabaq on U St. NW, which has the bonus of rooftop dining. LAY-ahl: I had the pleasure of sitting beside Philipe Lajaunie, owner of Les Halles, at dinner once and asked him about the pronunciation. He says it like you first indicated, sans liaison. Is that official enough? Tom Sietsema: That's good enough for moi! Frederick, Md.: Hi Tom. Today is our 3rd anniv and we are going to the Tasting Room to celebrate. Any dishes we should not miss? I read your review also. Thanks for all the great chats!! Tom Sietsema: Like many top restaurants, the tasting room at Restaurant Eve frequently changes its menu to take advantage of the market (and to keep its cooks from getting bored!) You'll no doubt giggle when the bill comes, however. The new pastry chef recently began offering a farewell of house-made bubble gum, in mostly savory flavors. Washington, D.C.: Hi Tom! Do you have any recommendations for date places in Vienna? Thanks. Tom Sietsema: Bazin's on Church is the current hot spot in Vienna, but you better make advance reservations, because the place is rockin' most nights. And that concludes today's food chat. See you next week, everybody. Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
Washington Post food critic Tom Sietsema answers your questions, listens to your suggestions and even entertains your complaints about Washington dining.
204.608696
0.869565
3.565217
high
medium
mixed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/24/DI2006052401907.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/24/DI2006052401907.html
Freedom Rock
2006053119
Washington Post music critic J. Freedom du Lac is online every Wednesday at 2 p.m. ET to talk about the latest on the music scene: hip-hop, pop, alternative, country, alt-country, rock, reggae, reggaeton, R&B and whatever it is that Ashlee Simpson does. J. Freedom du Lac: So, what's up? Silver Spring, Md.: Did you go to the Pearl Jam show? Favorite moment: Eddie dedicating F---in' Up to Dick Cheney. Masters of War was also excellent, and appropriate. J. Freedom du Lac: I did. Review coming tomorrow. My favorite moment may have come when Eddie referenced the Evens song, "Mt. Pleasant Isn't," in discussing PJ's previous night in DC. Producer David, who went to the show with me, recognized it as a sly tribute to DC punk icon Ian MacKaye pretty much before the words had even come out of Eddie's mouth. I was later told by a friend that Ian and his wife were at the show, watching from the side of the stage. Very cool. How tough is it to be objective to a band after writing a rave a few nights earlier? I wouldn't want to be in Pearl Jam's shoes after the writeup you gave to Bruce. J. Freedom du Lac: Not difficult at all. I mean, PJ wasn't exactly Bruce and the Seeger Sessions Band. But it was a very good show - though I felt like they could/should have subbed out at least one of Mike McCready's 456 guitar solos for a little bit of banjo. Or even a tuba solo. Plus, "Masters of War" - nice song and all, but it's no "Erie Canal." washingtonpost.com: Detour From E Street; The Boss Hasn't Lost His Way, He's Just Walking in Pete Seeger's Shoes Gaithersburg, Md.: I don't get a chance to listen to the radio much. Is Clear Channel, who owns most of the radio band, boycotting the Dixie Chicks new album? I know CMT is playing the heck out of the video for "I'm Not Ready to Make Nice", which is a powerful video. But CMT is a Viacom unit. Is Sumner Redstone a liberal? I doubt it. J. Freedom du Lac: I'm not aware of any Clear Channel boycott. But country radio isn't really supporting the new album. The Dixie Chicks are doing OK, anyway: Though industry predictions had them selling about 300-350,000 copies of the album in its first week, Billboard is reporting today that "Taking the Long Way" took the No. 1 spot on the new chart with 526,000 copies sold. Not quite Rascal Flatts numbers, but that's pretty impressive given the lack of radio exposure. Arlington, Va.: Re: Smashing Pearl Pilots show at The Phone Booth. How was My Morning Jacket? I saw them not quite five years ago at a house concert in Wilmington, N.C., and they were channeling Crazy Horse. How'd they do last night? J. Freedom du Lac: MMJ was pretty good, though the acoustics at [Insert Telcom Company's Name Here] Center didn't do the band any favors. Eddie Vedder did, though. As he does pretty much every PJ concert, I think, he came out early - at 7:20, 10 minutes before the listed showtime - and performed a solo acoustic version of "Don't Be Shy." He then personally introduced MMJ. What a great way to get butts in the seats for the opening act. Woodbridge, Va.: What's your take on Paste's list of the 100 greatest living songwriters? J. Freedom du Lac: It's maybe the 43rd greatest pop-music-related list of all-time. Pearl Jam City : Did you catch the Pearl Jam show last night? Their new album is really solid and they are a great live band. Generic phone-company-arena was packed pretty full and the setlist was a healthy mix of new and old. Is the Post going to have a review? Im just curious to hear the thoughts of a "real" rock critic. J. Freedom du Lac: Sorry to report that we won't have a real rock critic's thoughts. Instead, you're stuck with me. I'm reviewing tomorrow. I liked the show. I didn't like the echo-y acoustics. Can you hear me now, now, now, now, now)? Falls Church, Va.: J.F. du L. -- I enjoy reading these discussions and I think you have a pretty good sense of humor. My take on these chats is that there a fair amount of hostility being expressed here. Do you agree, and if so, why do you think that is? J. Freedom du Lac: It's the weather. That and the fact that I once ripped on Coldplay (and People Who Like Them). Folks around here have been edgy ever since. Silver Spring, Md.: J. Free, I saw Bruce Springsteen at Nissan, and there is no doubt he is the best showman in rock-n-roll. To get the crowd singing and dancing to "Buffalo Gals" is an achievement and a sight to behold. And he just might be the second hardest working man in show business. J. Freedom du Lac: Yes, absolutely -- right behind Prince. Washington, D.C.: Do you think their is a local group entitled to the throne Fugazi walked away from? J. Freedom du Lac: Hear, their and everywear. Dunno about that. I sort of think not. Fugazi was one of a kind. Vienna, Va.: I saw Pearl Jam last night. Several unexpected surprises from the "people's band" as I like to think of them. First, I had to check my binoculars upon entering (in other words, wasn't allowed to take them into the arena). Second, there were no wall screens to see closeups of the band members as they played. I'm wondering whether the lack of wall screens was (1) a minimalist expression of grunge (2) reflection of reasonable price of tickets for the show (in other words, they didn't charge a lot because they didn't provide for video filming and other "extras"). I've been seeing rock shows for 35 years and never before was I told I couldn't bring binoculars into a venue. I did enjoy the show, but would have enjoyed it more watching Stone Gossard pick his guitar or seeing the grimace on Eddie Vedder's face while belting out both the classics and new material. Your thoughts? J. Freedom du Lac: Interesting about the binocs. Wasn't aware of that. It seems strange that a band that allows fans to bring hand-held recording devices and small cameras (both of which are banned at most shows) wouldn't allow you to bring binoculars. That don't make no sense. Does anybody know if this is an actual band/tour policy? And if so, what the thinking is behind it? I didn't mind the lack of screens. Of course, I had pretty nice seats. But still - I tend to find those video screens distracting. I wind up watching too much of the show that way and don't pay enough attention to the stage. Then again, I have a short att --- Say, what were we just talking about? Albany-to-Buffalo, N.Y.: If you had a mule, would you name her "Sal"? I'd name MY mule "Flash". J. Freedom du Lac: And I'd correct myself to say that Ian MacKaye isn't married. But he WAS at the PJ concert. With a friend. Washington, D.C.: Van Morrison at the Patriot Center...Am a huge fan but don't love Pay the Devil. Trying to decide whether to get tickets, what do you think.? Years ago had the rep of doing extremely short shows if he felt like it, is that still the case? How is the PC as a concert venue? Presale started this morning. Thanks very much. J. Freedom du Lac: The Patriot Center is a lot like the rest of the plus-sized venues around here. Not great. The sound can be OK, but it can also be awful. I haven't seen Van The Man live since he toured with Dylan and Joni Mitchell on the West Coast a few years back - around 98, I think. Dylan was getting raves on that tour, but I thought Morrison was the highlight by a wide margin. Lorton, Va.: Is there anything they can do to fix the acoustics at the Verizon Center? J. Freedom du Lac: Yes. Move the stage to Red Rocks. Dixie Chix: I've heard a bunch of the songs on Imus...the Chix are getting plenty of free publicity from various media, and it's better than radio play: only someone who hasn't heard the music would buy that album. J. Freedom du Lac: Or, someone who misses the days of Fleetwood Mac/the Eagles/Poco/et al. And apparently I'm one of those people, since I like the CD. Germantown, Md.: The binoculars things is the band's new official policy (it just change a few shows ago)... J. Freedom du Lac: What's up with that? Are they afraid people are going to be able to read what's inside Eddie's notebook? Pearl Jam, Bruce, Pearl Jam, Bruce: Talk to me about something else!!! Not Tool... J. Freedom du Lac: OK, fine. I listened to that I See Hawks in LA band that somebody mentioned here last week during the alt-country discussion. First song on the new album a pretty nice approximation of Son Volt. (The singer even sort of sounds like Jay Farrar.) The songwriting seems to fall apart, though. Now, about that Springsteen show... Falls Church, Va.: You've got one of the hands-down greatest jobs! How did you get this gig? J. Freedom du Lac: Small, unmarked bills. Dallas, Tex.: Was last week the best week David Hasslehoff has had in a long time or what? First, he's seen on TV crying in the American Idol crowd. Then he's seen on TV in the crowd of the Dallas-Phoenix game because Dirk Nowitzki (German, natch) is a big fan. Who's better off for this double-dose -- Hasslehoff or the American Public? J. Freedom du Lac: Yeah, what WAS the deal Hasselhoff crying at American Idol? Was he upset that nobody had covered any of his songs? (I've heard his music before, by the way. Don't make the same mistake.) Washington, D.C.: J Free - another comment on Pearl Jam's strange tour management policies. We were told at both Camden this past weekend and at the Phone Booth last night that cutting off beer sales at 9:30 was at Pearl Jam's request. This seems even stranger in light of Vedder's proclivity towards walking around on stage with a bottle of wine. In Camden, he offered a toast to the crowd, which was kind of odd given that they hadn't been selling beer for over an hour at that point and therefore no one in the audience could toast him back. What gives? J. Freedom du Lac: Yeah, that is kind of bizarre. I thought it was kind of cruel that they played that Pink Floyd-y song, "Inside Job," after the beer cutoff. I mean, if "this one was written by Mike McCready" isn't your cue to head up to the concourse to buy another brew, I don't know WHAT is. Arlington, Va.: Could you weigh in on a debate for me? Who was more influential, Led Zeppelin or the Velvet Underground? J. Freedom du Lac: Depends on how you define it, I guess. Led Zeppelin had more influence on bands that made a lot of noise commercially. The Velvets have had a tremendous influence on a lot of critically acclaimed acts that aren't necessarily best-sellers. Especially in the indie-rock world. E Street: Were you and I at the same concert on Sunday night? Best show in five years? You must not have been picking your shows very well. J. Freedom du Lac: No, I think you must have been at a James Blunt show or something. Or maybe you were at Springsteen, but you were sitting in the wrong place. Namely, Section 101, Row N, Seats 12 and 13. That's right, people: Now it can be told. I have the exact coordinates of the doofuses who kept calling out for "Thunder Road" - and who yelled for Bruce to "play the good stuff." Speaking of good stuff, did you read (in the Style section yesterday) that there's a radio station in the UK that's banning James Blunt's music from its airwaves on account of overexposure? From the wire report: "Chris Cotton, program controller of local radio Essex FM in southern England, said: 'We don't have anything against James Blunt and we're pleased he has been so successful, but we really need a break.'" Question for you Freedom Rockers: If you were radio programming king for a day, whose music would you ban? Bruce's Seeger Sessions Tour: Given that you and I rarely find agreement in our musical tastes and pleasures, I was so pleased to see you give credit where credit is due re: Bruce's summer tour. I was not able to go to the Nissan show, and I wouldn't even classify myself as a hard-core Bruce fan, but I did see this band on their very first outing, which was at the New Orleans Jazz Fest. At what was an incredibly emotional Jazz Fest anyway, Bruce's set tore off the figurative roof and was one of the high points this year -- probably of any of my 8 years attending. I hope people will seek out and see this tour, not "in spite of the missing E Street Band" songs, but because of them. J. Freedom du Lac: Can't we all get along? Maybe today we can. I've heard from some hardcore Bruce fans who say the Jazz Fest show was one of the greatest Springsteen sets they've ever seen - "easily top 5, and maybe top 3" in the words of one diehard. (And this was a guy who's spent years trekking around the world to see The Boss.) Washington, D.C.: It's not hard to get a glipse of Ian MacKaye. During the summer, he's always hangin' out at Ft Reno. The free local music is the main draw but the random sightings (other Fugazi members, Henry Rollins, etc) are a plus. J. Freedom du Lac: Tis the season for Fort Reno. The best tickets your DC money can buy? ROCKville: Great show by T-Bone Burnette at 9:30 last night. Guitar player smoked and Jim Keltner on Drums. Crazy swamp sound. Hypnotic. J. Freedom du Lac: Was Ian MacKaye there? Reviving Rod: I'm sitting here listening to old Rod Stewart and the Faces stuff and realizing just how far old Rod has fallen. Sure he's selling scads of those American Songbook CDs, but he's lost almost all of his dignity in the process. How do we get this man to stop chasing blondes in Hollywood and make at least one more great rock record? J. Freedom du Lac: I'm afraid there's nothing we can do. After all, chicks dig the American Songbook. Vienna, Va., here again. The staff at the Verizon center doors told me that the reason that PJ doesn't allow binoculars into the show is because someone got hurt when a concert goer threw a pair of binoculars at a previous show. Seems like a pretty lame rationale to me if that's the justification. By the way, what did you make of the crowd booing the organ player? What was behind that? J. Freedom du Lac: Well, you could throw a camera, too. Or a hand-held recording device. The crowd wasn't booing the organ player. It was saying "Boooooooom!" (The guy's name is Boom Gaspar.) And by the way, those people aren't really booing Bruce Springsteen, either. OK, maybe the guy behind me at the Nissan show was. But you know what I mean. Fairfax Station, Va.: It's great to see Carlos Santana finally getting the accolodes he deserves. His latest band is scheduled to perform at the Nissan Pavillion in September. What are your thoughts on Carlos? J. Freedom du Lac: Are we in an alternate universe today? We're talking about the same Carlos Santana who got, like, 500 Grammy nominations after selling a kajillion albums a few years ago, right? "Small, unmarked bills": Hey, that's how I get paid too! J. Freedom du Lac: I think your beeper is going off. You'd better answer. Might be a new customer. Washingon, D.C.: Free-Any truth to the rumor Jay-Z is back in the studio? J. Freedom du Lac: I don't know; he's not picking up, and Beyonce got a restraining order, so I'm not allowed to contact her. There are rumors making the rounds online that Kanye West is going to produce a new album for Jay-Z this year. But I'll believe it when I hear it. Hovis Land, UK: Eric Clapton or Peter Green? J. Freedom du Lac: T Bone Walker. Millersville, Md.: Bruce backed up by a tuba? Who knew!?! I completely agree with your Springsteen review. I've seen Bruce 9 times and this might have been the best. He seemed to be enjoying himself a little more than in the past and he provided a lot more 'commentary' between the songs than in the past few tours. I didn't hear anyone yelling for "Born to Run", etc., but I just can't believe anyone bought a ticket without knowing what he was doing. I was somewhat disappointed when I first heard that he was releasing a folk album, but I was pleasantly surprised when I heard it. I knew right away that it would translate into a great concert. I think you have to respect a guy who does what he wants and directs his own career - he thrown many curveballs throughout the past few decades (ie Nebraska, TofL, D&D, and now the Seeger sessions). Is there any chance that there will be a concert DVD from this tour? J. Freedom du Lac: I've just asked that very question of Springsteen's tour publicist. I'll let you know what she says. I thought the live show was vastly superior to the Seeger Sessions CD itself. It's amazing what a little rehearsal and a short European tour can do for a band, eh? They've really worked out those arrangements, and they learned to play together in a hurry. Leesburg, Va.: So, who would be your top 5 living songwriters? J. Freedom du Lac: Off the top of my head? Bob Dylan, Paul McCartney, Brian Wilson, Willie Nelson and Holland-Dozier-Holland. Paris + Reggae = MUST BUY!: Thoughts on Paris Hilton and her upcoming album debut? Doesn't anyone around her have the sense to kindly warn her that she is a giant joke ? Does someone in the music industry actually plan on somehow making money from her "music"??? What the heck is the world coming to!?!?!?!? J. Freedom du Lac: I'm guessing you haven't placed a pre-order on Amazon.com? Some people in the industry have already made coin off the album. I'm sure, eg, the songwriter/producer Scott Storch doesn't work for cheap. Washington, D.C.: Radio Programming King for the Day: 100% chance I'm banishing Nickelback. Forever. I mean, seriously. J. Freedom du Lac: You're hired. Mash-ups: As an old guy with little interest in the new sounds of today's youth, I'm here to recommend remixes and mashups as a path to hearing older music in new, interesting ways. The other day I ran across a video mashup of 1999, (Smokey's) Going to a Go-Go, and You Really Got Me (Kinks version). Most entertaining to see how all three fit together. J. Freedom du Lac: Kids dig the mashups. And, apparently, so do old guys with little interest in the sounds of the yutes. Radio King for a Day: Jane's Addiction, no question. I don't need to hear anything about "been caught stealing" ever again in my entire life. This is probably a Rob Tim problem, as WHFS used to play that song (in many different remixes) every single day, and WRNR, where RT now works, plays it frequently too. J. Freedom du Lac: Rob, you've been called out. Mt. Unpleasant: Seems like Paul Simon should get a nod in the top 5 greatest living songwriters category. I'm just sayin'... J. Freedom du Lac: Let the write-in campaign begin. Still on the lamb: So whats the buzz on the Tamar album... I picked up a two song teaser and am quite intrigued. And am I alone in having a significant other who doesn't understand the need to see Pearl Jam more than once a year? J. Freedom du Lac: The buzz on the Tamar album isn't particularly loud at this point. More people are talking about Prince's surprise appearance on "American Idol" than they are about his latest protege. But it's early yet. There's a "Better Man" joke buried somewhere in question about Pearl Jam. Your review of the Springsteen show was right on target. Hard to believe it was not even close to sell out. Many people, including die hard Sprinsteen fans, missed a great show. Glad you (and I) where there!! J. Freedom du Lac: Is there a holiday in Falls Church today? Nobody seems to be doing any work there. Anyway, yes - there was a wide swatch of empty space on the lawn Sunday. Could have been a few contributing factors: It was a holiday weekend, the show was announced pretty late in the game and, um, a lot of people weren't interested in going to a Bruce Springsteen folk jamboree. They want The Hits. They want Bruce Springsteen, rock god. And that's fine, really. It's best that those people who thought they'd be disappointed stayed away. It ensured that the folks calling for "Born in the USA," et al, would be a serious minority. On the Bruce bandwagon: J. Free: Loved your review of Bruce's concert. I'm a Springsteen fan for 30+ years who only bought the new CD because I always buy Bruce's CDs. Much to my surprise, I really liked it: a much livelier and more entertaining take on folk music than what he's done in the past. Sorry to hear some of the other old faithful weren't that open-minded. At least, they weren't calling for "Rosalita." J. Freedom du Lac: Well, they might have been calling for "Rosalita." But I couldn't hear those requests from my seat. Not with the two guys behind me yelling repeatedly for "Thunder Road." Plus, there was a dude sitting to my right who wanted to discuss every song as it was unfolding. At high volume. In my ear. Every Picture Tells a Story: Have you seen Rod Stewart lately ? He can't get those 25 year old models with 60's rock anymore. J. Freedom du Lac: Right - only Jagger can still pull that off. Van the Man on Tour: Okay, so Van has nothing else to do and he cuts a country album. Sounds like Elvis on the "Almost Blue" tour. "Rockers" like Rod Stewart lose their pipes and cut "standards" albums at a whisper to try to hang on to their aging fans' dollars. Bonnie Raitt cuts a "world music" album and doesn't announce it until the tickets are sold. Springsteen watches "O Brother" a few too many times and thinks "hey, I can do that." Ticket Buyer Beware (or at least alert): You may see a once-in-a-lifetime show, or you may want your three hours refunded. You have to know they're mostly going to focus on the new album. J. Freedom du Lac: O Boss, Where Art Thou? Is it just me, or does Van sounds drunk on the new album? More than usual, anyway. Caveat emptor: You have to be carefull buying tickets to Elvis Costello, too. It could be a rock and roll show or he could be playing new interpretations of his old songs with Denmark's most renown zither player. J. Freedom du Lac: Very true. You never know which Elvis will enter the building. Banned forever if I were in charge of radio: Train, Nickelback, American Idol contestants, the Simpson sisters, boy bands. Whooo boy, I could go on and on and on. J. Freedom du Lac: So that would leave you with what, exactly? Daniel Powter? Walnut Creek, Calif.: J Freedom: I noticed in your laudatory review of Bruce Springsteen the observation he performed to a "not quite capacity crowd." Any idea why the concert was not sold out? Also, the tour could probably pull some of your quotes for its ads, so high in praise was your article: have you ever had a line from a review used in an ad? J. Freedom du Lac: Don't know whether I've ever been blurbed, but I'd love to see James Blunt's camp use part of my review on a CD-cover sticker. I can see it now: "'Hate him because he sounds like his underwear is three sizes too small.' - Washington Post." Baltimore, Md.: It seems that as broad ranging as alt-country is, that it would have lots of air play on standard radio stations and tens of millions of fans. With styles as diverse as Neko Case, Rob McNurlin and the Beatnik Cowboys, as well as the Beat Farmers, there's stuff that would be appealing to a good percentage of listeners, but it's not getting out there. Many venues, other than coffee houses, shy away from the genre. Do you think there needs to be a name change, better marketing, or what? J. Freedom du Lac: If I recall correctly, there were some attempts in the mid-1990s to reposition some commercial radio stations around the US with an "Americana" format that featured alt-country artists (Steve Earle, Son Volt, etc) as well as folks like singer-songwriter Freedy Johnston. But it never took off. I don't know what the problem/issue is from a business standpoint, but I suspect that more than anything, it has to do with music consumers themselves. They're just not interested in mass numbers, and probably never will be. Kick It: I woke up late for work, man, I didn't want to go. I axed my wife PLEASE but she still said NO. J. Freedom du Lac: Aw, chatter you're just jealous/It's the Beastie Boys. I heard: you didn't shower for two days before going to Pearl Jam's concert last night. True? J. Freedom du Lac: I'm staying out of the shower because I don't want to wash away the happy-concertgoer glow I acquired at the Springsteen show. Plus, if I don't shower, I'm finding that I get pretty good seats on Metro. Sometimes, I even get the entire car to myself. Rod: Last I heard (someone was interviewing him) is he's back in the studio recording a "classic rock" album, whatever that means... J. Freedom du Lac: It means that, for now, he's avoiding a collaboration with Paris Hilton. Her new album apparently will include a cover of "Do Ya Think I'm Sexy?" (Short answer: NO.) Just wonderin': When you're done with this chat, could you play Thunder Road, please. J. Freedom du Lac: No. My tuba is in storage. South of Springfield, WAY South of Cool: J. Free, help me! While sitting at dinner with my 17-year-old niece last week, I asked what was on her Ipod. I take a certain amount of pride in being musically aware (longtime 'HFS listener when I lived in D.C.) so I thought this was a chance for old Uncle to show off a bit. Instead, she gave me a withering look and proceeded to name half a dozen bands I've never heard of. I was so depressed I could only mutter "I am NOT old, dammit!" under my breath for the rest of the evening. So the question is, what's good out there that a child of the '70s/'80s (Springsteen, Elton, Eagles, Southside Johnny, Blondie, Dire Straits, etc.) would enjoy? I really don't want to be a musical fossil, but I just can't do rap/hip hop, boy bands or earnest young singers who yowl like important parts of their anatomy are caught in a food processor. I do like the Killers, and to a lesser extent Franz Ferdinand. What else is out there? Help me, oh wise one! J. Freedom du Lac: "earnest young singers who yowl like important parts of their anatomy are caught in a food processor." That's a terrific description! Can I pretend that I came up with that when I review the next screamo band that comes through town? I don't know that anything you do will impress your niece short of, you know ... self-immolation. (And We At The Washington Post do NOT recommend trying that at home, or elsewhere.) But here are three albums you might want to investigate: Jenny Lewis with the Watson Twins, "Rabbit Fur Coat": Country-soul album with indie cred (even Conor "Bright Eyes" Oberst makes an appearance). My Morning Jacket, "Z": The album Elton John might have made if he'd collaborated with The Band. Sam Roberts, "Chemical City": Who says classic rock is dead? Re: Banned forever if I were in charge...: Bruce and Pearl Jam, of course. J. Freedom du Lac: And that, my friend, is why you work at the NIH and not WARW-FM. Since we seem to be making comparisons...: Grateful Dead or The Band? J. Freedom du Lac: Is today the day I pick this fight? Yeah, sure - why not. I never did get the Grateful Dead. When I've listened to the band, and whenever I saw The Dead on stage, I didn't hear the magic that so many other people apparently do. Maybe I didn't have the right prescription, but still. Harrisburg, Pa: If you were radio programming king for a day, whose music would you ban? Easy: Dave Matthews Band, Elton John, and Bon Jovi, Bon Jovi, Bon Jovi! "Middle of the day, man it stanks, let's run over Bon Jovi with a tank!" J. Freedom du Lac: Well, I'm sad to say that there's no job awaiting you at VH1. Rockville, Md.: What do you think of eMusic? J. Freedom du Lac: Haven't used it. Apathy for the Radio Listeners: Who listens to the radio anymore? And those who look to commercial radio for answers, should get what they deserve for not seeking good music out. For their lazy approach to loving music--if I were a radio programming God and aware my media was dying anyway--I'd take down the listeners with me: James Blunt remixes, Britney Spears, KFed, Linkin Park/Ft. Minor. Kill them with terrible music! J. Freedom du Lac: I think I've heard that station. It's WHEL, right? Shower Power: JF: Hey! I SAW you--were you the guy holding the small crinkled paper bag with a beverage can inside? J. Freedom du Lac: No. I use a flask. Chantilly, VA: With all the boos for the Boss on Sunday night, I thought for a moment that I was at a Dylan concert when he switched to the electric guitar. We really fight change and experimentation in our artists, don't we? J. Freedom du Lac: Well, there weren't really boos. Just some folks who were very vocal about the show they WANTED to see. (And it wasn't the one Springsteen staged.) HFS: They killed "Jane Says" too. They played the original everyday and it only got worse when that damn steel drum Tahitian version came out. J. Freedom du Lac: Hey, easy there - some of my best friends are steel drummers. Re: Way South of Cool: Wilco, New Pornographers, and Spoon would probably work well for him. J. Freedom du Lac: Agreed. RE: THE BAND: Everyone should have the first two Band albums. They should be given to new mothers at the hospital! J. Freedom du Lac: And they should all see The Last Waltz. Which, by the way, is screening at Silverdocs next month: June 15 at Veterans Field, after Jim Jarmusch interviews Scorsese on stage. Washington, D.C.: There's a lot of buzz surrounding Christina Aguilera's new album due in August. I've heard that she's apparently "gone jazz" on this one--any thoughts? J. Freedom du Lac: Don't know much about this, but I think Xtina is the most talented artist of that whole teeny-pop wave that arrived in '98/'99. Washington, D.C.: Have you gotten a chance to review your copy of the Walkmen's new album? Mark Jenkins kind of panned them in his review (although for what, exactly, I wasn't sure... his zinger about singing about Louisiana instead of Tenleytown confused me more than enlightened me). J. Freedom du Lac: Sad to report that I haven't completed my homework assignment: I've yet to listen to this album. Ask again next week and I promise I'll weigh in with an opinion. Alexandria, Va.: I just read that Ben Folds covered "Lost in the Supermarket" for that Over the Hedge movie. Sign of the Apocolypse? J. Freedom du Lac: Yes. And it's also the sign that I need to sign off for the week. Deadline calling. Thanks for stopping by, folks. Feel free to come back next week and explain to me the greatness of the Grateful Dead. I'm all ears. From Dirda to your ears: I just had to post this Michael Dirda chatter's comment about Dan Brown to the Freedom Lovers, with the appropriate substitution, of course: "There is no need, however, to trade in ad hominem attacks on [Coldplay], many of which I suspect are motivated by a combination of pseudo-intellectual, pretentious elitism and professional jealousy." J. Freedom du Lac: You're right. I tried out for a spot in Coldplay and all I got was this lousy Washington Post gig. Sigh. Seattle, Wash.: J-Free. J-Free. J-Free. I used to love you, man. Now I don't even know you. J. Freedom du Lac: Um, I hate to break it to you -- and you might want to sit down before you read this -- but John Lennon is no longer living. still on the lamb but stopping to see the sights: eMusic is the best digital download site ever... non-drm, under a quarter songs, great indie labels from the us and the uk, stiff records, sst, dischord, merge, yep roc, matador, etc, white stripes, moby, lather rinse repeat... if however you crave major label hits stick with that other service. J. Freedom du Lac: First-time ever that the coda doesn't contain a reference to Starland Vocal Band? Maybe. Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
Washington Post music critic J. Freedom du Lac discusses the latest on the music scene: hip-hop, pop, alternative, country, alt-country, rock, reggae, reggaeton, R and B and whatever it is that Ashlee Simpson does.
153.541667
0.9375
18.229167
high
medium
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/30/AR2006053001140.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/30/AR2006053001140.html
Arenas Disputes Police Account
2006053119
Washington Wizards guard Gilbert Arenas denied making comments attributed to him in a police report detailing his arrest on Saturday night in Miami Beach. Arenas and Awvee Storey, who played with the Wizards last season, were arrested and charged with disobeying police after they got out of a vehicle on a street packed with people during an event known as Urban Beach Week. As Arenas was arrested, according to the police report, he said: "You can't arrest me. I'm a basketball player. I play for the Washington Wizards and I'm not going to leave my teammate." Arenas said he never made such a statement. "All I did was get out of the car to ask where they were taking Awvee so I could come get him out, and some officer comes up from behind and cuffs me," Arenas said in a phone interview. "Everyone knows me. They know I don't have a cocky personality. I don't use my name to get in trouble and I don't use my name to get out of trouble. That would never come out of my mouth." Arenas said he and Storey were riding in a limousine in heavy traffic when Storey got out of the vehicle after recognizing a former teammate. According to the police report, Storey was asked by an officer to get back onto the sidewalk. When Storey did not leave the street, the officer arrested him. Arenas and Storey were processed and released after paying a fine. A total of 557 people, including Pittsburgh Steelers wide receiver Santonio Holmes, were arrested between Thursday morning and Saturday night on Miami Beach during an annual event that attracts several thousand people. This year, police beefed up their presence during the event. Arenas called Jerry Colangelo, managing director of USA Basketball, on Sunday to explain what happened. Arenas will be one of 23 players trying out for the men's national team beginning July 19 in Las Vegas, and Colangelo has emphasized character in his selections. "I just wanted him to know that this wasn't a situation where I was out of control, disrespecting police," Arenas said. "That's not how I am." Wizards Note: Juan Carlos Navarro, who was selected in the second round of the 2002 draft by the Wizards, is interested in leaving Europe for the NBA. The Wizards control Navarro's NBA rights but his contract with FC Barcelona contains a hefty buyout clause. Navarro, a shooting guard, is considered one of the top players in Europe. "It's a door I do not want to close," Navarro said during a news conference yesterday in Barcelona. "I have been thinking about [playing in the NBA] this year, but there are many complications."
Wizards guard Gilbert Arenas disputes police reports of his arrest in Miami and says he was only trying to find out where he could pick up teammate Awvee Storey when he got cuffed.
15.705882
0.794118
1.323529
medium
medium
abstractive
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/05/redmond_derby_microsoft_meets.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053119id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/05/redmond_derby_microsoft_meets.html
Redmond Derby: Microsoft Meets NASCAR
2006053119
Security experts have long compared the process of securing and safely using a Microsoft Windows PC to that of maintaining an automobile. Most people depend so much upon their cars -- and their computers -- yet have such a poor grasp of how to keep them in good shape that they routinely pay someone else to worry about the whole upkeep process. As it happens, Microsoft this week will roll out its controversial yet attractively priced Windows Live OneCare service to help Windows users stay abreast of the latest PC tuneups, antivirus and anti-spyware updates, free tech support, and automated system and data backups. But how might the world's largest software company pitch a service that promises regular virtual oil changes to the PC masses worldwide? Why, by painting an ad for it on a NASCAR vehicle, of course. On June 4, three days after its OneCare $49.95 boxed product arrives on electronics retailers' shelves, Microsoft will debut its new offering with a ginormous ad on the BestBuy-sponsored car at Dover International Speedway in Dover, Del. Microsoft's Dennis Bonsall said the company's focus-group sessions showed that the concept of PC maintenance was most aptly captured by the choreographed dance commonly seen in Pit Row. "Why do all this maintenance when you have this whole pit crew called OneCare around you to take care of everything?" posited Bonsall, director of the service. Bonsall said the ideal OneCare customer is "that middle-of-the-bell-curve PC user in the United States, the person who says, 'I don't have the time [or] expertise'" to deal with this.' As attractive as the computers-as-cars metaphor may be, seasoned Windows users may completely abhor the notion of paying Microsoft to fix problems that it largely created, even if the $49.95 per year fee includes "protection" for up to three family machines. And while I personally count myself among those who would never pay Redmond a red cent for such a service, there are plenty of users who will and probably should avail themselves of this product. For one thing, Microsoft is well ahead of the pack on this front, despite being a relative latecomer to the consumer computer-security space. It is shaking up the well-established anti-virus industry in being first to market with a more full-featured security and backup-centered solution for home users (Bonsall said future versions of OneCare will include content-filtering services for concerned parents looking to shield little Johnny from the Web's most objectionable content.) It is also nice to see the emphasis placed on data backup in OneCare. The program basically helps the user automate backing up documents and other important files to removable media like DVDs, or to an external or secondary hard drive, but this is a critical area of upkeep on a Windows PC, and one that has been traditionally overlooked in the security suites sold by the major anti-virus vendors. Also, Microsoft has said it will offer free phone, online chat or e-mail support to all customers, a feature that is mostly lacking at the moment for consumer anti-virus products. Mainstream anti-virus firms only recently began taking on the adware and spyware industry, and their delayed entry into the the full-service, family-service space is only too obvious with today's announcement by Microsoft. Take McAfee, which is arguably neck-and-neck with Symantec for domination of the US consumer market. Literally within minutes of the issuance of an embargoed press release alluding to today's announcement from Redmond, a press person for McAfee rang me, calling attention to that company's statement saying its uber-secret "Falcon" service, "which has been under stealth development for more than 12 months, will debut this summer, and provide consumers with a choice of comprehensive protection service packages." The presser was rather light on what those packages might include, but McAfee is hardly alone in the hype. Symantec has for several months been touting the imminent release of its own all-in-one consumer protection/data backup suite, a product it has assigned the cryptic code name of "Project 'Genesis'." Given Microsoft's early entry into this space, and its ability to price its offerings well below its rivals', I doubt that those rivals could successfully sell a similar service which is all that much more expensive than Microsoft's, but I have been wrong before. By Brian Krebs | May 30, 2006; 10:29 PM ET | Category: Misc. Previous: The Importance of the Limited User, Revisited | Next: Modern Mischief and the Digital Prankster How ironic if the race with the Microsoft logo were to CRASH! Posted by: John MA | May 31, 2006 09:40 AM thanks for taking $ out of my pocket microsoft. Posted by: VAR/Tech | May 31, 2006 09:44 AM Symantec needs a swift kick in the rear. I hope that Microsoft gives it to them. Posted by: John Johnson | May 31, 2006 10:05 AM So, Microsoft is saying, "We know we have problems in our software and we can fix them - if you pay us!" There's another industry that uses this business model: Organized Crime, but they call it Extortion!! Microsoft would do well to fix their problems without charging users to get the fix. Posted by: Derek | May 31, 2006 10:12 AM To be fair, Microsoft has created a product with OneCare that really moves the home AV software market forward. I've used several different AV providers over the years, trying desperately to find a service that was effective while NOT being a system resource hog (Norton) or warning message fiend (Zone Alarm). I'd been happy with Zone Alarm (lesser evil among rivals), but its constant warnings and clumsy interface left plenty of room for improvement. When OneCare became available a few months back, I switched one of my PCs from ZA to OneCare and loved it. One Care may not be much better than its rivals, but it is at least as good AND it provides features that the other big players should have long ago (like a Backup utility). And at 1/3 the price, I think Microsoft has brought fresh and compelling entry to the home AV market that any computer user should be able to appreciate (novice or expert). Posted by: BlueLaser | May 31, 2006 10:17 AM People need to understand Windows Live OneCare is only for Windows XP machines. It will not work on Windows 2000 computers. Posted by: Ted | May 31, 2006 10:18 AM OneCare is NOT paying to fix the problem. You can always get updates free. OneCare assists those who do not want to take the time, or do not know how and dont want to know how. its an excellent service that will help people like me, Internet Technicians. Ever walked an 80 yr old woman thru windows update? I'd much rather see a piece of software do it all, instead of having her DL 50 things. Posted by: Justin, Las Vegas | May 31, 2006 10:39 AM I realize that is very fashionable to blame Microsoft for all these security problems. Do we blame the banks because people can rob them? No we blame the crooks. It is in fact the fault of the hackers that everyone is having problems with Windows security, not Microsoft!!!! Posted by: BrindisiBob | May 31, 2006 10:55 AM For those who don't want to pay Microsoft a red cent, what do you think would happen if Microsoft bundled yet another software into the OS? Won't the Symantecs and McAfees of the world cry "anti-trust"? So don't blame Microsoft for having to pay for OneCare, thank all the attorney-generals that sued them for bundling IE for free into Windows. Posted by: Bart | May 31, 2006 11:04 AM --- So, Microsoft is saying, "We know we have problems in our software and we can fix them - if you pay us!" Microsoft would do well to fix their problems without charging users to get the fix. Posted by: Derek | May 31, 2006 10:12 AM --- How do you come off saying that security especially viruses are Microsoft's problem?? A virus can exist with any operating system, why are they more common on Windows machines??? BECAUSE OVER HALF THE WORLD USES THEM. Apples have been in past and still are even with Intel an intel base a higher pricepoint, they are not the average Joe's computer. Linux based machines are generally not as user friendly as Windows machines so most non-savy people choose Windows over Linux and BSD based platforms because of ease of use. This is why you see viruses and security holes discovered. More people are worried about MS Products because more people use them. Linux distros have had to seal up security holes that were made vulnerabilities as well as MacOS, but why dont we hear about them as much as the others?? Because the majority of the world still uses Windows and will continue to use Windows. So before you start blaming Microsoft for security flaws go take a look back at the last year of some of your larger Linux distros, or even on the MacOS Version History. Hell the whole reason for the jump from 10.2 to 10.3 was because of a few major security flaws. Posted by: Billy | May 31, 2006 11:08 AM Is it really legal to sell a product to protect people from the problems associated with another product? Isn't that the definition of extortion? Here is a car analogy for you: I buy a car and 10 years later it's discovered that when rear ended the car has a good chance of blowing up. You know what the car companies have to do by law? Issue a recall and fix the design flaw. What would we say if the car companies stopped fixing their cars and decided to sell new kits for half the price of the car (annually) that fix any possible design flaws that might cause you to say die? Seriously. The nerve of this convicted monopoly. You might say I am comparing apples to oranges. You would say that right up until *your* identity is stolen and you have to spend years getting it fixed. Your computer has never been hacked? What about your banks? The grocery store where you shop? The county treasurer? The IRS? How about the credit agencies? What about Aunt Jamima who buys you those savings bonds every year for Christmas? Even the best security practices fall apart when the computer OS used by 90% of all people is vulnerable. and they get to make you pay for a protection contract against their own product...amazing. Why not just fix the computer OS like Apple, Linux, and every other OS? Years ago Microsoft started charging companies on a automatic license upgrade scheme...I said at the time that it would just encourage them not to update their OS. Well it's been 6 years. I must be crazy or something. Posted by: Chris | May 31, 2006 11:14 AM I am a security researcher that has critized Microsoft publicly and found their flaws in the past, but in this case... 1) Everybody here who cheered the DOJ going after Microsoft is not allowed to complain when Microsoft does not freely bundle a non-core OS product and therefore dominate a new section of the industry. 2) Microsoft's biggest problem is that it is the most successful OS vendor and the average computer user is an idiot. The vast majority of users will click on any warning box and install any program. Microsoft, Apple, and RedHat can't prevent infections when a user running as an Administrator runs a binary from an untrusted source, which is how the majority of malware gets onto systems these days. Also, anybody crowing about Apple should think about their recent 27 vulnerability roll-up patch. Posted by: Big Al | May 31, 2006 11:53 AM This is only the first step! Soon, we will come after Symantec and McAfee in the enterprise market for malware protection and destroy them all!!! We will rule the world! Posted by: Darth Gates | May 31, 2006 12:01 PM I feel ambivalent about this Microsoft offering. On the one hand Microsoft is profiting from their own bugs and insecure architecture. On the other hand most established security software vendors could really use the competition. I think it would have been hard for Microsoft to offer this service free since there are anti-trust concerns. Posted by: Qian Wang | May 31, 2006 12:02 PM "Attention gullible careless users and ignorant pawns of botnets: We don't think you're smart enough to take care of your computer, so pay us $50/year and we'll secure it for you." Unfortunately, there will be plenty of folks who will ignore MS' marketing and continue practicing the computer equivalent of unprotected sex with many strangers on a Saturday night. Security is a cost center; it should never be used for profit by the OS maker. It's an inherent conflict of interest. If MS really wanted to improve security, there's two options: A. Pay people $50/year to join OneCare Live. B. Make security the core objective of Vista and incorporate as many of Vista's security features as possible, into a rollout of XP SP3. Posted by: Ken L | May 31, 2006 01:52 PM I almost went for MS One Care, until it wouldn't download via Firefox. I DO NOT want to be locked into MS's IE for any reason! Posted by: dbm1rxb | May 31, 2006 02:52 PM To BrindisiBob : No we do not blame banks for the robbery - do you know why? Because banks do not get robbed every day. If they were to be robbed frequently, you will be after them to improve security or will start keeping your dough in cash. How would like it banks start charging you say $1 every day (besides other fees) for keeping your money safe? Posted by: Manoj | May 31, 2006 03:04 PM For those who see Microsoft as the devil of the devil, nothing will persuade them to think otherwise. There is nothing wrong to like Linux or Mac over PC either. It all comes down to personal choice. Personally I enjoy using PC. Posted by: :) | May 31, 2006 04:26 PM Using Microsoft leads to the dark side of the force. Posted by: Yoda | May 31, 2006 04:56 PM I have been very happy with my Norton I like the automatic updates. Unlike Microsoft their updates are not intrusive, and they don't remind you every 5 minutes hey! in order for your update to be effective you must reboot. Hey! Microsoft stop being a pest, stop acting like you are 5 and want it now. Posted by: Louann | June 1, 2006 12:32 PM Post script to my previous comment. Microsoft, I do not like the little infomation you give with the patches, give me more, I want to know what they are for. I hate downloading stuff because someone says you need it. I say why do I need it, educate me!! Posted by: Louann | June 1, 2006 12:38 PM Yoda, Microsoft leads to aggression, aggression leads to anger, anger leads to the dark side. Get it right. Posted by: Ben Kenobi | June 16, 2006 01:06 PM Well, I personally use UNIX, Linux and Windows in my workstations so it's not a question of favoritism when I say I do think it is a good idea for microsoft to present this product. It is true that many of the security holes are inherent to the OS structure and therefore the company could be held responsible to some point of the vulnerabilities. Nonetheless it is true that the main reason most viruses affect Windows based systems is due to the fact that most users run Windows. If you were to take the time and effort to write a worm, trojan or whatever would you target Solaris systems for example? (taking of course into account that most Solaris users do know what they're doing and are not likely to have unused ports open or to download fishy software while logged in as root) or would you prefer a HUGE base of novice and intermediate users running Windows and not knowing what a port is and clicking OK in every dialog box that may appear in their screens without even reading the message? As discussed before, there are many users that can't or won't install windows updates simply because they don't have the time or they don't even know what they are. And no, it can't be free of charge because of anti-trust issues. Really, next time you think it's extortion, try telling your old aunt how she's supposed to keep her Windows up and running with the latest patches and without virus... Posted by: A1228D | June 16, 2006 02:58 PM I have used MS OS for years, because it allows me to stay focused on productivity AND most of the applications I use require it. I don't appreciate app's running in the background that slow me down. ZoneAlarm works very efficiently (you CAN turn off the notices and set permissions for your program access); and CA EZ Antivirus is equally efficient and unobtrusive. I regularly test software, download a variety of files/apps/etc., and have gotten along just fine with ZA and EZ. I don't like that I loose time to problems generated by MS with both updates and applications (when they haven't gotten their pound of flesh to sign off on one), among other things - but until someone develops an operating system that will work with real professional applications (which I have already invested thousands of dollars in) to get my work done, I'll have to stick with them. Linux won't cut it. Sorry. If you open-source geeks (smart developers) want a challenge: there it is. Posted by: Ioldanach | June 16, 2006 02:59 PM The comments to this entry are closed.
The latest news on computer and network security issues. Visit www.washingtonpost.com/technology.
276.230769
0.692308
1
high
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/30/AR2006053001287.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/30/AR2006053001287.html
Vonage Customers Irked as Stock Deal Hits a Snag
2006053119
Vonage Holdings Inc. hoped to show its Internet telephone customers how much it valued them by making many eligible to buy shares in the company's public offering last week. The idea backfired: Customers who lined up to buy those first public shares got burned, as the price of the stock has fallen 26 percent. Now many are outraged, not only by the stock's poor performance but also by what they say were glitches in Vonage's unusual effort to include customers in its IPO. Nina Shreiber, a talent manager in New York, was described in an article on TheStreet.com yesterday as trying to place an order for 5,000 shares but was told she qualified for none -- until shares started trading and she was told she owned 1,300, which she says she doesn't intend to pay for. "I'm confident in my claim that I don't have any," Shreiber said in an interview. She added that she had no plans to cancel her Vonage phone service, but other customers on the company's online chat board were threatening yesterday to do just that. The stock they agreed to buy at an initial offering of $17 a share closed trading yesterday at $12.50. Vonage officials declined to comment yesterday on frustrated investors not wanting to lay claim to ownership in the stock, citing a 25-day silent period. But in its S-1 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Vonage said it would reimburse its underwriters for any customers who bailed out on paying for stock. "We have agreed to indemnify the underwriters against certain liabilities, including those that may be caused by the failure of Directed Share Program participants to pay for and accept delivery of the common stock which had been allocated to them," the company said in its filing. Before the public offering, Vonage notified customers via e-mail and voice mail that they might be eligible to buy shares if they met certain requirements, including that participants had to be customers from Dec. 15, 2005, through Feb. 1. In an amended SEC filing, Vonage conceded that its unusual method of marketing its IPO to customers "could be determined to be an illegal offer" in violation of securities law, but added that the company believes it would have "meritorious defenses" against any legal challenges. A spokesperson for the SEC declined to comment yesterday on Vonage's handling of its IPO. The company, which has more than 1.6 million subscribers to its monthly phone service, declined to say how many customers have backed away from paying for the shares they requested. But online, a chorus of discontent grew starting last Wednesday, when the Holmdel, N.J.-based company's shares dropped immediately on its first day of trading. "Even though [I] knew the risks, I still feel like I am being cheated on," an investor called "Silkworm" wrote yesterday on an investors' forum hosted on Vonage's Web site. The customer originally hoped to buy 600 shares but was only granted 200, and then said that because of technical errors was prevented from selling them when they hit $16.50 a share. "I never thought this could happen, but I am starting to feel like I should not be a Vonage customer any longer." Vonage's commitment to foot the bill of nonpaying customers irked some other customers, who already paid for their shares and lost money in the market. "So if you broke the rules [you're] rewarded with a $17 buyback while those that played by the rules are getting punished with a $12 stock and huge losses?" wrote an investor under the name "Gfoulks" on the Vonage message board.
Vonage Holdings Inc. hoped to show its Internet telephone customers how much it valued them by making many eligible to buy shares in the company's public offering last week. The idea backfired: Customers who lined up to buy those first public shares got burned, as the price of the stock has fallen...
12.368421
0.982456
55.017544
low
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/26/DI2006052601651.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/26/DI2006052601651.html
National Basketball Association
2006053119
Washington Post staff writers Ivan Carter and Michael Lee were online Thursday, June 1, at noon ET to field your questions and comments about the latest NBA news. Ivan Carter: I'm back from Detroit, err, actually Auburn Hills and ready to roll. Let's get to it. Seville, Spain: My Spanish newspaper informs me today that Juan Carlos Navarro is interested in making the jump to the NBA and I know that in this forum there have been some questions about his usefulness to the Wizards. As a basketball fan originally from DC, allow me the following observations regarding Navarro: a poor man's Juan Dixon. SG skills in a PG body. Average athlete. Streaky shooter with range. Won't be able to defend well at the NBA level. Fantastic floating runner as he attacks the basket. No knock on Navarro, he's a great player in the Spanish league and given the perfect situation in the NBA, could find a role. I just don't see why having let go of a guy like Dixon who can go for 30 points in a playoff game, the Wizards would be interested in Navarro. Now if they regret letting Juan get away, maybe. Me, I always think it's useful to have a guy on the bench who might light up another team. Give him his 5-10 minutes and see if he has it going, and if so, let him do his thing. Ivan Carter: I can't vouch for this guy's credibility but he seems to know what's up with Juan Carlos Navarro, the player from Spain whom the Wizards spent a second round draft pick on in 2002. The problem is that he has a huge buyout on his contract with FC Barcelona - I believe he signed a three-year extension last summer - so, if the Wizards want him, they're going to have to shell out major cash. I asked Ernie about this a few weeks back and he mentioned the buyout as an issue. Now, some other team could work a trade with the Wizards to acquire his NBA rights and then make the buyout if they reall like the guy. I don't know. I haven't seen him play. I have heard that's he's pretty much what you described him. Detroit, Mich.: Your 2006 NBA Champion will be ... Ivan Carter: Asking me is dangerous. I'm the guy who had Detroit and San Antonio in the finals and I'm the guy who picked Phoenix and Detroit to win in this round. Having witnessed last night's game, I still feel that Miami will close the Pistons out Friday night. If the Heat doesn't take care of business, it could be big trouble. You really have to be in the Palace to understand just how nutty that environment is. I think it's the best crowd in the league, hands down. They were up, yelling and screaming a half hour before tip off until after the final buzzer. Really an impressive crowd. I get the impression that beer vendors do really well in that place. I'll stick with Phoenix out west simply because I can't bail on 'em now. Having Raja Bell helps. Michael Lee: Hey, everybody. I just snuck into the discussion with my man, Ivan. You guys get two for the money -- or is that two for nothing? -- today. I'm in. Let's go. Washington, D.C.: Thoughts on how Storey's arrest over the weekend while effect his chances of getting a spot on the Wiz. roster now and do you think Gil's arrest will change the high level of respect for him - town, in the organization/league? Ivan Carter: I'm getting several questions about the arrests of Arenas and Storey over the weekend. I don't think it was a big deal. Basically, they got hit with a traffic violation. That place is a mess during Urban Beach Week and I've heard from several people who have attended that a person can get arrested for just about anything. I don't think the incident will hurt Gilbert's rep any. Having been around him for a year now, I can safely say that he's not a knucklehead. A little quirky? Yes. But he's a good cat. It won't affect Awvee's situation either. He's not under contract with the team right now so he's just using the summer to work on his game with the hope of landing either with the Wiz or another team for training camp in the fall. For the record: I also don't think that Gilbert would be dumb enough to drop the "You can't arrest me, I'm a pro athlete" card. It was funny to read in the police report though. If there's one rule in life that I live by, it's this and all of you young dudes out there reading this, listen up: the moment you tell a cop "You can't arrest me" you are getting arrested. You might even get roughed up a little. Keep your mouth shut and walk away. It's a good rule to live by. Washington, D.C.: Is it true that Blatche is working out with the coaches everyday? Ivan Carter: I hear that Andray has been a regular at the practice facility. He's been participating in some of the workouts with the draft hopefuls, hitting the weight room and generally working on his game. This is a good sign for the Wizards because he needs a great summer. I'll be doing a big picture story on him pretty soon. Washington, D.C.: James White - if the Wizards draft him, watch out. He and Arenas will be on the highlight reels every night. Ivan Carter: Are you the guy who keeps e-mailing me about James White? He can fly, no question. But can he play? Remains to be seen. The Wizards will be taking a look at him though in an upcoming workout so I'll keep my eyes open. Bowie, Md.: With the Pistons floudering right now, questions have been raised about Flip Saunders and of course, comparisons to Larry Brown. Even though Larry won a championship with the Pistons, let's not forget that he also lost one championship against the Spurs, and was booted out because he was courting the Cavs job while still employed by the Pistons. Larry is no rabbi, and deserved to be booted, so let's hope the media stops with the "coulda been scenarios if Larry had stayed." Michael Lee: We all remember how poorly things ended for Larry in Detroit. He wasn't going to come back, but when you look at the Pistons this year and the Pistons last year, there is only one noticeable difference. It's coach. It's obvious. Flip hasn't proven himself to be a successful playoff coach. Larry has. So, that's why people are making the comparisons. But hey, maybe Detroit's breakdown has a lot to do with this group playing 82 postseason games since 2003. They won 64 games with practically the same starting five the past 2 1/2 seasons, so these guys might just be tired. Thanks for taking the time for the chat. Given that the Wizards aren't jumping to give him an extension (despite the success he's had), what's the knock on Eddie Jordan? There were definitely some more adjustments he could have made during the Cleveland series (e.g. switching to a zone to prevent Flip Murray and Snow from getting 12-15 points of layups in with Lebron on the bench during Q3 of Game 5), but overall he's been a great coach for the Wiz. Why no extension? Ivan Carter: I don't think there's a knock on Eddie Jordan. I simply think that Ernie likes keeping his options open. Eddie's under contract for another year and according to Ernie, the two sides will talk soon about a possible extension. Not sure what that means because Ernie is excellent at saying next to nothing to the press. I agree with you that Eddie has done a good job with this team the last two years but the defensive breakdowns that occured all season followed losing a winnable playoff series against Cleveland didn't help his extension cause. Washington, D.C.: This isn't a knock on you guys, but the lack of coverage on the Wizards' offseason is unacceptable. Any update on who is working out? I read Hilton Armstrong was scheduled for a workout yesterday, a 7 footer is coming in today, James White is coming in on the 4th, yet nothing. What gives? Ivan Carter: Before you get overly worked up over the pre-draft workouts, keep in mind that the Wizards drafted Andray Blatche last year after not working him out. So far, they've held two workouts. We detailed both. More are upcoming. We'll keep you posted in the Post. I promise. Fairfax, Va.: I hear the bobcats are looking for a swingman/SG......they seem to have a wealth of up and coming big men....any way we could steal one of them for jarvis and/or jared? then maybe draft a SG or sign a vet to the mid-level? Michael Lee: That really is wishful thinking there. You usually don't trade bigs for smalls, especially young bigs. The Bobcats will look to find a swingman in the draft and with the third pick, they shouldn't have any trouble getting a talented player. Adam Morrison or Rudy Gay come to mind. Charlotte is trying to build through the draft, so I don't see them making that kind of deal with the Wizards. And, with a pretty weak free agent class, I'm not sure the Wizards are willing to blow the mid-level on one player. You can probably expect Jared to be back, but you just have to hope that Jarvis returns at 100 percent. With his knee injury, he'll be hard to move. Fairfax, Va.: so.....18th and 48th picks in the draft.....hilton armstrong? that seems to be the most talked about pick for the Wiz. Any thoughts on his possible contribution to the team? Ivan Carter: To me, he's one of those guys who was pretty good in college but will get drafted because he's long and has "upside." Is he ready to help a playoff-caliber team win games? I kind of doubt it. He wasn't even the first or second best player on his college team. This draft is not heavy on instant difference makers in my opinion. Then again, if there is a Manu Ginobili or Dirk Nowitzki in there representing the international circuit, I don't know about him and neither does anyone else. That's what makes the NBA draft so fun. Portland, Ore.: What do you think of guys like Josh Boone, Hilton Armstrong, and Tiaggo Splittler? Do you think we should try to move up a few spots to grab someone like Shelden Williams or Cedric Simmons? I think they're a lot of good big guys in the draft who could help the Wiz out right away. Ivan Carter: The one player I would move up for is Brandon Roy from Washington. I love his game. I saw him a few times during the regular season and then fell in love during the tournament. His a long but strong guy who can guard the 1,2 or 3 spot, can dribble, can shoot and was pretty clutch. He's the only college player I saw this season, and that includes Adam Morrison and JJ Redick, that made me sit up and say: "That guy is an NBA player, right now." Then again, I'm the guy that liked Ryan Leaf over Peyton Manning, so who knows? Rockville, Md.: Do you think Steve Nash can do anything more to help the Suns advance? I am still surprised that the Suns are still in it and they keep scoring like they do. Thanks Michael Lee: The Suns are the most difficult team to count out because they have exceeded the expectations of many ever since Amare Stoudemire went down with a knee injury. How many of us expected Boris Diaw to be this good, or that Raja Bell - Raja Bell? - would be so indispensable? They just keeping finding ways to win - and they are incredibly fun to watch. Nash and Shawn Marion are really good and Bryan Colangelo's offseason pickups have played well above their billing. Anything is possible in a best of three, but I still think Dallas should win this series because they have so many weapons and have improved so much defensively. Houston, Tex.: Can you guys settle a running debate? Who is better: LeBron or D.Wade? I say Lebron is better. He almost eliminated the Pistons by himself? Ivan Carter: I'm taking LeBron but I'd have to think about it. I'm tainted because I sat courtside throughout that Wizards series and saw what he could do but in the end, I think LeBron will be one of the all time greats. Wade is nasty though, no question. Put it this way: I'd take either one of them over Darko Milicic. In an odd way, might the Pistons' struggles in the Miami series somehow affect the Knicks' buyout of Larry Brown? If Detroit loses the series, it might somehow make a point to a team of Larry's ability (given talent). As it is, if Larry gets a $25 mil buyout from Dolan, he's still doing better than a lot of guys UNDER contract... Ivan Carter: Here's the thing about Larry: Yes, the Pistons beat Miami in seven games in last year's conference finals but, and it's a big but, Wade had a rib injury and Shaq was playing on one foot. That's a huge difference. It also helps that Damon Jones is in Cleveland. My point: Miami is a much better team that it was at this point last season so Detroit's troubles, while somewhat self-inflicted, are a product of Miami's crisp play. I don't think Brown would have made that much of a difference. As usual, he got out when the getting was good. He's the kind of cat who buys milk, drinks one glass and dumps the rest down the drain because it might spoil. Washington, D.C.: Is last nights win a statement by the Pistons saying we are back in this series or was this more of a game everyone expected the Pistons to win just to lose the game on Friday in Miami? Michael Lee: I think the game was more about the Pistons giving their home fans one last positive memory before they get closed out in Miami. It was hard for me to see Detroit going out like chumps at home. They will put up a tremendous fight in Game 6, but I think Shaq and DWade will be looking to close out in their own building. It's tough to count out the Pistons, but even last night, they didn't play very well offensively (with the exception of Tayshaun Prince) and the game was pretty tight until the final four, five minutes. Detroit hasn't look great in three of their past four postseason wins. Guess it doesn't matter too much if you win. Washington, D.C.: Why do you think Jared will probably be back? Michael Lee: Well, he will be a restricted free agent, meaning that the Wizards will be able to match any offer he receives. The Wizards like Jared, want to see him continue to grow and develop in Washington and don't have a reason to just let him walk - unless he gets a ridiculous offer. I just don't see a team breaking the bank for Jared - he won't get "Etan Thomas money" - so they could probably keep him for a reasonable price. Washington, D.C.: What kind of backup point guard would the Wizards ideally have? Offensive minded like Arenas, or a contrasting playmaker? I don't think they ever really got that settled last year. Looking back, was Etan playing the season at 70-80% of his usual health compared to prior to his injury? Can we expect a better player next year simply because he'll be healthier? Ivan Carter: The strange thing about last season was that I felt Chucky Atkins would be the ideal backup to Gilbert. He came cheap, he's a veteran, he can shoot and his teammates like him. The problem was that Chucky couldn't, as my high school coach once said about my horrid shooting, "hit a bull in the butt with a fiddle" at the start of the season so his minutes went away. That left Antonio Daniels as the primary backup at PG as well as a guy who could play with Gilbert. Perhaps Antonio is best suited to remain in that rule because he never looked comfortable playing off the ball in Eddie's system. He's not a classic spot up shooter so that made it tough for him to play anything but PG. The Wizards could really use a classic SG which is why they are holding out hope for Jarvis Hayes to recover from that knee injury. I'm not sure what to think about Etan Thomas. He obviously had a rough year. He still has value because when he's healthy and hungry, he can bang with the big boys and give you a little low post scoring. I wouldn't be surprised if Ernie looked to move him this summer to create cap room for Jared and/or a free agent. Washington, D.C.: If not Armstrong, what about Cedric Simmons? Ivan Carter: Nice college player at NC State but hardly awe inspiring. Plus, he's 6-9 so is he really what this team needs? I think he made a wise move by coming out in this draft however. It's looking pretty thin so he might go higher than he would next summer. Springfield, Va.: Can we stop talking about Larry Brown? This guy needs to hear his name in the news. Why give him the satisfaction? Ivan Carter: Amen. If that were any franchise other than the Knicks or Lakers, nobody would care. What have the Knicks ever done to deserve that reputation as a great franchise anyway? Yes, they won a title five hundred years ago and five million books were written about it and it inspired Spike Lee to become what he is today, but since then, what? Some horrid teams in the late 70's and early 80's, some good teams that never got it done in the 90's and recently, bad teams. That's it. That's the history. Sorry to say it but the Milwaukee Bucks have been a more solid franchise over the years with not even a hint of the drama. Washington, D.C.: Can we follow up on Michael's article earlier this week revisiting the Jamison trade? Seems everyone in town has stated as fact that this trade was a steal for the Wizards, and Michael's article was the first that suggested it may not have been such a robbery. I have always had mixed feelings about this trade. The trade was, essentially, Jamison for Stackhouse, the #5 pick which could have been used to draft Harris, Deng or Iguodala, and cap room next summer when Stackhouse's salary expired. (Wouldn't an Arenas/Iguodala backcourt be awesome for the next 10 years?) I think the trade ended up being good for the Wizards because they needed to change the culture of losing for their crew of young players to develop into winners, and Jamison helped do that. But they gave up a ton of talent and cap room to do so. Might be a trade that benefited both parties; it isn't, in my view, a trade that was a steal for the Wizards. Your thoughts? Michael Lee: Thanks for this e-mail. I can't remember writing an article that received such a negative reaction from readers. I got about 10 e-mails - pretty hateful e-mails, I might add - from people claiming that I was an idiot for suggesting that both teams have benefitted from the deal. Stackhouse wanted out and had to leave before he had a more negative influence in the locker room; Jamison never said so publicly, but he was unhappy coming off the bench in Dallas. So, the deal had to made, but it's not too often that teams make a trade and neither side has too many regrets. You usually have a winner and loser, but in this case, I think both teams like what they got. Jamison helped change the culture of losing and Stackhouse and Devin Harris have given the Mavericks more depth on their run toward a championship. It certainly isn't a steal when you consider how much cap space Jamison eats up, but it never hurts to think about what could've been had the Wizards drafted Luol Deng, Andre Iguodala or Al Jefferson or kept Harris. And, how could the Mavericks complain if they wind up hoisting the Larry O'Brien Trophy this season? Silver Spring, Md.: Hey guys, I just want to say good job on your coverage, in spite of the 'unacceptable' comment earlier. The dude's probably still mad that Wilbon won't take Redskins questions either... Anyway, now that's out, who do you see taking over the Phoenix Dallas series, as they all seem gimpy and worn out. Thanks! Michael Lee: Like I said, I'd go with Dallas, because they seem less gimpy and worn out than Phoenix. The Suns have played 100 games this season, while the Mavericks have played three fewer. Dallas is fresher, deeper and it can probably count on Dirk Nowitzki to score more than 11 points in each of the remaining games. I originally thought the Mavericks would win in six games, but after that 20-point beat down on Tuesday, the Suns could push it seven. The Suns have already won two seven-game series, but they won't have the advantage of being at home this time. I have to give the edge to the Mavs. Springfield, Va.: Hi, Do you think Arena's arrest in Miami will cost him a place in Olympics Team? Ivan Carter: No. Gilbert called Jerry Colangelo, who handles the national team, and spoke with him the day after the incident. According to Gilbert, Colangelo didn't think it was a big deal. Gilbert's prospects will hinge solely on his performance during the workouts in Las Vegas come July. I like his chances simply because the guy wants it so badly. He told me he's already working out to get ready for the tryouts. He even bought the exact kind of basketballs they will be using in international play. When Arenas locks his mind on something, he tends to get it done. Washington, D.C.: Michael said "You usually don't trade bigs for smalls, especially young bigs." Would that it were true here. Rasheed Wallace for Rod Strickland. Cris Webber for Mitch Richmond. Michael Lee: How about I say, "You SHOULDN'T trade bigs for smalls." I can't think of two many situations where that really works out. Although you have to say the Wizards made out pretty good dealing Kwame Brown for Caron Butler. Vlade Divac for Kobe Bryant wasn't too bad, either. Washington, D.C.: Ivan - they don't have to create cap room for JJ since they have his bird rights, so they can exceed the cap. And they can always use the MLE on a player. Either way, if Etan gets traded, I'd personally drive him to his next destination. Ivan Carter: The issue is that they are getting close to the luxury tax level and like almost all owners, Abe Pollin doesn't want to dole out extra cash for that. They'll also have a first and possibly, second-round pick to squeeze. Washington, D.C.: When you say "huge buyout," what kind of numbers are you talking about. The NBA is a league where some guys get over $10 million a year not to play. Ivan Carter: I'm trying to lock it down but I hear it's the in the $10 to 13 million range. Alexandria, Va.: Jared Jeffries, is he a restricted FA? If so, that means Washington can match the offer? Should the Wiz match an exorbitant offer for him? I think he's good and a good fit for what they do. On the draft, I hate saying it, but Shelden Williams would be an ideal fit for the Wiz. The Wiz need to go all bigs in the draft and in free agency! Ivan Carter: Yes, Jared is restricted and they can match. Washington, D.C.: This seems to be a pretty important summer for Etan. What's he been up to? I've always thought if he could develop a jump shot out to 12 feet, he would be a very valuable player. If any of the team's bigs could hit feet throw line jumpers (since that's where they often set picks for the wing players), they could have a completely different role in the team's offense. Ivan Carter: That, apart from this team's paper soft defense, has been a major problem. This team does not have a big man who can step out, set a high screen for Gilbert or Caron and then knock down a 12-17 foot jump shot when the defense sags into the lane. That is such a weapon in the modern game. It's why a guy like Kurt Thomas always has a job. The ability to do that turned Elton Brand into an MVP candidate. He is deadly fron that range now. Washington, D.C.: I've heard before that players may be tired after playing a lot of postseason games over multiple years, and it's an interesting question to me. How much does that wear you down over several years? For that matter, how much does playing games every other day wear players down over a season (and postseason)? I've obviously never been an NBA player myself, so I'm kind of curious. It's 48 minutes every other day and then the summer/fall off - does that really add up across seasons to make people physically worn out? Or is it more of a mental/emotional weariness? Or does it have more to do with minor injuries that add up over time? Michael Lee: I think it has more to do with the mental/emotional weariness than the actually physical grind. In the case of the Pistons, they've never really added fresh legs over the past two seasons. They've had the exact starting five since February 2004. Look at the Lakers in 2003. They had won three straight NBA championships then got trounced in the second round by the San Antonio Spurs. Eventually, the mental fatigue and the confidence that you have some magical "on/off" switch based on past success can come back to bite you in the butt. It's hard to play and stay at such a high level for a long time. Ever wonder why the Spurs have won three NBA championships in the past seven years but never won back-to-back? Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.: Hey Guys! I'm a transplanted Washingtonian down here in sunny SoFla. Also, a Heat fan, but don't burn me at the stakes! I pull for the Bullets (can't seem to say the "W" word) when they're not playing my Heat team. So, Mike you were in Detroit, didn't last night's game seem more like the Heat not getting the job done more than the Pistons looking like the '04 Pistons? I mean they did a good job with energy and determination, but no one player really scares me offensively. If the Heat had made their free throws, we'd be reminincing about Detroit of yesteryear today, don't you think? Cheryl from D.C. Ivan Carter: The free throw thing was huge. Bigger than I thought when I wrote my game story actually. Miami actually shot a better percentage and the rebounding was basically even. However, Detroit made 23 of 26 free throws while Miami made 6 of 20. Then again, how many easy, 7 to 12 foot jump shots did Rip Hamilton miss? It was kind of stunning to watch because he normally does his best work in that range. I keep waiting for Chauncey Billups to have a strong shooting game as well. The Heat should win Game 6 but if Detroit steals it and gets this series back to Detroit, things could get real interesting for Miami. Pat Riley's beloved hair might even fall out. Washington, D.C.: In each of the past three seasons, the fans in this town have turned on a player. Two years ago, Stackhouse; Last year, Kwame; this year, Haywood. Who is it going to be next year? Etan is probably the most reasonable guess, but reason is probably not essential in these sorts of things. Ivan Carter: That sounds like a solid bet but Etan is such a good guy, I hope that doesn't happen. It would be cool if more pro athletes had the social awareness he has. Also, fans are so ticked off with Brendan he may get the crown again. McLean, Va.: Draft thought: Any chance the Wiz can get Brandon Roy? Roy looks like a guy that would fit into the Wizards system like Daniels does. Most projections I've seen have him going in the mid teens. Ivan Carter: They would have to trade up to get him. With the way Phoenix and Dallas have had succes with that type of versatile player, his value has to be shooting up. Evanston, Ill.: If the Pistons can pull of a miracle and win in Miami, what does that do to Miami's psyche? Michael Lee: Wow. If the Pistons win in Miami, then anything can happen in Game 7. The pressure would fall squarely on the Heat. That's why the Heat has to approach Game 6 as if it is their last game. They do not want another Game 7 againt the Pistons. They couldn't beat them in Game 7 at home last year, Game 7 on the road - whew, man. I still think the Heat has emerged as the better team in this series. It could work out like the Mavs-Spurs series, where Dallas was able to pull out a Game 7 on the road. Washington, D.C.: James White was lousy in college at cincinnati. Why should be be any better at the next level. There are a lot of guys with hops, and nothing else, who think they have NBA game. Usually, they don't. Ivan Carter: A different take on James White. Waltham, Mass.: SI.com's mock draft has the Wizards drafting Memphis forward Shawne Williams and Craig Smith while nbadraft.net has the Wiz taking Williams and Dee Brown. What do you know about Shawne Williams and how much interest do the Wizards have for him? Ivan Carter: The problem with this time of year is that rumors are flying every place and you can't believe anything you read or hear regarding a team's draft intentions. This is especially true of the Wizards because Ernie keeps a pretty tight lid on things. I like Williams but he's another one of those freaky athletes without a whole lot of basketball skill. Dee Brown could be a decent PG in this league but it was kind of disturbing to see him get locked up by Brandon Roy in the tournament. He sort of reminds of a Jacque Vaughn in that he was a terrific college player who may not be more than role player in the NBA. Michael Lee: I'll leave Ivan to handle the rest. Thanks for letting me join in. I've got to go right now. Peace. Washington, D.C.: Hmm, if not Simmons or Armstrong, who would YOU draft? Ivan Carter: If Hilton Armstrong were sitting there at 18, I'd be tempted to take him because he could potentially become a real nice big man in this league. I tend to like guys from major programs in big conferences because they're battle-tested and are better able to make the transition to the NBA. Also, UConn traditionally turns out some real solid players. Ivan Carter: Thanks for coming in and chatting with myself and Michael today. Hope we provided some decent info. Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
Washington Post staff writer Ivan Carter answered your questions about the latest NBA news.
427.533333
0.866667
3.533333
high
medium
mixed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/25/DI2006052501072.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/25/DI2006052501072.html
National Security and Intelligence
2006053119
Washington Post intelligence reporter Dana Priest was online Thursday, June 1, at 12:30 p.m. ET to discuss the latest developments in national security and intelligence. Priest was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for Beat Reporting . Dana Priest covers intelligence and wrote " The Mission: Waging War and Keeping Peace With America's Military " (W.W. Norton). The book chronicles the increasing frequency with which the military is called upon to solve political and economic problems. Dana Priest: I'm in....let's begin. Raleigh, N.C.: Thanks for doing the chat. It's a great place for policy discussion; too many other chats, by their nature, are about politics. The lefty blogs have been having some fun with Thomas Friedman for his recent pronouncement that the next 6 months will be crucial in determining the fate of Iraq. It turns out he's been periodically writing the same thing for a few years now. Someone compiled a list of them, and it got linked a bunch of places. "Wolf, wolf!!" Which leads me to my question. In your opinion, has the "most important 6 months" happened yet, or is it still to come? If it's already happened, what do you deem the crucial period? If not, when do you think it will come? Or is the whole question off base, as it presupposes that decisions by Iraqi and U.S. leaders could have done anything more than alter slightly the course of the mighty river of Iraqi's historical and societal trends? P.S...don't mean to bash Friedman, just wanted to use his recent writing to set up the question. Dana Priest: I do think the question is not answerable unless, in a way, it was obvious that the most important six months had already passed. That may sound illogical, but it's never been possible to predict what is going to happen there (I know many bloggers and pundits will take credit for doing so however). That said, since the violence continues to escalate and no political tipping point has emerged, I cannot fathom how things are going to turnaround at this point. But they could. East Cleveland, Ohio: Dana, on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being high, how shocked would you be if the young students in Iran launched a Tiananmen Square-style protest within the next 12-to-18 months? Dana Priest: 7. 7 being "fairly shocked." For this reason: the two governments are incredibly different. China is authoritarian and Iran is, well, less so. There are many more avenues for young people to express their political views, to protest, without going out on the streets. Oberlin, Ohio: Hi Dana, do you think the investigation into the Haditha violations of military code will proceed more rigorously than the one for the Abu Ghraib violations? I mean in terms of looking up the chain of command. Dana Priest: Absolutely positive. Now, whether that will be made public, I'm less certain. That will probably take a fair amount of gumshoe reporting. Dallas, Tex.: Big one here: My wife asked me this morning what would happen if the U.S. simply pulled out of Iraq. After five minutes of blustering about civil war (acknowledged, and far worse, that is), and Kurds and Turkey, and Shia and Iran, and al Qaeda in Saudia Arabia, and Musharraf in Pakistan I realized I had no idea. I know that no one does, but do you? What do the experts tell you? Dana Priest: I think you're right. A civil war that Iran, Turkey, Kuwait, Jordan and Syria either leap into or are drawn into. Las Vegas, Nev.: Listening to the going in Kabul recently if we (U.S.) pulled out now, would that country be any better than after the Russians left? Secondly taking in what happened in Haditha, it seems like the Bush administration and U.S. military have learned nothing from Abu Ghraib and that is cover ups will get exposed? Dana Priest: The main difference is that the Taliban, which we considered the enemy of our enemy--the Soviets--are now really our enemy and they have different intentions vis a vis the U.S. So they would be able to come back in full force and Al Qaeda would probably take advantage of that and move back too. Gaithersburg, Md.: I've always been a bit skeptical of the effectiveness of the position that Mr. Negroponte holds in terms of overseeing the CIA. As Gen. Hayden is the new "DCI" (if they still call that position that these days), do you see him working with Negroponte to clarify roles between Negroponte and himself? Dana Priest: Oh definitely. Remember, Hayden was Negroponte's deputy and they were said to work quite well together. So I would imagine that's the plan. They have the legislation to guide them, but the real nuts and bolts will be worked out between them--and DOD. Coeur d'Alene, Idaho: In defense of the detention and spying practices of the last few years, members of the Bush administration will sometimes note that there have been no attacks since 9/11. But I wonder how much useful information has been extracted from the detainees and all of the surveillance taking place. How much, would you guess, have we gleaned from some of these questionable practices? Dana Priest: Probably some important things earlier on, but that was now four years ago. On eavesdropping, I would guess that the most important intelligence has been gathered overseas. I still haven't even heard a whiff of anything really critical here, domestically, that we don't know about (Padilla, etc.) Munich, Germany: Do you see perhaps a troika developing between Cuba, Venezuela and China, which would use medical expertise, oil and industrial strength to exert more influence in the third world? Cuba, together with Venezuela, has accomplished a bit of public relations coup by sending thousands of doctors to third world countries. For instance, Musharraf praised Cuba for its large contribution of medical help after the earthquake in Pakistan. Dana Priest: I think you've spotted what we call "a trend." I can definitely see it continuing. Va.: Why did the New York Times print a picture of Gen Hayden with covert CIA employees on the front page? Dana Priest: I would bet anything that they were not covert. The agency would never have allowed a news photographer into the building to do that. Still, it was a rare photo indeed. Rockville, Md.: After some thought - I watched Victory at Sea over the break - I wonder how we decide how many casualties in Iraq are "too many." Is it a matter of government propaganda? Press coverage? Or just a profound shift in attitudes? What confuses me is that we were able to keep going and win in WWII, but we have many who want to pull out of Iraq in the face of very light losses - compared. I don't think the White House has done enough to explain it all. But it is bound to affect national security. Dana Priest: Various experts doing polling on this subject, as, I'm sure, do the Democratic and Republican parties. But I think it's a shifting line, and depends, as you suggest, on what the American people believe the goal of a war is and how much sacrifice that goal is worth. The second part is not static. It changes over time and could blossom into a profound shift in attitude over time. Sugar Loaf, N.Y.: How do you view the trade-off between national security programs, and the public's right to know what the government is up to? I'm not willing to give up civil liberties for perceived security. If the government is doing something illegal, then we have the right to stop them. Dana Priest: It's really on a case by case basis that I'd have to judge the issue. I do not accept a blanket trade-off, as some in the government suggest. That's one reason newspapers follow stories into the classified world. Knowing what we do as a nation in times of war, or in the name of war--much of it classified--is critical if we are trying to figure out whether a small group of people (the government) is acting faithfully on our behalf, following the rules we all agree on through our courts, our elections, etc, or are off on some other course. Laurel, Md.: What troubles me about the early reports of the civilian slaughter by Marines is that civilians were killed "in cold blood." Is there any evidence to substantiate that? It sounds like a small team of Marines had overreacted to an IED attack that killed one of their comrades, in an area that had killed twenty others recently. So far as I can tell, the shootings occurred in four nearby houses right after the IED attack, and the Marines may have been taking small arms fire at the time. The phrase "in the heat of battle" seems a lot more fitting than "in cold blood". But an anti-Bush press got it wrong again. Dana Priest: I take great exception to your view that a so-called "anti-Bush press" would hype a story like this. I don't know if you have ever met or spoken to any reporter who has ever covered Iraq or the military, but this idea that the press is cheering for the other side is nuts. They are trying to assess things that happen under the worst circumstances--the fog of war combined with being targets of attacks themselves. Do you really think that if this incident was simply a reaction to an IED attack that the head of the Marine Corp would be traveling throughout Iraq, that one general's promotion would be put on hold and that the Bush would have weighed in publicly already? Come on. Boston, Mass.: If the military is beginning to mandate "core values" training, 2 questions: why are they not getting it before they're put in a combat position, and second, is this an acknowledgement that killing civilians is thought to be ok - military wide (since everyone will presumably be getting this training?)? Dana Priest: It really varies from unit to unit. In Iraq, one commander would tell his troops that disrespecting Iraqis was tantamount to working for the enemy, in others, just about any action was okay if it could be considered "force protection." To the second part. No, no, no, killing civilians is not viewed as okay. Arlington, Va.: Hi Dana! What's your opinion of the fairly large funding cuts in the DHS grants to Washington and New York? Seems like they should be getting the majority of the money to me, but I'm interested in your expert opinion. Have there been a lot of plots uncovered that would have affected other areas (like the LA plot)? And how secure is Texarkana?! Dana Priest: I can't find any rational explanation for shifting money away from the main target areas. Most experts thought DHS would take money away from smaller, rural places where, five years later, no real threat has been identified, and give it to DC and NYC, LA too. And it's suspicious that DHS won't release the names of the panel that made these recommendations. Could there be some pork-barrel politics involved? Impossible! Richmond, Va.: Do you see any political fallout for the administration from the big cuts in homeland security dollars for NYC and D.C.? I understand that homeland security presents pork barrel opportunities for members of Congress, but I don't understand why the administration doesn't seem more focused on protecting the small number of cities that might really be the targets of a WMD attack. Dana Priest: There is a whole lot that DHS does and doesn't do that is not understandable. McAllen, Tex.: Do you think the new era in CIA going to be better that before? I mean, is the beginning of a really unity between the U.S. intelligence community?. Dana Priest: I wouldn't go so far as to say this is the beginning of "a new unity" in the intel community overall. So many obstacles to that still exist. But, I do think the new CIA director will be good at knocking down some of those obstacles, sees the value in doing so, and is being welcomed as a relief by the CIA after a very contentious time. Fort Collins, Colo.: I keep hearing that the Senate and House will start to play a more active role in watching over national security agencies, but I don't seem to see any real action. Is Congress actually holding any hearings at this time that provide effective oversight of national security activities such as warrantless wiretaps, phone call pattern analysis etc.? Are they doing things behind the scenes? Or is this just all a public relations campaign? Dana Priest: This is such an important question and, unfortunately, it is just very hard to tell. No other committee on the hill bares the kind of unique responsibility that the intel committees do, given the fact that they alone are privy to so much classified information, the real activities that go on in their agencies. Yet they hold few public hearings. The meatiest hearings on the NSA program were not from the intel committees, but from Specter's Judiciary Committee. And the questioning of Hayden during his confirmation produced nothing useful. They claim they are doing a better job. I see no proof of that. But I admit it is hard to judge. Sonoma, Calif.: Seriously, I must have missed something. We demand that Iran abandon its nuclear development program and we will agree to come to the negotiations table and discuss our demands that Iran abandon their nuclear development program. Please explain what appears, on the surface at least, to be another Bushism. Dana Priest: You could look at it that way. But you could also look at it another way: a dialogue, if undertaken, could lead to some surprises from either or both sides. Yesterday, Rice acknowledge the Iranian people's right to civilian nuclear power. That's interesting. The papers and TV were all filled with stories that said, basically, the Iraqis were "jaded," or "inured" to civilian deaths on a daily basis and Haditha would not have the impact of Abu Ghraib... Dana Priest: not at all. Munich, Germany: Global warming has been making the headlines more often these days, even in the States. Do you think that the CIA is working to determine how this will affect the power balance between nations in the future? I've read that the big insurance companies are already taking global warming quite seriously. Dana Priest: I would certainly hope so. I do believe they follow such long-term trends and try to game them out. You can find assessments like that in the Global 2020 report, which is on their Web site. Palo Alto, Calif.: So, if the FBI is willing to raid Congressional offices, what's the likelihood that the NSA is monitoring Congressional wire and wireless communications? Dana Priest: That's a far, far stretch, really. Washington, D.C.: What knowledge or specialized experience do you have that makes you qualified to discuss national security and intelligence matters? Have you ever held a clearance or been directly involved in national security making decisions? Dana Priest: I'm a reporter, I don't now, and have never had, a security clearance. And as an observer, I'm never a participant either. Other than that, I covered the military for The Post for eight years, wrote one book on the military and have tried to write about the CIA and intelligence community for the past four years. The only reporters here who have the kind of direct experience you are implying are the two doctors on staff who write about medical issues. Finally, bio-wise, there's lots more on the web if you are still concerned, as you sound. Washington, D.C.: I haven't had a chance to read your book but its on the list. In your research going into it, did you find that when soldiers are placed in odd roles not based on their training that they were more or less likely to 'snap'? Or is this simply a grim, tragic consequence of war that is eventually bound to happen? Dana Priest: Both. Much of my book is exactly on the issue of sending the military to do non-military jobs. I hope to get to it. Summer reading? hmm. Dana Priest: Okay, well, it's time to go--a half an hour ago. Hope to catch you next week if I didn't get to your question today. Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
Washington Post staff writer Dana Priest discusses the latest developments in national security and intelligence.
210.75
0.875
5.625
high
medium
mixed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/15/DI2006051500626.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/15/DI2006051500626.html
Apartment Life Live
2006053119
Welcome to Apartment Life, an online discussion of the Washington area rental market, featuring Post columnist Sara Gebhardt. In her monthly exchanges with the audience, Gebhardt discusses rental issues and lifestyle matters. Check out our special feature: Think Smart: Apartment Hunting Made Easy . Read Sara's latest Apartment Life column. Sara Gebhardt: Hello, all you renters and others who have come to join me on this first day of June. Hopefully, though I doubt it, you have not encountered air conditioning woes now that the weather has broken. But whatever your problems or comments, let's start our conversation. Silver Spring, Md.: Sara -- thanks for your help last week regarding the blinds (or lack thereof) in my new condo. I nagged the property manager and the owners finally did install them! Yay! Well, now the condo is fine -- with one exception. There is no dishwasher, despite a "property checklist" I found amongst my lease documents the day after I moved in that indicates a dishwasher installed and still under warranty. I wrote the property manager about it yesterday but I'd like to know what my options are -- are they are obligated to provide one since they did put it in writing? Sara Gebhardt: I am glad that you've gotten blinds installed so that you haven't been unwillingly forced into a life of exhibitionism -- or unwanted apartment trips to Home Depot and blind installation projects. Didn't you look at the apartment before you signed the lease? I guess first I wonder how you missed the fact that there was no dishwasher. Your landlord may not be obligated to install one if it's only documented on a property checklist. Refer to the lease, and wait to hear back from your landlord. It's strange that you'd have a document indicating something that isn't there, so perhaps this is an honest mix-up -- and one that could end up in a new dishwasher. Northern Virginia: My fellow tenants and I received notices from our landlord that the basement is messy. They want us to go through our "stuff" --and "throw out some out" and stack and label with our names what we want to keep. They say a lot of the "stuff" is paper and that is a fire hazard (there is not a lot of paper, that's hooey). They suggest we have a yard sale -- apparently they don't think our "stuff" is worth keeping. The basement is a bit disorganized, but hardly a fire hazard. She was down there moving things around the other day. She is going to be "checking back to see if any progress is made." My apartment is already too full. They can't force me to get rid of my stuff can they? Sara Gebhardt: Well, yes and no. If they deem it a fire hazard, your landlords are allowed to ask you to remove the items. If there is a dispute over the safety of your house because of things stored in the basement, call the local fire station and ask someone to come take a look and officially tell you whether or not it's unsafe. The landlord has the right and the duty to keep your place safe, so first worry about this -- since it's in your best interest -- and then deal with your power struggle if the landlord is in the wrong. Washington, D.C.: I recently went to look at a basement apartment and saw several issues I think constitute building code violations (no second method of egress, ceilings lower than six feet in some places., etc). I obviously didn't take the place. Who would I report such violations to? Do I have to be a tenant to report violations? Sara Gebhardt: You can report it to the District's Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs. And, no, you don't have to be a tenant to report violations. The web site is www.dcra.dc.gov. Washington, D.C.: Just a quick question, thanks! It seems easy, but for some reason I'm feeling at a loss... I signed a lease and moved into a new apartment two months ago. The apartment is very expensive for its size, etc. Prior to moving in, I did a "walk through" and noticed a few broken, jagged and missing tiles in the kitchen floor. Spoke to the one landlord (it is joint-owned), who said they'd fix it by that Friday, a week after I moved in. You guessed it -- it still has not been done. She came last weekend, started to put them in, and then realized that she was missing a tool. Said she'd come the next day, haven't heard from her since. I now have tape all over my floor. I've called at least once a week regarding it since the start, but here's the problem -- the landlord is now pretty severely ill, so I feel bad (and have felt bad for a while, but this was the first time I'd seen her and actually realized how bad it was) bugging her. They have a handyman, who she says is out of the country. What can I do? It's joint-owned, so I'm thinking of calling the other owner, but I don't want it to seem like I'm "telling" on her... Sara Gebhardt: By all means, call the other owner. Either one of the owners can find another person to fix the tile, and you can explain nicely to the other owner that you aren't trying to "tell on" the other, but that you just want this problem fixed. Landlords usually have a "reasonable" amount of time to make such fixes, and it seems like this one is bordering or approaching unreasonable. It's good for tenants to be mindful that their landlords are human, and vice versa, but there is still a contract each party must follow. Dishwasher: If there is no kitchen space set aside for a dishwasher, then there would be no dishwasher. And don't expect one to be put in. Ask management to document the obvious error. Sara Gebhardt: Yes, clearly, putting a dishwasher into a space that may not have room for it is more than just unlikely. Messy basement: The tenant could also just go through everything, get it organized, put papers in boxes, etc. Which, in the long run, will make his/her life easier as well. Sara Gebhardt: Well, yes, this seems like a rational approach for someone who enjoys organization. It would make things easier, but some people obviously do not operate like that. Germantown, Md.: Northern Va. does not have to get rid of her stuff. Just get a small storage unit. If you can, find a neighbor to go half on the cost. A cluttered basement can also provide grand housing for rodents. Sara Gebhardt: Good point about the rodents. Now that's a problem everybody wants to avoid. I'm guessing this tenant does not want to pay for a storage unit when he/she is paying for rent, which is why just organizing it would be the easier, cheaper route. Washington, D.C.: I am so excited that you're online today, I have an important question for you. Last week I signed a lease for an apartment that I really like -- great space, great location. But after living there for just two days I realized that there are many repairs to be made. When I got home from work on Tuesday there was a leak in the kitchen, two hours later plaster, and paint fell from the ceiling to expose all kinds of mold. I am severely allergic to mold and can no longer stay in the apartment. The management company has committed to cleaning it up and has sent in their handyman crew to replace the ceiling, but I am concerned as they don't have any experience dealing with mold and I have no way of knowing if all the spores are gone once they are done. Is my landlord responsible for testing? If the mold is still there after testing can I get out of my lease? Sara Gebhardt: I'm excited to be online today, so it all works out. Trust that your management's maintenance crew knows what it is doing. If you want, you can ask (cordially) about the possibility of mold and for future checks for mold, and also monitor your apartment for it in the future. Generally, you'd have to have a rather serious mold problem to get out of your lease. Give your landlords a chance before assuming the worst, and document what is going on along the way should a mold outbreak ever surface. Hurtin' for Flirtin': What apartment buildings house the young -- and single -- denizens of D.C.? Sara Gebhardt: Now you know I never single out (ha ha ha) specific apartment buildings, but I'll allow all of you to make your case. Dishwasher: On the other hand, if there is space and no dishwasher, there is a possibility that you could be charged with the "loss" of the appliance .Happened to a friend of mine with a microwave, and not a happy story. Landlord demanded $200 for a microwave, and she lost in small claims court because the lease said there was a microwave. Sara Gebhardt: Yes, yes, this is why the tenant must immediately get the landlord to document the fact that no such dishwasher exists. Additionally, dated photographs of the kitchen may help prove this point in the future. Messy basement: Or just go to Target and get some stackable plastic crates with tops and dump everything inside. At least it will look neater and there won't be papers or whatever else the landlord thinks is a fire hazard lying around. Sara Gebhardt: There's a lot of opinions about the messy basement... Messy basement: If the writer rents a house, the landlord is butting in where he shouldn't unless it is a safety issue. If the writer is in an apartment (the word used in the question), the landlord could be on solid ground if the lease does not specify that the tenant has use of basement storage space in addition to the apartment. Sara Gebhardt: Here's another. Although I personally like the idea of organizing a messy basement, I agree that this is an issue of safety. If the area is not unsafe, then the landlord might be invading privacy. Gold Coast, D.C.: Hey Sara, long-time lurker, first time chatter here. Question -- I live in a basement apartment with a tile floor. My bed is kind of a cheap one, with wheels on the legs. Is there anything I can do to stop it from rolling around, apart from buying a new bed or expensive carpet? Sara Gebhardt: Well, you could buy cheap carpet. Or you could look at the bottom of your bed and see if you can lock the wheels in place. Alternatively, and probably the best way to keep your bed from rolling across the floor, is to purchase stoppers(there is probably a more technical name) that go underneath furniture legs. They are inexpensive and available at hardware stores. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Hi Sara -- asking a question that will probably apply across the nation (and world): My mom is moving down to this college town (Ann Arbor) and into an apartment complex that seems to be full of young grad students or pre-professionals. I can only imagine the mis-match: my mom is long on pointing out what's wrong with "young people" these days. She didn't spend a lot of time choosing her venue -- a weekend. I think she fell in love with the model apartment, without any assessment of neighborhood. Is there anything I can do to keep her from turning into "that old crank in #245-A"? Sara Gebhardt: "Young people" get such a bad rap and treated like they are somehow alien to the human race. That said, if your mom's new apartment is full of rowdy people -- young or old or in-between -- she may have to adjust to the new environment. I don't really know how to help someone avoid becoming a crank if it's in their personality, but you may want to acquaint her with the building rules so that she understands which kind of behaviors are deserving of complaints and which are not. All apartment-dwellers need to learn to get along in buildings that house people with very different habits and backgrounds, so the more she understands this, the more she may take any apartment situation in stride. Matchmaking & Moving Beds: Perhaps "Gold Coast, D.C." and "Hurtin' for Flirtin'" could exchange numbers. Sara Gebhardt: I think Hurtin' for Flirtin' wanted a bevy of options, not just a dweller of a basement apartment. But I'll be happy to facilitate. Washington, D.C.: So I'm moving into an apartment... in a college dorm. What are some strategies for keeping neighbor noise to a minimum? Does anything short of sound proof tiles help? At 32, my tolerance for the usual college, um, enthusiasm is probably a lot lower than when I was in school, so any bit helps. (And no, when I was a freshman, I did not think "Gee, someday I'd like to live here with my wife.") Sara Gebhardt: Meet your neighbors and form a relationship with them so that you can tell them to ease up on the noise if and when it happens. Most people do not want to irritate their neighbors, and if they know and like you, they will work to live more quietly. Also, carpeting and furniture generally keep some of the noise out. Washington, D.C.: For the person searching for "young" apartment buildings, I live at the Post building at the corner of 15th and Mass, and it's practically a fraternity, complete with elevator rides of shame. My recommendation is to look for large buildings with a roof deck- young partiers tend to congregate there Sara Gebhardt: If you too are hurting for some flirting... Weirton, W. Va.: RE: Landperson and the messy basement: Get some plastic totes with lids at a dollar store and transfer your articles into them .Label with a marker and stack. Looks neat and landperson doesn't need to know what is in them. Sara Gebhardt: Here's another vote for organizing the basement. Fairfax, Va.: I'm up there in age. I've been retired for quite a while and decided to sell my house, then take that money and rent. This way I can escape the hassle of cutting the lawn and doing routine maintenance on a large home. Unfortunately I didn't look at rents until after the sale. To say I'm shocked is too mild. How do people starting out in life do it? A small one bedroom rents for $1,000 or more. On top of that, I've looked at apartment reviews on the internet and there are some real horror stories. So the quality of life is a big concern. What's going on? Sara Gebhardt: It is really shocking to think about how people starting out do pay these high rents, but they manage with roommates, searching for good deals, living further out, etc. What's going on is the real estate market. If you do the proper research, you can at least figure out a way to get the most for your money and not end up in a neglected, overpriced place. Good luck. Washington, D.C.: About taking things in stride... any advice on how to deal with a neighbor whose TV keeps you up at night? Months ago I slipped a note under the door, and it got quiet for a while, but the noise is driving me crazy again. Sara Gebhardt: Try slipping another note under the door, or better yet, knock on the door and have a conversation with your neighbor if you're bold enough. Boston, Mass.: I'm a student and share an apartment with two other students who will be staying for the summer. I am seeking to sublet my room for a couple of months this summer. Do I need to inform the (absentee) landlord? I don't recall anything on the lease. Since my roommates are cool with the idea, can it just be our little secret? Thanks for your wise counsel! Sara Gebhardt: Weigh the pros and cons and decide if it is worth the risk. Will you get caught? Do you have a lease to refer to that states potential penalties for subletting? It seems like your landlord will not find out, and thus as long as the rent gets paid, you should be okay. Not that I'm condoning it, but I'm just helping you start your pro/con list. Silver Spring, Md.: I just put a deposit on an apartment and then was told when I sign the lease I have to pay a $300 "activities fee" -- is this normal? The last time I had to pay one of those was to my undergrad university. Sara Gebhardt: I would not say this is "normal," but the institution of extra fees is something that more and more landlords are doing these days. They are not always called "activities fees" either. Have you asked just what kind of activities are planned for you? Maybe a foosball tourney or a field trip to D.C.? No, really, the management will probably tell you the fee is for use of extraneous amenities like exercise facilities, lifeguards for the pool, or a business center. Obviously, you don't have to sign the lease and agree to this, but definitely ask what it's for. Ashburn, Va.: Sara, how would you describe the condo market right now in the Herndon/Reston area? I've been renting the same apartment for over three years and I'm wondering if it's coming to the time to seriously look at buying. Our lease is up at end of September and could rent another year, but I'm worried I might lose out on something. washingtonpost.com: Here's a May article from the Post (complete with a link to some interactive tools) that might help a bit: Rent or Buy? , (Post, May 6) Sara Gebhardt: The condo market in general is slowing down. If nothing else, it is a good time to look to see what is out there, as condos are staying on the market much longer than they were a year ago. This means you may have more choice and more room to negotiate. But buying is a big commitment and not one that everyone should do just because they think that's the logical next step. Plenty of people decide that renting is the better option for the long-term. I doubt you'd lose out on something if you don't jump on the chance to buy right this minute. But that's just my opinion. Sara Gebhardt: Well, everyone, thanks for the spirited chat this afternoon. I hope all of you figure out your issues with your clutter, privacy, dishwashers, flirting, bed-rolling, neighbor noise, etc. in the next month. But in the event you don't, join me here next month, same time, same place. And feel free to email me about in the meantime: aptlife@gmail.com. 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.
Welcome to Apartment Life, an online discussion of the Washington area rental market. Post columnist Sara Gebhardt discusses rental issues and lifestyle matters.
149.884615
1
10.076923
high
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/30/AR2006053001226.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/30/AR2006053001226.html
50 Die in Rising Iraq Violence
2006053119
BAGHDAD, May 30 -- A series of car bombings and other attacks killed more than 50 Iraqis and one U.S. soldier on Tuesday, evidence of a new intensity in the violence in Iraq and underlining the security problems facing the country's 10-day-old government. In an indicator of rising violence, more "multiple-fatality" bombings -- involving at least three deaths -- occurred this month than in any other since the war began in 2003, according to the Brookings Institution, which issues a twice-weekly report of security and reconstruction statistics. The report this week noted 44 such bombings as of May 25; since then, that number has risen above 50. The next-worst month was September 2005, with 46. U.S. commanders have warned for weeks that the country's Sunni Arab insurgent movement, which they say is led by the group al-Qaeda in Iraq, would unleash an all-out offensive to weaken the new government's authority and stoke hatred between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Statistics indicate that violence has been escalating steadily for months, particularly since the bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra north of Baghdad on Feb. 22 kicked off a wave of sectarian killing. According to Brookings, there were 21 multiple-fatality bombings in December, when national elections were held for the new government. In January, there were 30; in February, 39; in March, 37, and in April, 40. The number of people killed in these bombings has gradually climbed, as well, from 174 in December to 293 in April. This month's death toll is well over 300. A tally of war-related deaths compiled by the Associated Press shows at least 4,066 Iraqis have been killed in 2006, 871 of them in May. These numbers are likely to be low due to a lack of complete reporting The violence has not spared American troops. U.S. military authorities reported that a soldier in the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team was killed by gunfire on Monday in the northern city of Mosul, and another soldier was killed on Tuesday by a roadside bomb while on patrol southeast of Baghdad. The military also said that it had found the bodies of two Marine helicopter pilots killed in what they described as an accidental crash west of Baghdad on Saturday. In Tuesday's deadliest incident, at least 25 people were killed and more than 50 injured when a car bomb exploded near a bus stop in Husseiniyah, about 20 miles north of Baghdad, Maj. Gen. Hussein Kamal, a deputy interior minister, said in a televised statement. American and Iraqi forces sealed off the area, and the cellphone network was shut down. Another car bombing, in Hilla, about 60 miles south of Baghdad, killed 12 people and wounded 32. The bomb exploded in an auto dealers' area, police Capt. Muthanna Ahmad said. A third bomb exploded in front of a bakery in Baghdad, killing 10 people, the al-Arabiya television network reported Tuesday night. The Associated Press reported that at least seven other Iraqis died in a mortar attack and several shootings. The attacks came a day after another string of bombings, one of which killed a U.S. soldier, two CBS News staff members and an Iraqi interpreter and wounded CBS News correspondent Kimberly Dozier and six U.S. soldiers.
BAGHDAD, May 30 -- A series of car bombings and other attacks killed more than 50 Iraqis and one U.S. soldier on Tuesday, evidence of a new intensity in the violence in Iraq and underlining the security problems facing the country's 10-day-old government.
12.959184
1
49
low
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/30/AR2006053000514.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053119id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/30/AR2006053000514.html
Progress on AIDS Is Focus of Assembly
2006053119
UNITED NATIONS, May 30 -- Five years after the United Nations' historic first general assembly on AIDS, the world has seen a huge increase in money and attention going to the 25-year-old epidemic, as well as evidence that the disease has stabilized in many areas and is retreating in more than a few. The number of people getting AIDS drug treatment in needy countries has risen more than fivefold in five years, and the number of sites providing it has jumped tenfold in just the past year. At least a quarter-million people are alive today who would not be without the money, effort and expertise expended just since 2003, according to U.N. estimates released Tuesday. With those achievements in the background, thousands of AIDS activists, diplomats, health ministers and heads of state are gathering here Wednesday to tackle the more difficult task of extending the recent gains. They also will have to face the reality that the world did not come close to putting 3 million low-income AIDS patients on treatment by the end of 2005 -- the "3 by 5" target proclaimed in 2003 -- and that far fewer than half the people who need antiretroviral drugs immediately are getting them. Nevertheless, today "the context is completely different" from the first general assembly session in August 2001, Peter Piot, the Belgian physician who directs UNAIDS, said in an interview before the meeting. "In 2001 we were at the height of despair. Today we have more than just proof of concept -- we are beginning to see results." That success -- which is far more than what even many optimists had thought possible -- now presents the world's wealthy countries with a serious responsibility: The lives of perhaps 1 million people on AIDS therapy in low- and middle-income countries are now directly dependent on foreign aid. How to sustain that therapy without interruptions of even days or weeks, while not turning the United States and Europe into the health insurers of millions of people in the developing world, is expected to be the chief issue at the U.N. meeting. "We must move from what up to now is crisis management of the epidemic to a sustainable and strategic response to it," Piot said. Over the next three days, delegates will try to come up with a blueprint for reaching the new goal of providing "universal access" to AIDS care and prevention by 2010. There will also be many presentations by grass-roots organizations describing the needs of various populations and risk groups, particularly women, who account for 17.3 million of the 38.6 million people infected with HIV worldwide but who outnumber infected men 3 to 2 in sub-Saharan Africa, the worst-hit region. "Today, AIDS has a woman's face, and this is where we really need to be vigilant and work hard," U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said Tuesday in a brief encounter with reporters. UNAIDS estimates about $8.3 billion was spent last year in treatment, prevention and care of orphans in low- and middle-income countries. That meets the $7 billion to $10 billion target set five years ago. Although the number of people getting AIDS drugs increased from 240,000 in 2001 to about 1.4 million last year, of people worldwide whose disease has advanced to the point of needing the drugs, only one in five gets them. By next year, $18 billion will be needed to pay for drug treatment, but only $10 billion will be available, according to U.N. estimates, and the gap will continue to grow.
UNITED NATIONS, May 30 -- Five years after the United Nations' historic first general assembly on AIDS, the world has seen a huge increase in money and attention going to the 25-year-old epidemic, as well as evidence that the disease has stabilized in many areas and is retreating in more than a few.
11.383333
1
60
low
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/24/DI2006052401794.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/24/DI2006052401794.html
PBS Frontline: The Age of AIDS
2006053019
Senior producer and reporter Renata Simone was online Wednesday, May 31, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the PBS Frontline film, "The Age of AIDS," which examines why we have been unable to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS. Since the virus emerged in Los Angeles in 1981, 70 million have been infected and 30 million have died. "The Age of AIDS" features prominent scientists, politicians, activists and others struggling to slow the spread of a disease that will infect an estimated 50 million more over the next decade and looks back at the stigma and controversy that surrounded HIV/AIDS when it emerged in the 1980s. Which countries are hardest hit? What can be done to contain this deadly epidemic? PBS Frontline's "The Age of AIDS" will air Tuesday, May 30, and Wednesday, May 31 at 9 p.m. ET ( check local listings ). Philadelphia, Pa.: I recall an early AIDS researcher mentioning in the early 1980s that AIDS were prevalent in the animal kingdom and he mentioned that it probably was spread by a human having sex with an animal. Until recently, I thought he was kidding, but now I am beginning to wonder, as I read of newly published research into the history of AIDS: might that possibly indeed be how AIDS was transformed to humans? Renata Simone: From the beginning the origins of AIDS has been subject to speculations - often wild speculations and conspiracy theories. But as we report in the documentary, and more extensively on the Web site, genetic research has pinpointed the exact animal reservoir and the habitat of those chimpanzees in southeastern Cameroon. Experts believe that the most likely blood to blood contact through which the simian virus first infected people was in the practice of killing chimpanzees for food. Chimpanzees have been a traditional food source for people in this area. Frontline Web site Toronto, Canada: Very interesting overview of the history. Could you briefly go over how long it took from concept to production and any hurdles that had to be overcome to produce this excellent episode(s)? Renata Simone: I spent two years writing the treatments and refining the concept. I then spent another two years fundraising for the project, and we began production in September of 2004. The biggest hurdles were the editorial choices around what to include and what to leave out of such a complex story. Melbourne, Fla.: I am a community educator on HIV. In my opinion the fight needs to begin in our schools. I feel that schools and colleges need to discuss sex and HIV more freely. Our society views sex as an unspeakable topic which helps HIV prevail. Would you agree? Renata Simone: I think of Mervyn Silverman's comment that trying to do prevention education with out talking about sex is like trying to prevent drunk driving without talking about booze or cars. Miami, Fla.: Given the expectedly forthcoming recommendation from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control that HIV tests become part of the average American's routine medical exam, how critical was the FDA's recent approval of Chembio's rapid HIV/AIDS tests, which are 99.9% specific and 99.85% sensitive, and take about 15 minutes to produce results? Renata Simone: The accuracy of the test is crucial, but no less important would be a guarantee of confidentiality for those who want it. New York, N.Y.: What causes HIV to become AIDS? Renata Simone: As we present in detail on our Web site, the AIDS virus targets the most important cell in the immune system. This particular cell, the CD-4 T lymphocyte is the overall control of the immune response. As the virus destroys those cells over time, a person's immune system becomes less and less able to fight off infections. Some of those infections respond to treatment but some of these "opportunistic infections" are life threatening. AIDS is the name given to specific opportunistic infections. If a person develops those infections they are diagnosed with AIDS. Frontline Web site Washington, D.C.: Are you positively completely sure that you cannot catch the virus by working with someone who has AIDS...even though they cough around you and you are using the same computer and telephone?? Renata Simone: It has been shown through scientific research from the beginning that HIV is not an airborne virus. Tests have also shown that exposed to air the virus dies within twenty minutes. It is killed by soap and water, and is not transmitted by casual contact. It is understandable to be fearful of the disease, but scientists have provided good clear answers to your question. Baltimore, Md.: Hello Ms. Simone, Thank you for your excellent Frontline program, The Age of Aids. Since the origins of HIV/AIDS are contentious, did you consider including the theory of the iatrogenic origin of HIV/AIDS in your program, i.e. that human trials of vaccines such as the oral polio vaccine that may have been grown on chimpanzee kidneys by Hilary Koprowski's group in Africa in the 1950's, may have been the origin of HIV/AIDS (as detailed in Edward Hooper's phenomenal book, The River)? I would have appreciated more discussion on the origins of HIV/AIDS in The Age of Aids, since it's very mysterious, relevant, and no one has yet been able to come up with the answer yet. Renata Simone: We interviewed Beatrice Hahn, the scientist who led the team who made the most recent discoveries on the origins of the virus. Her transcript is on the Web site, with a link to her most recent publication. There is also an essay which puts Hooper's OPV theory in context. Frontline Web site Philadelphia, Pa.: I'm concerned that the black church has not been involved in this issue like it took the lead in the Civil Rights era. Will you be dealing with this in the last episode? Renata Simone: You are right, this was and is one of the most important issues in the fight against the epidemic, particularly in the U.S. We do cover this issue - but unfortunately with only four hours to cover the entire history of the pandemic, we do not spend as much time on it as I would have liked. Phill Wilson, the Executive Director of the Black AIDS Institute has been a leader on this subject for many years. His interview along with our interview with Pernessa Seele, the founding director of The Balm in Gilead can be found on our Web site. We could have done a whole hour on this fascinating part of the story. Seattle, Wash.: are pharmaceutical companies coming around when it comes to providing generic ARV's, which are as effective yet less expensive, and consequently NGO's abroad can afford more, especially those who are recipients of The Global Funding? Renata Simone: At the insistence of activists around the world, generic versions of the expensive ARV's have become more widely available. But the battle is far from over because experts tell us that within five years 50 percent of the people on any given regiment of treatment become resistant and need to take a different combination of drugs. So the goal would be for generic (cheaper) versions of all 21 treatments to be widely available. Oakland, Calif.: I work for a national Native American AIDS prevention center and I've found that HIV is essentially a blood disease. I find that while I can teach about how the biology of the disease works, overcoming the stigma of the disease is the greatest barrier to understanding or wanting to understand the transmission and prevention of HIV; this is true for tribes and non-native people. Do you find this to be true also? Thanks so much for bringing the discussion of HIV prevention and AIDS to the national and global level. Renata Simone: When we looked back over the 25 year history of the epidemic we started to see repeated patterns. And when we traveled to countries around the world we saw those same patterns everywhere : when AIDS enters a community the first response is often denial followed by stigma and discrimination. Communities and nations that were able to move past that were successful. But in too many places denial and stigma persist, which allows the virus to spread deeper into the community. Flint, Mich.: My impression of the battle against AIDS is that it has been pretty much a catastrophe of ideology and ego trumping sound science and social policy. Last night's info regarding credit for discover of the virus, the shutting down of WHO's anti-AIDS effort, and Jesse Helms's and Ronald Reagan's speeches seems to bear out that impression. Do you find evidence for a less pessimistic view of efforts against the disease? (Will we see these in tonight's second episode?) Renata Simone: I think you've correctly identified some of the most powerful forces at play in this epidemic. The battle continues in tonight's episode and on the frontlines around the world. New York, N.Y.: Have you included in the program anything about the way they treat AIDS in Brazil? I heard something about Brazil's methods and policies as being the "model for the rest of the world" Renata Simone: Yes. Watch tonight's episode on PBS at 9. Check local listings. Somerville, Mass.: Where do we go from here? Is it too late? Renata Simone: Prevention and treatment. But mostly prevention. washingtonpost.com: Thank you all for joining us today. 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.
Senior producer and reporter Renata Simone discusses her PBS Frontline film, "The Age of AIDS," which examines how the disease, discovered 25 years ago, has impacted countries around the globe. Since the virus emerged in Los Angeles in 1981, 70 million have been infected and 30 million have died.
32.275862
0.913793
12.258621
medium
medium
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/24/DI2006052402159.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/24/DI2006052402159.html
Post Politics Hour
2006053019
Don't want to miss out on the latest in politics? Start each day with The Post Politics Hour. Join in each weekday morning at 11 a.m. as a member of The Washington Post's team of White House and Congressional reporters answers questions about the latest in buzz in Washington and The Post's coverage of political news. Washington Post national political reporter Tom Edsall was online Wednesday, May 31, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the latest news in politics. Political analysis from Post reporters and interviews with top newsmakers. Listen live on Washington Post Radio or subscribe to a podcast of the show. Philadelphia, Pa.: Any comment on the pitiful article from the AP on Monday that was trying to connect Senator Reid with corruption. The writer, John Solomon, could only criticize Reid for legally taking a gift and then voting against the interests of the agency giving the gift. The truly funny part was when the AP changed the story and left out the part about Reid's vote on the issue. Does that sound like a bad reporter or just a blatant partisan or anti-democratic jokester? Tom Edsall: This article has become very controversial, especially on the web. AP, CNN and others should provide a detailed follow up to explain the confusing play, and perhaps later changes, of the information of Reid's actual vote. I have not researched this myself and do not know the details as fact, but it appears that Reid voted against the interests of those who gave him free tickets, and this significant fact appeared in various locations in the story in different printings and publications, and may have been left out altogether in some cases. The burden falls on AP to straighten this out. New York, N.Y.: Since the NY Times put Hillary's marriage on the front page, do you see the issue as more of a Bill Clinton baggage problem for her in 2008? If she is supposed to be her own woman, then her husband will overshadow her no matter where they go together. On the other hand, if Condi Rice decides to run, will the fact she is not married be seen as an asset? Tom Edsall: for those of us, myself included, who believe there are areas of privacy that should only be invaded by the media when public policy is affected, the unfortunate reality is that the Clinton marriage is going to be part of her very likely presidential campaign. There is no way around it. The choice of whether to cover the details of their marriage that to some would be viewed as in the privacy sphere is up to individual reporters, editors and publications, but there will be many who believe there are no boundaries. Boston, Mass.: Dana Milbank has been doing his chats from Starbucks. What do you think of his taste in coffee? Tom Edsall: Dana is a Starbucks kind of guy. Chris was saying that Hillary Clinton is the front runner for the democratic nomination, b/c of name ID and money. Do you think she is? She does have 100% name id, but she is at 35% in the polls, and that's not good news. As far the primary goes, she will be able to raise more money than her competitors, but there is so much money in politics now a well known challenger to her will be able to compete with her. Democrats are a fickle bunch as seen in 2004 with Howard Dean. They are giving her the highest rating, but when they get to know a Mark Warner or someone they judge to be more electable and more authentic, their only concern, he or someone else like him will emerge as a challenger and may quickly be able to turn into the front runner himself. Every Democrat I know wonders if she can win. Her connection to the voters is not strong. People do not like her. Democrats do not like her. Tom Edsall: Chris is right when he describes her as the front runner. She leads in all public polls, and has support across the board among Democrats. In the primary system, one of the first steps is to weed out the field and to determine which two candidates with actually fight it out for the nomination. Assuming she is one of those two candidates, the difference between facing Mark Warner and Sen. Russell Feingold would be enormous. Many Democrats share your view that she is polarizing and the question would become which candidate is best equipped to make that case. All that said, I and many others thought her campaign for Senate in N.Y. would be an unmitigated disaster, and we were dead wrong. Fairfax, Va.: So it's OK for a Senator to take a gift as long as he or she votes against the interests of the giver? Has Reid always voted against the interests of the Nevada Athletic Commission or did his supporters just find one example of him doing so? Tom Edsall: Good question. Reid has been very supportive of his home state interests. It is a question the AP should deal with. Alexandria, Va.: Good morning, the truth about the massacre at Haditha is slowly emerging, but it would appear that no one in Washington is concerned about the slaughter of Iraqi civilians by US Marines. Do you think that we expect the same level of indifference from the rest of the world, or will this become a big story? Many thanks. Tom Edsall: This story sure looks like it has huge potential to become a national and world-wide issue. Pittsford, N.Y.: Do you think that the AP would be on the defensive about this story without pushback from liberal blogs? How important is pushback from bloggers, media watchers, partisans, etc. in making sure that bogus, politically-motivated stories are corrected? Tom Edsall: In this case, I thinks the blogs have been very effective in pushing the problems raised by the story and the various forms it has taken on other media web sites (CNN, MSNBC etc.)The public, and the press, owe the blogs a note a gratitude. Houston, Tex.: What are Bill Frist's chances for the presidency in 2008? Tom Edsall: His credibility as a candidate has taken a series of hits from left, right and center. His TV diagnosis of Terry Schiavo, his sudden support of stem cell research after seemingly committing himself to the Christian Right, and doubts about his ability to run the Senate have all undermined his prospects. He may prove to be a better doctor than politician. Houston, Tex.: Good morning Mr. Edsall, With the news that whistleblowers are less protected, NSA viewing phone records, Bush's attempt to blame disapproval of the war on MSM, where do you see checks and balances of this administration? Tom Edsall: Good question. Checks and balances are likely to continue to go in the same direction they have from the start: downhill. Philadelphia, Pa.: Why would the Clinton marriage (of 30 years) be of interest to the press and the public? Plenty of male politicians have dicier marriages and multiple marriages. Wouldn't the family values crowd prefer a politician in a 30 year marriage over someone like say McCain or Giuliani who have had multiple marriages? Is this gender discrimination? Are we going to only hear about the marriage, the hair-dos, the clothes...in order to elect a woman? Tom Edsall: Assuming he runs, McCain's handling of his divorce from his first wife will become the subject of public examination. San Francisco, Calif.: Thanks, Tom, for taking my question this morning. Given his support of the Kyoto Protocol and demonstrated leadership in crisis situations, how long do you give this Secretary of the Treasury in his new position, which many have suggested is simply a salesman for rosy economic news, since policy is made in this White House? Is this guy Paulson a "fit" with this administration? Tom Edsall: I think in this case, the administration may have bitten off more than it can chew, for a terrible metaphor. Henry M. Paulson has been a winner in a very tough market. I don't think he is going to be willing to spend time being a patsy for anyone, despite his acceptance of a post in this administration which has tended to diminish the power and authority of much of the Cabinet. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Do you agree that the ABC correspondent who claimed that Hastert was being investigated in regards to the Abramoff scandal should reveal his sources if it is found that the story has no truth? Is this type of erroneous reporting(when sources lie) swept under the rug when the story becomes "old" news? Tom Edsall: No. Sources are the bread and butter of the news business. A promise not to reveal a source's name is a promise to be kept. The only circumstances to break such a promise would be if the reporter determined that his source(s) knowingly misled him with information they knew to be false in order to damage Hastert. At that point, the sources lose their right to anonymity. If the sources were convinced of the accuracy of what they told the reporter, no matter what their motive, the promise to protect the secrecy of their identity remains absolute. Annapolis, Md.: If Sen. George Allen survives his race for re-election, how strong a presidential candidate will he turn out to be? There's an obvious opening for a conservative challenger to McCain. But he needs to get a better speechwriter. Cut out those football analogies. Tom Edsall: Allen as his backers have tried to portray his as the "real" heir to Ronald Reagan, suggesting, without saying so, that McCain is not. So far, that message has not risen above sea level. New York, N.Y.: Re Hillary Clinton's initial run for Senate in NYC, she faced no serious opposition, as Giuliani dropped out of the race leaving Republicans scrambling to put up a candidate. For that matter, she faces no serious opposition in her re-election campaign. This makes it difficult to say that she has much real support when she is something other than a default choice, and it is unlikely that this will be the scenario in the Presidential stakes. Tom Edsall: In the political marketplace, when a potentially strong candidate like Giuliani drops out, and then for two elections no tough challenger emerges, that suggests the unchallenged candidate is no push over. Margate City, N.J.: Why do you think that members of Congress think they are above the law. Do you think this type of altitude will come back to hurt them in November? Tom Edsall: There are legitimate constitutional issues in the Justice Department (executive branch) conducting searches of congressional offices, but it is a political loser for Congress as a public issue, making them look as if they want special protection unavailable to regular citizens. Cambridge, Mass.: Tom, is the country ready to actually elect a woman as President? I wonder if the Democrats would be wasting an opportunity to win an election. Tom Edsall: I think the answer to your question is yes. The practical question is, Which woman? Margaret Thatcher won in England, and many more women are winning governorships. In recent decades, governorships have been the best training ground for future presidents. With that, I am going to sign off. You folks were, as usual, great. Best Tom Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
Washington Post national political reporter Tom Edsall discusses the latest buzz in Washington and The Post's coverage of political news.
103.227273
0.954545
8.954545
high
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/24/DI2006052401590.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/24/DI2006052401590.html
Real Wheels
2006053019
Warren Brown talks about all your automobile issues! He has been covering the automobile industry for The Washington Post since 1982. Brown, who joined the newspaper in 1976, has what many people think is a particularly cool job: He gets to test drive all manner of cars, from top-of-the-line Mercedes sedans and the newest sports cars to Volkswagen Beetles and SUVs. His auto reviews are lively, detailed accounts of a car's good and bad points, addressing everything from a car's highway performance to its "head-turning" factor and sound system. Brown comes online Wednesdays at 11 a.m. ET to answer your questions on every aspect of the automotive industry -- from buying your dream car to the future of the internal combustion engine. We begin this session with a note of appreciation for the life and contributions of Edouard Michelin, the chief executive officer of The Michelin Group, who died last week in a boating accident in France. He was both a businessman and a visionary; an executive who had the ability to see beyond the bottom line and embrace the possibility of a better tomorrow for humankind. I especially applaud him for all of the work and research he and his company did on sustainable personal mobility. I hope that work continues. My condolences to the Michelin Family and the employees of Michelin. Edouard, who died at 43, will be missed. I've got $5k to replace my old 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible, which was totaled. What can I get for my money that has some pizazz and style and won't leave me feeling like I'm stuck in automotive purgatory? But if you are willing to change your mindset, you could make peace with a car such as a used Hyundai Elantra. Purgatory, after all, is a lot better than hell. I am interested in the Mazda5 and am wondering if there will be any enhancements with the 2007 model (such as a more powerful engine)? Are they any new cars coming out in 2007 that would compare (compact-ish with seating for 6)? Warren Brown: Good morning, Arlington. At the moment, the 138-hp inline 4 is the only engine available for the Mazda 5. That is a matter of design and engineering intent -- to produce a small, fuel-efficient family hauler, which it is. More oomph is available in the Kia Sedona -- a 3.8-liter, 231-hp V6 -- at a starting price of about $23,000. It gets 26 miles per gallon on the highway and seats six people comfortably. Bethesda, Md.: Warren: I enjoy your radio show on Saturdays. This past week you talked about the misconception that American made are inferior to foreign. You pointed out the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recall list shows just the opposite, that American have a lower recall rate. I get Consumer's Report which always ranks US cars lower for service needed. Why the disconnect? Different characteristics being evaluated? Or is Consumer's Report not a valid survey? washingtonpost.com: Washington Post Radio schedule Warren Brown: Ah, the perennial Consumer Reports question....and my still unchanged answer. CR polls its own readers who demonstrably belong to fairly definable demographic, sociological and psychographic groups. My shorthand name for them is "aggressive utilitarians." Many of them are predisposed to complain about domestic cars, even when the domestic cars and the "foreign" model essentially are one in the same. Witness CR's handling of the Pontiac Vibe and Toyota Matrix, both of which are made by New United Motors Inc., the GM/Toyota joint venture in Fremont, Calif. The Matrix gets the more favorable rating. Bethesda, Md.: Warren: I enjoy your column but your recent story "Oil is running out" seems laced with contradiction. The basic premise is an obvious one (and people don't appreciate that the downslide from the oil "peak" will be much steeper than the climb was). But then you go on to encourage people to spend what's left in a Dionysian orgy (just bring protection and get drunk --sensibly). We're going to run out. We can run out gradually, or we can run out abruptly, with all the chaos, shock and thinly-disguised oil wars that will entail. Which one do you want? My answer is I'm driving a hybrid. My Prius got 52 mpg on my recent out of state trip (and it's expected to do better now that summer is here). With the $3K tax credit I'm projected to come out $500 ahead at the 5-year mark, even if gas stays at $3 (which it won't). Our pathetic Big Oil-owned government can only do so much, ultimately individual Americans have to embrace reality to drive the change. Warren Brown: Oh, no, Bethesda. I was not encouraging Dionysian orgy. I was espousing Augustinian acceptance and repentance. The Greek god Dionysus, as you know, abhorred the very concept of repentance. But St. Augustine was different. He sinned mightily, robustly. But when he saw what he had done, he didn't waste any time worrying about going to hell. He simply agreed to pay the price of his transgressions and to try to live a better life. And so it is with oil. It is running out. We've used it very unwisely. Now, it's running out and everybody wants what's running out and we're all paying the price for all of that. So, accept the price. But, as I suggested, get off your tails and come to Jesus or whomever and come up with an energy policy that understands we are running out of oil. At least one Member of Congress, that Bartlett fellow from Maryland, understands that. Arlington, Va.: I happened to see a quick blurb about certain Prius vehicles being recalled by Toyota and I think the numbers were quite large. However a mere hour or so later, I can't find it! It made me think about you and what you say about how "foreign" cars are treated in the press with recalls versus "domestic." I know cars get recalled for various reasons all of the time because not everything goes wonderfully right out of the gate, but still wondered if the Prius really had a recall in high numbers. Does it? And if so, where's the story? Warren Brown: I don't know, Arlington. I will check. Keweenaw Peninsula, Mich.: Good Morning. My fiance's looking for a previously owned car, and I hope you can help with some ideas/recommendations. Here's some criteria- something around $5000; very-high dependability (I'm mechanically disinclined;) and good in deep snow (we get about 250" snow here every winter). She won't listen to me about Volvos, Saabs or Subarus, and because she hates her Blazer -- no more SUV's. She likes the Passat, but there are no VW dealers anywhere around here. Do you have any ideas? Warren Brown: I humbly suggest that she make peace with the idea of driving a used Subaru, and probably a used Impreza at that. Washington, D.C.: I love your column and your chats and generally agree with your advice, so I'd like you to settle an argument between my father and I if possible. I'm in the "new" (60,000 miles or fewer) car market and debating between two very general categories -- spiffy Echo-sized economy cars and safer-feeling Camry-sized larger ones. (I know, I know, Corolla.) The point of contention is how much the size really matters? I love the teeny little guys, but say death by deer scares me out getting one, Dad says that in the big picture, all potential accidents considered, size doesn't really matter. I will consider your answer to be the truth (everyone listens to someone's Dad). Thanks! You can die or be critically injured in any car or truck of any size at any time. Although a bigger vehicle could offer more protection in a collision with one of smaller mass and gentler geometry, size is no guarantor of your ultimate safety or the outcome of a crash. That's because all crashes are different, especially those single vehicle accidents that involve meeting immovable objects such as trees and walls. I prefer smaller, more maneuverable vehicles. I like the idea of avoiding accidents better than I like the idea of surviving them. Arlington, Va.: Warren: Looking to replace my 10 year old Acura CL. Thinking about the Nissan Murrano or the Acura RDX. Have you seen the RDX? I hear the RDX wastes cabin space with foolish items like GPS. Any thought on the RDX? How about the Murrano? Thanks. Warren Brown: You essentially are looking at two semi-premium, midsize crossover sport-utility models, which means they essentially are station wagons with certain SUV pretensions. Both can be had with navigational systems operating off geographically positioning satellites. Neither device in either vehicle takes up much space inasmuch as both are dashboard mounted, if I recall correctly. Quality is about the same. I'd shop for price. Miami, Fl.: I've noticed a trend with the recent release of several very attractive cars. I was a serious buyer looking at the Mazda RX-8 when it was new. I received very stiff treatment when I tried to test drive it and they wanted to negotiate a deal before I could even test drive it! The same thing happened for the Nissan 350z. Ditto for the brand new Ford Mustang GT two years ago. Why are dealers getting so pushy with their hot new cars? I am very bitter at both Mazda and Nissan for their treatment and wouldn't even consider buying them after they started going for less than sticker price. I can only suggest to you that you change dealers. That is, make sure the dealers you are dealing with do not belong to the same dealership group/chain. Why? Some chains are foolish enough to believe that the old Hull-Dobbs high-pressure selling system still works. You are proof that it doesn't. Consumers increasingly are taking your attitude. Smart dealership groups are aware of the profound change in consumer mentality and are behaving accordingly. But there remains those dinosaurs of automotive retail who are more interested in the immediate sale than they are in the benefits of long term customer loyalty. They will die. Fairfax, Va.: For a truly scientific, representative satisfaction survey, it would seem to me that Consumer Reports, the auto mags etc. should do a random sampling of all car owners, not just a selected group of people. More like the political polls, in a way. I realize this would be more difficult to do, in that in order to track specific models and makes the population sampled would be huge, but I would trust the results better. Comments? Arlington, Va.: We recently rented an Impala. I liked 80 percent of it, but the plastic interior looked cheap and icky. Do they make them with nicer fittings? Warren Brown: Yes, Arlington, you have witnessed the last of the cheap-feel, no-thrill GM interiors. The General, at long last, has gotten the message and has upgraded practically all of its interiors, beginning in the 2007 model year. Washington, D.C.: Ok Warren, I went out and bought a car. So, I suddenly find myself driving a Honda Fit. I like it, but it sure is a change from my big old car! We turned down the "purchase an extended warranty" offer. I could still add it, as I haven't taken in the final check from my loan yet. But I just don't know if I need it. What's your opinion on extended warranties? What is the ONE thing we all should have learned from Hurricane Katrina? Answer: There is not one insurance company -- not the "good hands people" or the "like a good neighbor" folks -- willing to write policies that will cost them more in claims settlements than they can take in premiums and other earnings. If the backers of those "extended warranties" routinely were spending money on claims settlements, those policies would be off the table. They are on the table only because the insurers offering them are more than certain that you are not likely to cost them more in claims payments than they will get from you in premiums. Just a few thoughts, not an answer. Oil running out is a process. It has effects. What we notice most will be higher prices and shortages. As prices stay high there will be less shortages, but the question will be price driven. What can we afford to do? For most of us, it will be less meals out or trips or whatever and more spent on getting to work and to the grocery. But it will also add alternatives. How about a car that uses ethanol? How about a hydrogen car? That will be our period of transition and in a few years we will have something different to drive -- but not all that different. We will be paying more but we will be used to it. Ant we all will have a new status quo. For a while anyway. Headline: "World Running Out of Hydrogen." Warren Brown: Thanks, Rockville. I think you've got it! I've taken your comments about the availability of GM Flex Fuel vehicles to heart. As I am beginning to think about getting a new car, I thought I'd follow your advice to see what was available. After a long time digging on the GM website (because they have no readily available information on flex fuel), I finally managed to find the list of E85 compatible vehicles. GMC Yukon. Chevy Tahoe. Chevy Avalanche. All giant gas guzzlers. How is this an improvement? I drive a Corolla, and have no intention on upsizing to get E-85 compatible. Am I missing something, or is there a solution here? Yes, the initial run of GM flexfuel vehicles in North America mostly are big trucks, which makes sense because big trucks use lots of fuel, which means they could be made to use less of it -- the fossil sort -- as flexfuel models. Your Corolla can not and is not designed to do what a Tahoe can and is designed to do and what Tahoe owners/buyers expect that vehicle to do. It's apples and oranges and all of that. But GM is on track to produce 400,000 flexfuel vehicles annually in North America. Can GM do that in multiple vehicle categories? Yes. Why do I believe that? Because GM already is doing a good job of rolling out FlexFuel vehicle in a variety of categories in Brazil. If the U.S. market demands those models, GM can deliver. Washington, D.C.: About to buy a new Mazda6. Worth it to get the V6 or should I just stick with the 4-cyl? Warren Brown: Dionysus or St. Augustine? Would you prefer more wine, or a quiet place to sit and reflect and began your memoirs -- "The Confessions of a Horsepower Addict in the Age of Declining Oil"? New Carrollton, Md.: I drive a 2001 Subaru Outback Limited. I absolutely love it! With some folks turning away from SUVs, are there any other good wagons that you can recommend for folks? Warren Brown: There are so many, especially in the "Crossover" category, which is just marketing speak for station wagon. You can go from the Toyota Matrix/Pontiac Vibe on the low end to the Volvo CX 70 to those wondrously expensive machines from Mercedes-Benz and Audi and the like. It all depends on your wallet. Lauren Canyon, Calif.: Y'know what, Warren? I just don't get this: on this morning's local news, there was a feature on kids converting cow manure to fuel that gave their hybrid car 52 mpg. A young friend of mine bought a truck and converted it to run on oil that he collects from restaurants. There ARE other alternatives, but nobody seems to take those fuels seriously, at least nobody over 35. Consumers can do more than fume. They can change in a way that sticks it to the gas companies. Warren Brown: Not true, Laurel. For example, in a few weeks, I'll be journeying to the Great State of Wisconsin to look at, I think the name is Environmental Power Corp., which has established plants to extract methane from cow manure. No bull. This is hot air with portfolio, enough of it to power several dairy facilities. This company is working hard to become Number One in Number Two. Re: test drives: I encountered the unwillingness to allow a tests drive a few years ago when I was considering changing from a Chrysler minivan to a Honda Odyssey. The dealership had a perfectly valid reason, however. the only Odyssey they had in the lot was actually pre-ordered by a customer, so essentially already belonged to someone. They offered to put a down payment on one and when it came in I could drive it and then buy or declined. I cut right to the chase and declined. Got a Ford Windstar, which I was allowed to drive, and was happy with. Warren Brown: And that's the way it works... Boston, Mass.: Hi, Warren. I hope I'm not too late. My lease is up in a few months on my 2003 Honda Accord coupe. I'm looking at the newest Accord Sedan, Camry, Passat, Jetta, Volvo S40 and, well, basically most sedans that I can squeeze in under the $28K mark. I'm into features and style, not hooked on foreign-made. Any recommendations? Warren Brown: Of those you mentioned, I'd go with the 2007 Camry, which is now as good-looking as it is good. Kansas City, Mo.: I have always enjoyed reading your reviews Warren because you inject a good dose of reality into them. This was evidenced quite recently in your Audi Q7 review, where you had trouble reconciling the chasm between your experience in Brazil and living in the US. Considering this, I wish more car reviews were done on the introductory models of vehicles, rather than exclusively focusing on the top of the line model loaded to the hilt with the most steroidal engine offered. I bet there are others like me who would prefer to read reviews that take into consideration the range of a model and the pros and cons of each, rather than solely focus on the alpha dogs of the automotive world. I mean, why isn't a 4 cyl Saab 9-3 just as alluring as the V6, especially considering the current state of affairs in this country? Your thoughts? Warren Brown: I agree with you, Kansas City. In the future, I will endeavor to bring more entry-level and mid-priced models into the mix. Good points. Baltimore, Md.: Hi, Warren. I recently saw a Bausch and Lomb commercial on TV featuring Ron Zarella. As you recalled, Zarella was an exec at B and L who came over to GM in early 2000/01, when I worked there. I heard him address employees and it was apparent that he didn't know that much about cars. Maybe he was a competent exec, but it was clear that he wasn't passionate about cars. After all, he was praising the virtues of the Pontiac Aztek! My point is that car companies often lose site of their products in trying to please investors and shareholders. I don't work for GM anymore, but it's nice to see the company coming out with better and nicer looking products. Warren Brown: Zarella was a good guy, but the wrong guy in the wrong place who was brought there for all of the wrong reasons--the misbegotten notion that marketing cars and marketing contact lenses required the same talent, and that somehow an outsider who was a genius at selling drug store commodities could shake up GM and sell cars. Anonymous: I heard this morning that the Prius recall involves a steering wheel problem. Something about at slow speeds, it's cranked hard, it can slip into the locked position. That can't be good. I heard it involves all 2004 -- 2006 models. New England: I've kept up with the news and your opinions on CAFE, and how the intention is good, but it pretty much fails in our market economy. So maybe you know the answer to this. I think within the year, the EPA is changing the methodology they use to compute a car's sticker gas mileage to be more accurate. So is this new number going to be used to compute a car company's numbers for their CAFE requirements? If so, won't this have a dramatic effect on their fleet numbers? Warren Brown: Yes, perhaps, New England. But it's all pretty meaningless if fuel consumption keeps going up unabated, which it won't. Why? Because high-pump prices are doing what CAFE cannot do -- reducing the amount of gasoline purchased, either because people are switching to more fuel-efficient vehicles or adapting more fuel-efficient behaviors. You see? St. Augustine rules! Los Angeles, Calif.: I'm a single woman in my early 30's ready to retire my old, reliable Toyota for a new car. I've been reading your chats weekly to help me gain the confidence I need to make a well-informed decision. I'm all set to buy a Honda Accord or Civic, but have been noticing the fun looking Pontiac G6 Convertible. It's price point just around $30K is attractive as well as its hardtop and ability to seat four. I'm not one to buy a 2-seater and haven't liked soft top convertibles. What do you think of the G6? Would you buy it? Will it last me 10 years? Hondas and Toyotas have spoiled me! Thanks, Warren. I like the G6. I'd buy it. And if you have any trouble whatsoever with it, drop me a line at warbro70@aol.com. I know exactly who to yell at. Big Apple: Hi, Warren. I saw the query on wagons and wanted to share my two cents. We purchased the Saab 9-3 Sportcombi (their curious name for a wagon) a couple of months ago & absolutely love it. We researched a bunch of wagons and feel that we got an incredibly safe and well appointed machine that offers a spirited though fuel efficient drive. Will you test drive this thing Warren and share the good news?? (And please review the 2.0T four cylinder and not the gas gulping V6 Aero model). Warren Brown: That Sportcombi is a nice wagon, called a Sportcombi so you won't call it a, er, wagon. Anyway, good folks, I've got to get moving. Planes to catch and all of that. God bless. Take care. Show a little love. 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.
The Post's Warren Brown answers your questions about every aspect of the automotive industry.
286.75
0.9375
3.0625
high
medium
mixed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/30/AR2006053001213.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/30/AR2006053001213.html
Britain's Goal: Hooligans Don't Get Past the Local Pub
2006053019
LONDON, May 30 -- They drink until they vomit, rage bare-chested and pick fistfights with rival fans. Three thousand three hundred of these British soccer "hooligans" were forced to turn in their passports by Tuesday to keep them from causing disruptions at the World Cup tournament, which starts next week in Germany. In addition to barring Britain's most aggressive fans from traveling abroad, police are also keeping an eye on them at home by demanding that they register at a local police station every day England has a game. "Ultimately, it's about England's reputation," said a spokeswoman for the British Home Office, who by tradition is not identified by name. "We don't want to export a problem." Last season, British police arrested 3,600 people for "football-related offenses," typically disorderly behavior while watching a match. Soccer is known as football in most countries outside the United States. Hooliganism has been a major social problem in England since the 1970s, but after a particularly ugly melee in 2000 in Belgium, laws were passed to ground the increasingly mobile troublemakers. In that incident, British fans hurled bottles and chairs at German supporters before and after defeating Germany in a match. More than 900 were arrested, and police resorted to a water cannon for crowd control. At the time, Prime Minister Tony Blair called it "mindless thuggery that has brought such shame to the country." Steven Powell, a spokesman for the Football Supporters' Federation, said his group's motto is "Passion yes, violence no." He said the group in principle supports the "banning orders" that bar disorderly fans from matches for up to 10 years. But he said he was concerned that in a few cases, people are being banned from games because they were drunk, not violent. "You can be merry and boisterous and no danger to anybody," Powell said. He said he had no problem with the law coming down hard on someone "who bashed someone with a broken bottle." But he said he thought there should be more flexibility in dealing with a fan guilty of little more than "being a bit stupid." Relatively few die-hard English fans flew to Japan and South Korea for the previous World Cup, in 2002, but 100,000 British fans are expected to make the shorter, cheaper trip to Germany for the games that begin June 9. Those without tickets can watch the matches on huge public screens near the stadiums. British and German fans have an intense rivalry, and that makes English officials, who have seen a recent decline in the violence problem, nervous that it could flare again. "There is potential for a lot of trouble," said James Bandy, deputy editor of Match, England's biggest soccer weekly. He said he believes most law-abiding fans applaud "anything to stop it." Stadiums throughout Europe are increasingly well policed, as other countries have seen matches marred by aggressive fans who throw punches and shout racist epithets and other abuse. In England, both uniformed officers and undercover "football intelligence officers" with video cameras routinely scan crowds looking for sparks. British police also maintain a computerized database of known hooligans, and officers patrol departure lounges of British airports before overseas matches, checking passenger lists against their records. Dozens of British uniformed officers and undercover "hooligan spotters" will fly to Germany to help make sure hyped-up fans stick to singing national anthems and waving flags to show their spirit.
LONDON, May 30 -- They drink until they vomit, rage bare-chested and pick fistfights with rival fans. Three thousand three hundred of these British soccer "hooligans" were forced to turn in their passports by Tuesday to keep them from causing disruptions at the World Cup tournament, which starts...
11.982456
0.982456
55.017544
low
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/30/AR2006053000463.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/30/AR2006053000463.html
High Court's Free-Speech Ruling Favors Government
2006053019
The Supreme Court yesterday bolstered the government's power to discipline public employees who make charges of official misconduct, ruling that the First Amendment does not protect those who blow the whistle in the course of their official duties. By a vote of 5 to 4, the court ruled that the Los Angeles County district attorney's office did not violate prosecutor Richard Ceballos's freedom of speech by allegedly demoting him after he wrote to supervisors charging that a sheriff's deputy had lied to get a search warrant. Dissenters on the court, civil libertarians and public-employee unions said the ruling, which extends to all of the nation's public employees, could deter government workers from going to their bosses with evidence of corruption or ineptitude. But, the court ruled, recognizing claims such as Ceballos's could turn bureaucratic policy disputes into federal constitutional lawsuits, disrupting public administration, clogging courts and making it hard for the government to speak with a single voice. The Bush administration backed the district attorney's office, citing the U.S. government's interest as "the nation's largest public employer." The ruling affects only constitutional free-speech claims related to work, the court said, not the rights of public employees off the job. Nor does it affect state and federal labor laws or whistle-blower protection statutes, the court said. In his opinion for the court, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote that those "powerful" rules still "provide checks" on supervisors. "We reject, however, the notion that the First Amendment shields from discipline the expressions employees make pursuant to their professional duties," Kennedy wrote. "Our precedents do not support the existence of a constitutional cause of action behind every statement a public employee makes in the course of doing his or her job." Kennedy was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. But Kennedy's opinion drew a sharp dissent from Justice David H. Souter, who argued that statutory and other protections for whistle-blowers are weak. Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Souter. Justice Stephen G. Breyer dissented in a solo opinion. Instead of barring all free-speech claims relating to public employees' official duties, Souter wrote, the court should have let lower courts assess them case by case. "[P]rivate and public interests in addressing official wrongdoing and threats to health and safety can outweigh the government's stake in the efficient implementation of policy," Souter wrote, "and when they do public employees who speak on these matters in the course of their duties should be eligible to claim First Amendment protection." In a separate opinion, Stevens questioned the court's distinction between speech by public employees acting officially, which gets no free-speech protection, and speech by public employees acting as citizens -- such as in a letter to the editor -- which can still get protection. "[I]t seems perverse to fashion a new rule that provides employees with an incentive to voice their concerns publicly before talking frankly to their superiors," Stevens wrote. Souter raised the specter of threats to state university professors' free speech, but Kennedy said teaching and scholarship were beyond the scope of the case. The case added a note of division to a Supreme Court term that had been marked by many unanimous opinions under Roberts, who has publicly called for more consensus on the court. Indeed, it appears to have divided the court since it was first argued on Oct. 12. It was one of three cases set down for reargument after Justice Sandra Day O'Connor left the court on Jan. 31, with Alito taking her place. Although the court did not say why it needed another hour of oral argument on March 21, the likeliest reason is that O'Connor had left behind a 4 to 4 tie. Moreover, the case might well have gone the other way with O'Connor still on the bench because the court could have issued an opinion had there been five votes for Ceballos without her. "It is fair to say, in an era of excessive government secrecy, this makes government coverups easier by discouraging whistle-blowers," said Steven Shapiro, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which had supported Ceballos. But Gene C. Schaerr, an attorney for the International Municipal Lawyers Association, an organization of local-government lawyers that supported the Los Angeles County district attorney's office, said the ruling "allows local and state governments the appropriate degree of oversight of their employees, without really impinging upon their First Amendment right to speak out as private citizens." The case, Garcetti v. Ceballos , No. 04-473, now returns to a federal appeals court in California, which must use yesterday's ruling to assess the issues the Supreme Court did not decide, because, for technical reasons, it focused only on Ceballos's internal memo. The loose ends include Ceballos's assertion that his supervisors retaliated against him not only because of his memo, but also because of what he had said at meetings with them, because he had testified for the defense on the search warrant and because he had spoken about the alleged misconduct at a public meeting. The Los Angeles County district attorney's office denies that it retaliated against Ceballos over his allegations.
The Supreme Court yesterday bolstered the government's power to discipline public employees who make charges of official misconduct, ruling that the First Amendment does not protect those who blow the whistle in the course of their official duties.
25.073171
1
41
medium
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/30/AR2006053001236.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/30/AR2006053001236.html
Congressman Tried to Hide Papers, Justice Dept. Says
2006053019
The Justice Department yesterday vigorously defended the recent weekend raid of Rep. William J. Jefferson's Capitol Hill office as part of a bribery investigation, asserting that the Democratic lawmaker attempted to hide documents from FBI agents while they were searching his New Orleans home last August. The government questioned in a 34-page motion filed in U.S. District Court here whether it could have obtained all the materials it had sought in a subpoena if it had not launched the surprise raid on Jefferson's congressional office May 20. According to the government filing, an FBI agent caught Jefferson slipping documents into a blue bag in the living room of his New Orleans home during a search. "It is my belief that when Congressman Jefferson placed documents into the blue bag, he was attempting to conceal documents that were relevant to the investigation," FBI agent Stacey E. Kent of New Orleans stated in an affidavit that was part of the government's court submission. The document was filed in response to Jefferson's lawsuit demanding that the government return to him documents seized during the raid on his Capitol Hill office 11 days ago. Robert P. Trout, Jefferson's attorney, said he would refrain from commenting pending further review of the government's documents. Meanwhile, the recent FBI raid spurred new tensions between Congress and the administration, as a House committee chairman vowed to interrogate top Justice Department officials. Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) said he wants Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III to appear "up here to tell us how they reached the conclusion" to conduct the raid, which Sensenbrenner called "profoundly disturbing" on constitutional grounds. The chairman also said that his committee "will be working promptly" to draft legislation that would clearly prohibit wide-ranging searches of lawmakers' offices by federal officials pursuing criminal cases. Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse reiterated the agency's defense of the search as legal and necessary. He cautioned that Gonzales would not be able to go into detail about the Jefferson probe if he were to testify. As part of its response to Jefferson's lawsuit, the government offered to provide a "filter team" -- to be made up of an FBI agent and two Justice Department lawyers not part of the investigation -- which would allow Jefferson to examine all the seized materials. If Jefferson thought legislative materials were "privileged" and unrelated to the criminal investigation but the government disagreed, a judge would be the final arbiter, under the proposal. The Justice Department's court filing and Sensenbrenner's comments -- made during a hearing in which constitutional scholars sharply criticized the May 20 raid -- ran counter to recent efforts by President Bush and key lawmakers to calm down talk of a constitutional standoff. Bush last week ordered the seized materials to be sealed for 45 days, allowing time for tempers to cool and for lawyers and elected officials to confer. But Sensenbrenner and several committee colleagues yesterday described the FBI's weekend search of Jefferson's office in the Rayburn House Office Building as an arrogant, unnecessary breach of tradition and vital constitutional protections. The FBI had several other ways to compel Jefferson to surrender specific items, they said. The copying of Jefferson's computer hard drive, they said, was akin to rifling through every file cabinet, including files dealing with matters unrelated to the alleged crimes. The Constitution says House and Senate members "shall not be questioned . . . for any Speech or Debate in either House." Bruce Fein, one of the constitutional lawyers who testified yesterday, said that "when it comes to documents, the only way you can search is to read everything. And when you read everything, you encroach on the 'Speech or Debate' clause." Noting that Gonzales, Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty signaled that they would resign if they were forced to return the Jefferson documents, Fein said: "Well, let them resign. I am astonished that the president would not have fired them for undertaking this action without consulting him in advance." In yesterday's court filing, the government argued that law enforcement authorities should not be barred from conducting searches of congressional offices simply because they contain legislative materials -- such as committee reports, internal memos and drafts of bills -- that are protected under the "Speech or Debate" clause. "If his argument is accepted by this court, members of Congress and their staffs would be able to create search-free zones wherever they go by bringing along some legislative materials," the government said of Jefferson, 59, who has been under investigation since March 2005 over allegations that he took hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes in exchange for using his congressional influence to promote business ventures in Africa. A key part of the FBI probe has centered on Jefferson's dealings with iGate Inc., a Louisville high-tech company that was marketing broadband technology for the Internet and cable television in Africa.
The Justice Department yesterday vigorously defended the recent weekend raid of Rep. William J. Jefferson's Capitol Hill office as part of a bribery investigation, asserting that the Democratic lawmaker attempted to hide documents from FBI agents while they were searching his New Orleans home last...
19.708333
0.979167
46.020833
medium
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/30/AR2006053001497.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/30/AR2006053001497.html
Blueprints in Green: Home Designs That Earth Can Live With
2006053019
In the ominous trailer for "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's new film on global warming, planet Earth is approaching the tipping point. Storm clouds swirl. Smokestacks belch. Traffic snarls. A piece of the ice cap breaks away and plunges into the sea. In the big picture, we've got 10 years or we're sunk, too. The film's timing is coincidental, but it provides the necessary urgent context for the National Building Museum's ambitious exhibition on eco-design, "The Green House: New Directions in Sustainable Architecture and Design." The overarching theme conveys an essential point: Ecological issues will dominate 21st-century architecture as modernism did the 20th century. Gore's doomsday premise -- that the demands of modern living are altering the climate -- explains why. Buildings, including the 21 houses in this show, are significant villains in any profile of energy use. As the theory goes, fossil-fuel consumption is contributing to the greenhouse effect, which is raising ocean levels and one day will submerge Lower Manhattan and South Florida, like post-Katrina New Orleans, only permanently, and turn 100 million coastal residents worldwide into refugees -- if we don't act now. With a pitch like that, who wouldn't run screaming to Home Depot to get compact fluorescent bulbs? The exhibition suggests that individuals can do more, and that designers already are. The storyline is something like Rachel Carson meets Frank Lloyd Wright at Fallingwater. The horizon might be dark, but architects are smart and most of the houses gorgeous. Pretty pictures alone wouldn't make a landmark exhibition, but this one gains power from a call to arms: "Your actions at home can impact the world." Activism starts in the Glidehouse, a fully furnished, environmentally correct residence erected in a first-floor gallery. The model home is a case study in the welcome new wave of domestic architecture: affordable, highly designed and factory-built. The airy dwelling also offers visitors an immersion in "green" living, California style. Except for the exhibition labels, no one need notice that every surface, piece of furniture and appliance embodies key "green" adjectives -- energy-efficient, toxin-free, non-polluting, recyclable, renewable -- to help the Al Gores of the world sleep better. The Glidehouse was designed by Michelle Kaufmann, who worked for Frank Gehry. She resides in the original model house in Novato, Calif., and sells the kit from her Web site http://mkd-arc.com/ . At a mere 900 square feet, the replica is more of a holiday cottage. Size doesn't diminish the appeal of its proposition: A healthy home should be everyone's desire. For those who like their houses big and opulent, curators present 20 dream houses in images and models. High-profile projects range from Steven Holl's solar-and-green-roofed weekend retreat in Rhinebeck, N.Y., to Kengo Kuma's masterful bamboo villa overlooking the Great Wall of China. There are lush retreats, but also a low-income apartment complex in Santa Monica, Calif., that looks fabulous with a facade of sky-blue photovoltaic panels. The designs would merit a show without a green theme, and that's the point. The days when architects clung to the big A for art while sidestepping the impact of their work have passed. Some of the most artful contemporary architecture also is good for the planet. By many estimates, buildings account for nearly half the energy consumed in the United States each year and half of America's greenhouse gas emissions. So, in architectural terms, form and function are no longer adequate underpinnings. They have found a co-equal in "sustainability," which essentially means to do no harm. "Green" is the popular shorthand. The National Building Museum takes no position on the politics of global warming, but Executive Director Chase Rynd makes clear that "we presume green design is a best practice." The museum plunged into the topic in 2003, with the environmental epic "Big & Green: Toward a Sustainable Architecture in the 21st Century." Skyscrapers, stadiums and other massive projects revealed that a few avant-garde architects and the environmental movement had found common ground. The show also left visitors wondering what they could do. With "The Green House," the second exhibition, the museum shifts the lens to the domestic realm. Guest curator Donald Albrecht worked with Alanna Stang and Christopher Hawthorne, who were researching a book that became "The Green House: New Directions in Sustainable Architecture" (Princeton Architectural Press, 2005). Because most people don't live in architect-designed homes, Albrecht widened the scope to remodeling materials.
Search Washington, DC area museums and art exhibitions from the Washington Post. Features DC, Virginia and Maryland entertainment listings for museums, galleries, studios and monuments. Visit http://eg.washingtonpost.com/section/museums today.
26.085714
0.428571
0.428571
medium
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/24/DI2006052401696.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/24/DI2006052401696.html
Free Range on Food
2006053019
A chat with the Food section staff is a chance for you to ask questions, offer suggestions and share information with other cooks and food lovers. It is a forum for discussion of food trends, ingredients, menus, gadgets and anything else food-related. Each chat, we will focus on topics from the day's Food section . You can also read the transcripts of past chats . Do you have a question about a particular recipe or a food-related anecdote to share? The Food section staff goes Free Range on Food every Wednesday at 1 p.m. ET. Read about the staff of the Food section . Arlington, Va.: So I am reading Fast Food Nation. Talk about disgusting. The detail in which the author examines the meat industry is gruesome. It really has made me want to avoid mass processed red meat. I suppose I should feel the same way about mass processed anything, but one thing at a time. In terms of treatment of animals (which I know, are getting eaten either way) and cleanliness what is the best way to go: Kosher or Small farm? Kosher seems to be slightly cheaper, and I know that part of keeping meat kosher is a humane killing and cleanliness is of utmost importance. What do you think? But Kosher meat sometimes doesn't taste as good... Bonnie: Yeah, I made my younger son read it and he swore off fast-food burgers (a leap all the way to Chipotle, but still...). I disagree about taste capabilities of kosher meats. If you're one of those VA dwellers who's not afraid to cross the Potomac, check out the place we reviewed in the Foraging column today called Simply Kosher. Really good meats and poultry. Tell Larry Shor we sent you. Judith W.: Hi everybody, and welcome to the last chat in May--which means the grilling season is upon us. What are your favorite things to grill? Will any of you buy the super-delicious (and super-expensive )Copper River salmon and grill it? Has anybody had a grilling disaster? (You might consider the grill safety suggestions). Check out the world of Hispanic products Walter Nicholls writes about today too. Have you included any of these full-flavor ingredients in your cooking, and how do you use/or serve them? And what about those home-grown iron chefs--do any of you belong to groups that stage cooking competitions? Are they fun or stressful? As usual, we have two new cookbooks to award the funniest/or most helpful recipes or suggestions: Luscious Berry Desserts by Lori Longbotham and Cookout USA by Georgia Orcutt and John Margolies. So let's hear from you. Boston, Mass.: What are you guys making for dinner tonight? Candy: Boston: We're heating up TV dinners. Just kidding. Walter is making soft shell crabs rolled in panko crumbs plus green beans; Bonnie has leftover grilled boneless ribeye, which she's slicing and serving over arugula with crumbled blue cheese; Judith is defrosting short rib and vegetable soup; Leigh has a leftover roasted chicken breast that she's turning into chicken salad dressed with ginger and mayo; I have a split chicken rubbed with spice rub that I'm grilling and serving with a salad of shredded cabbage and sliced cucumber in a vinegar dressing. Impressed? Silver Spring, Md.: This morning's Food Section printed what looked like a good recipe for crab cakes. (F3) Unfortunately the amounts of the ingredients had been cut off when the page was trimmed. Any chance this recipe will be repeated? (This is the second time this week we have received a paper with part of the page missing.) Marcia: Horrors! We'll run it below, and it's also available on our Web site, www.washingtonpost.com. Don't be put off by the long list of ingredients. This is a terrific crab cake: It's crunchy (no squishy interior here) and flavorful (bell peppers and onions), but nothing drowns out the unmistakable crab taste. Of the 50 recipes in Tom Douglas's new "I Love Crab Cakes!" book (William Morrow, 2006), this is his personal favorite. Named for Douglas's daughter Loretta, it's a top seller at his restaurants. Being based in Seattle, Douglas makes these with Dungeness crab, but he acknowledges that blue crab makes the best-textured crab cakes. We agree. Serve with tartar or cocktail sauce and coleslaw on the side. 4 or 5 slices white sandwich bread with crust, torn into pieces About 1 cup flat-leaf parsley 1 1/2 teaspoons hot pepper sauce, such as Tabasco 2 tablespoon plus 1 teaspoon Dijon-style mustard 1/2 teaspoon chopped thyme or 1/4 teaspoon dried thyme 1/4 teaspoon freshly ground black pepper 5 tablespoons extra-virgin olive oil 1/4 cup chopped green bell pepper 1/4 cup chopped red bell pepper 1 pound lump backfin crabmeat, picked over and lightly squeezed if wet Place the bread pieces in a food processor and pulse them to a fine crumb. Transfer to a baking dish. Without cleaning the food processor, pulse the parsley until finely chopped. Add 1/2 cup of it to the bread crumbs and reserve the rest. Cover and refrigerate. In a food processor or a blender, pulse the egg yolk, lemon juice, Worcestershire and hot pepper sauces, mustard, paprika, thyme, celery seeds and pepper. With the motor running, slowly add the oil to form a mayonnaise. Set aside. In a large bowl, combine the onion and bell peppers with the remaining (about 1/4 cup) parsley. Add the reserved mayonnaise and the crabmeat and mix lightly, then add 1 cup of the bread crumb-parsley mixture, taking care not to overmix. Gently form 8 patties, about 3 inches wide and 1 inch thick. Lightly coat the patties with some of the remaining bread crumb-parsley mixture. If you have time, cover the crab cakes with plastic wrap and chill for an hour to further firm them up. Using 2 large nonstick skillets over medium heat, melt 2 1/2 tablespoons butter in each pan. Add 4 crab cakes to each pan. Gently fry until hot through and golden brown, about 4 minutes per side or until an instant-read thermometer registers 155 degrees. Serve with lemon wedges. Per serving (based on 6): 280 calories, 18 g protein, 12 g carbohydrates, 18 g fat, 120 mg cholesterol, 5 g saturated fat, 477 mg sodium, 1 g dietary fiber Recipe tested by Marcia Kramer; e-mail questions to food@washpost.com Chantilly, Va.: Submitting early with a question for Walter. Could you suggest some things to do with the Goya pureed beans you mention in today's story? Also, I've seen that crijollo marinade on the shelf--do I just use it straight to marinate chicken or pork? For how long? Walter: Sure Chantilly, you can use the pureed beans as a sandwich spread, to thicken soups or as a base for dips. Eddie Diaz marinates with crijollo overnight. Arlington, Va.: I loved the honey-mustard recipe in today's paper. Is there any difference between brands? I was wondering why you chose the H-T house brand over the others. Candy: Two reasons I chose the H-T house brand: It was on sale, and. unlike some of the others, it didn't have a lot of additives. It also had no coloring added. The ingredients were really straightforward. But there are lots of brands to choose from. Washington, D.C.: I have on several recent occasions had the pleasure of enjoying several 'Mediterranean' sandwiches or salads that prominently featured grilled vegetables. They were fantastic; flavorful and filling. The vegetables I cook on the grill (I use a basket) in contrast, tend to lack interest. Any suggestions for making grilled veggies more interesting without coating them in too much fat? Some would be okay... Judith W.: Your sandwiches sound great. (And healthful!) About your vegetables: Perhaps it has something to do with the freshness of the ones you're using. The fresher they are, the more flavorful. Do you have a farmer's market near you? They could be a good source of supply. Baltimore, Md.: Good morning foodies. Submitting early with a graduation party question. How would you vote on cake versus cupcakes? We've invited about 40 teens and relatives to a Sunday open house and I'm trying to decide which would be better. Judith W.: Let's open this one up to our chatters. Cupcakes are certainly easier, in that nobody has to stand there and slice. But you might get more variety in a cake. What does everybody else think? Nancy McKeon: Okay, here's my beef with cupcakes. They always SEEM like a cute idea. They're adorable, they can be decorated differently (from one another), adding a nice festive touch to the platter, but in the end they're small pieces of cake. Small pieces of cake that too often dries out in the baking. So after all that frosting fun, you're left with not-so-fun chunks of naked cake of a quality you would never tolerate in larger form. You can sometimes adjust a moist, delicious cake recipe and reproduce it in smaller form, but I'd still vote for the large cake. Consider the vast yardage of frosted top you have with a large cake, for going wild with decoration! Oakton, Va.: Can you explain to me why ribs need to be boiled before grilling? Bonnie: Ribster Steve Raichlen's our source here. He says that some people think that boiling's necessary to purge the ribs of their fat and to tenderize the toughness. But he believes the method robs ribs of flavor. So before ribs hit the grill, spit roast, rotisse or smoke them, you can: --bake them first, which will caramelize the meat's proteins and generate flavor --braise them in a covered roasting pan with aromatic root vegetables, herbs, a little liquid --deep-fry them, which makes a crackling crust. Spiked Pineapple on the Grill: This has got to be one of the easiest and delicious desserts - especially in the summer. Simply marinade slices (rings) of fresh pineapple in a mixture of rum, brown sugar and vanilla and then grill! You'll get a wonderful flavor, nice grill marks. Serve with a scoop of vanilla ice cream. Judith W.: That sounds really good! Washington, D.C.: Submitting early with a question for the chatters: Friend's mom died and she's out of town for the funeral while dad and three kids stayed behind. I want to bring over dinner to help them out--any suggestions other than lasagna? (They've gotten three of those and are sick of it.) Bonnie: Well, if they can stand another selection from Pastaville, there's not a family who'd turn away a homemade mac n cheese. Make sure directions are included for reheating. Also, a brisket made any old which way is good for several days' worth in the refrigerator. Blacksburg, Va.: We just tried out our new grill. Unfortunately, my husband didn't read the directions and had the grill too close to the house. When he closed the lid, flames shot out the back and melted the siding of our house-- in less than 30 seconds! That was an expensive mistake, but fortunately nothing caught on fire, so I'm still OK with it. Judith W.: Yikes! Melted the siding..... that's really scary. Glad you're all right. Grilled Corn without a Grill: I love fresh corn and often eat it raw - in a salad or just off the cob. Lately I've been doing something different with it. Cut the kernels off the cob and place directly into a hot nonstick skillet. The kernels get nice and toasty - some even pop. No oil needed, just give the pan an occasional stir. Once the corn is all toasted and charred, I mix it with baby spinach, grape tomatoes, feta cheese, cilantro and lots of lime juice. It's a very tasty and fresh summer salad. Boston, Mass: Hey guys! Thanks for all the great chats. I bought some mint for a recipe that I made last night, and have about a cup and a half of mint leaves left over. What could I do with them? I unfortunately have the rest of the dinner menu for the week already planned, and I know they won't last too long. Walter: Boston, That's easy, get yourself a good bottle of rum, crush those leaves and make mojitos. Cheesecake dilemma: Hi foodies. Could one of you help me with a recurring problem--cracks in my cheesecake. I've tried different recipes and baking methods, but I keep having problems. Do you have a really, good, crack-proof recipe? Candy: Two solutions: Leigh, Ms. Former Pastry Chef, says this is why the sour cream topping was invented--to hide cracks. Marcia says that baking your cheesecake in a water bath and then allowing it to slooowly cool is the key. Chatters--any other advice? Washington, D.C.: Here's a helpful hint on grilling - if you use a Weber charcoal grill keep the vents (top and bottom) open and cook with the lid on. I know, pretty well known, but I had a hard time finding a grilling recipe that told you to leave the vents open. Or that didn't refer only to gas grills. Judith W.: Sometimes people forget the most well-known guidance. So thanks for reminding us. Washington, D.C.: Graduation party survey: I had cupcakes at mine, all those years ago, and they went over great. We decorated them with Art Deco shapes and did the same to our cream cheese mints. Very successful. Even with all that fanciness the most popular food at the party, by the way, was the chocolate fondue. Judith W.: You can't beat chocolate! But what are your cream cheese mints? Tell us more. Washington, D.C.: Loved the Iron Chef Adams Morgan article! Do you know if that group is interested in new members? Sorry to read that the gentleman in the picture has a girlfriend, he looks pretty cute. Ice cream help!: I just moved here from Austin, Texas and was wondering if Blue Bell ice cream is available here. I'm getting homesick and I think that's the only cure! Candy: Austin---the answer, unfortunately, is no. Blue Bell is available in about six states, mostly in the south. It's the reason it's the best ice cream in the world, in this former Texan's humble opinion. They haven't gone global and compromised quality. Short of getting a friend to ship you some on dry ice, you could try Sam's Market in Ritchie Plaza in Rockville--they make their own gelato; or Coldstone Creamery (a chain, but with a lot of loyal fans). Any other suggestions from the chatters? Oooh... grilling!: I love grilled foods, especially grilled eggplant and good grilled fruits. The problem being, of course, that I live in an apartment. Is there any way at all to grill indoors? I miss Judith W.: I use a grill pan. Any time of year. Of course you don't get the taste of charcoal, but lots of people are opting for gas grills in the first place. I make a wonderful lemon ginger tea in the summer which is fabulous iced. However, it is just that shade of yellow (it's a tisane, no tea leaves in it.) We've gone from colored drinking glasses to clear, so I need a way to change the color so that folks will actually drink it rather than make comments about "yellow snow". Is there a better answer than food coloring? And if that's the best solution, which way to go in the color dept? Green? Orange? Brown? PS: It's the Yogi brand lemon ginger tea, and everyone loves it - if they can't see the color - and it needs no sweeteners. Candy: What about adding a little bit of something red--cranberry juice or pomegranate--that would give that yellow a deeper, less embarrassing shade. Rockville, Md.: How does using only egg whites versus the entire eggs change a cake? Candy: There's no fat to bind the other ingredients and add richness and moisture. You might cut back on one egg yolk, but you can't just eliminate all the yolks without something else to take the place of the fat. Washington, D.C.: I don't know what possessed me to buy sorrel last week, but, well, now I have some sorrel. My cookbooks offer no suggestions beyond cream of sorrel soup. Any ideas? Preferably not a salad, since I don't want to have to go out and buy lettuce. Bonnie: You can sweat it with a little butter and then puree to use as an omelet filling, but I really like this sauce for fish: A small pool of this sauce flecked with brilliant green provides a happy swim for halibut and offsets the pink of salmon or arctic char. The recipe's an oldie-but-goodie from "Here's to Nantucket," by Jean-Charles Berruet (Quinlan Press, 1987): 31/2 ounces fresh sorrel leaves 1 tablespoon chopped fresh chives 2 medium shallots, finely chopped 1/2 teaspoon chopped fresh tarragon 1 tablespoon dry white wine 1/2 teaspoon freshly squeezed lemon juice Salt and white pepper to taste Wash the sorrel leaves and discard the stems. Put the sorrel in a pot with the chives, shallots, tarragon, wine and a spoonful of the cream. Bring to a boil and cook for 2 minutes. Run the mixture in a blender until it is smooth. Set aside to cool. Using an electric mixer, beat the remaining cream until you can see a trace of the beaters. (Do not let it get too stiff.) Add the puree of herbs, a few drops of lemon juice, salt and pepper. Per 2-tablespoon serving: 110 calories, 1 gm protein, 2 gm carbohydrates, 11 gm fat, 41 mg cholesterol, 7 gm saturated fat, 47 mg sodium, trace dietary fiber Madison, Wisc.: In December, the Food section had an article about making Limoncello. I saved the recipe and want to start it soon. However, it says at the end to transfer the limoncello to "smaller bottles that can be sealed with rubber stoppers." I have been looking around in grocery stores for such bottles, but no luck. I'm not even sure what I'm looking for, to be honest (I'm picturing something like an old-fashioned Coke bottle, with a wine-bottle-like rubber cork--is that right?). Where should I be looking? Do you know of an online source for ordering these types of bottles? Thanks! Walter: Madison, I don't know if you have a Container Store up that way but that's a good place to find the glass bottles that have a stopper that is held in place with a metal clamp. I understand, Pier 1 also has such bottles. Both stores should have them on their sites. L Street, Washington, D.C.: For the person asking about making grilled vegetables more flavorful - To achieve that smoky, caramelized flavor, your vegetables need to make direct contact with the grill - a grill basket will keep them from falling through the grate but will do nothing in terms of contributing to that caramelized flavor. Cut the vegetables into large strips or, in the case of onions, thick rings. For example, if using bell peppers, slice them in half, seed and de-rib them, and then score them vertically at the top and bottom so the pepper lies basically flat on the grill. For zucchini, slice the long way into 1/4" thick slices. Always brush with olive oil on both sides, and salt and pepper both sides as well. Grill directly on the surface of the barbecue, and slice the grilled vegetables after they come off the grill. Judith W.: Very helpful suggestions. Thanks very much. Los Angeles, Calif.: We're fortunate to be able to grill year-round and actually do, since we bought an Australian-style gas grill (half grill, half griddle) - you can grill carne asada or chicken breasts (marinated in orange juice, lemon juice, cumin, garlic, chili powder, Mexican oregano). on our side and warm the tortillas on the other. Weeknight marinade: just make a quick vinaigrette with lots of fresh herbs and fresh garlic (crushed cloves are fine if you're in a hurry) and toss meat in for an hour; fish steaks/shrimp/scallops, just 15 minutes. Veggies work too - eggplant, squash, peppers, onions - reserve marinade and toss it with pasta and grilled veggies. This chat makes me hungry but I love it anyway! Judith W.: Thanks for joining us from the West Coast. And thanks for your suggestions. Those chicken breasts sound terrific. Rhubarbville, NS: Thanks to the wonderful generosity of a friend, I have no less than 5 pounds of fresh rhubarb in my fridge. Aside from the usual pie and buckle, what can I do with it that's "outside the box" from the usual? A year ago I saw a recipe for rhubarb ketchup but I can't seem to find it now that I want it. I also have an idea that rhubarb would be good in a sauce for fish or pork but I can't seem to quite come up with a way to do it. Do you have any workable ideas to help my use up this bounty? Many thanks! Marcia: Hello, Rhubarbville -- Here's a recipe for pork chops with rhubarb chutney that we ran a week or two ago. It comes from Elinor Klivens and it uses some rhubarb to marinate the pork chops as well as to serve on the side. Hope you like it. Pork Chops With Rhubarb-Tomato Chutney With boneless pork chops and some made-in-advance Rhubarb-Tomato Chutney, it's a simple matter to create this savory entree. Serve with sauteed cabbage or baked sweet potatoes. Four 5-ounce boneless pork chops (may substitute thick slices of pork tenderloin) 1 cup Rhubarb-Tomato Chutney (recipe follows) 1 tablespoon corn oil or other flavorless vegetable oil 1/3 cup chicken broth or reduced-sodium chicken broth Chopped cilantro or chives, for garnish (optional) Place the pork chops and 1/2 cup of the Tomato-Rhubarb chutney in a resealable plastic food storage bag, then seal and squeeze to evenly coat the meat. Refrigerate for at least 15 minutes and up to 1 hour. Shake off the excess chutney from the pork chops and reserve the marinade in the bag. In a large nonstick skillet over medium-high heat, heat the oil until it is hot but not smoking. Sear the chops, turning occasionally, until they have browned on both sides, about 5 minutes total. Add the chutney reserved from the marinade and the chicken broth. Cook, stirring occasionally, for 5 to 6 minutes, or until the chops are cooked through and the chutney mixture has thickened and deepened in color. Add the remaining 1/2 cup chutney to the skillet and cook, stirring, just until heated through. Add salt and pepper to taste. Serve the chops with the chutney pan sauce spooned over the top. Garnish with cilantro or chives, if desired. This flavorful chutney recipe makes more than you need for the pork chops. Use what's left over to enliven almost any curry or grilled or roasted chicken, duck or pork. Since the chutney is stored cold, it does not require processing in a boiling water bath. It will keep for up to 6 weeks in the refrigerator. It also may be frozen in plastic containers or sturdy glass preserving jars for up to 6 months; thaw in the refrigerator before using. 1 tablespoon chopped red or yellow onion 1 tablespoon finely chopped ginger root 1 tablespoon yellow mustard seeds 3 sprigs thyme (or 1/4 teaspoon dried thyme) 1/2 tablespoon 1/2-inch-long strips of orange zest 1/2 teaspoon crushed allspice berries or cardamom seeds, pods removed 1 3/4 cups 1/2-inch pieces rhubarb (about 3/4 pound well-trimmed stalks) 1/4 cup coarsely chopped dried cherries or whole golden raisins 1 large firm tomato, peeled, seeded and coarsely chopped In a lidded, medium nonreactive saucepan over medium-high heat, combine the onion, ginger, mustard seeds, thyme, orange zest, allspice or cardamom, salt, sugar and vinegar. Bring to a boil and cook, covered, for 3 minutes. Add the rhubarb and cherries or raisins and stir. Reduce heat to medium and cook, covered, for 3 minutes. Discard the thyme sprigs, if using. Add the chopped tomato and cook, uncovered, for about 3 minutes or until it is just cooked through but still holds some shape. (The chutney may seem somewhat fluid, but it will thicken a bit when cooled.) Store, refrigerated, in tightly capped glass jars. [+10pts] Per serving: 261 calories, 21 g protein, 5 g carbohydrates, 17 g fat, 70 mg cholesterol, 5 g saturated fat, 150 mg sodium, 0 g dietary fiber Recipes tested by Leigh Lambert; e-mail questions to food@washpost.com Arlington, Va.: As a non-Hispanic, I love the idea of cooking with Hispanic products but don't have a lot of experience doing so. When I venture to the ethnic aisle in the local Giants, or the Latino butcher/market on Wilson Blvd in Clarendon, I always wish I had more knowledge of these ingredients under my belt. That said, I've had some initial luck by researching recipes on epicurious.com and the like, and then trying relatively simple recipes that incorporate a few Hispanic products at a time (i.e., baby steps!). One of my favorite finds is sofrito (Goya brand is good), which is a flavorful base sauce with green peppers, cilantro, onions, garlic in olive oil. I like to saute the sofrito for a minute or two to release the flavors, and then add shrimp and more garlic. The result is a quick, extremely flavorful shrimp dish that goes great with rice or warmed corn tortillas on the side. Thanks for the article today -- I'm even more inspired to try my hand at Hispanic/Latino cooking! Candy: Thanks for the tips. I love the expanded selection of Hispanic products, too. Like Eddie Diaz in the article, I like the Mojo Criollo marinade for chicken. I've also switched to refried black beans instead of the usual pinto, and I use green salsa in my chicken enchiladas. cake question: I LOOOOOVE cake. And I'm an excellent baker. But I can't seem to master a decent yellow cake. I've gone through all the recipes in Joy of Cooking with no luck. I love the texture of box cakes, but not the flavor. Any suggestions for a recipe that will yield that tender/moist texture I love so much? Leigh: There are several good cookbooks devoted to doctoring up box cakes. I particularly like the Cake Mix Doctor series by Anne Byrn. You can mask the artificial flavor by adding some extracts, lemon rind or coconut. Mixes that list pudding on the label will yield the moistest cake. too much mint?: chop it up and mix with some Greek yogurt, shredded cucumber, salt, pepper, touch of lemon juice and olive oil. would be great with grilled lamb. Marcia: Good idea. And, of course, there's always mint tea. Judith W.: Your mixture would be great with Indian food too. And for that matter, grilled anything--chicken, fish. A terrific gresh contrast. Washington, D.C.: Leftover mint -- you can make a kind of pesto with it in the food processor with lemon and oil, but my favorite thing to do is just brew mint tea. Pour boiling water over the leaves, and after a few minutes, strain them out. The tea will keep a lot longer than the leaves will. Drink it over ice, it's especially delicious cold. Judith W.: More ideas for mint. Thanks. Grill Horror Story: When I was in high school, I was at my boyfriends' house. His parents were out, but called to say that they had steaks to grill for dinner, so could BF and I get the charcoal going. My family cooked on charcoal all the time, so I was well practiced in the do's and don'ts, but BF was a little impatient. Since we had no lighter fluid, I built a mound of crumpled newspaper and piled the briquettes on top, lighting the newspaper and adding more as needed to keep the flame going enough to get the briquettes started. BF wanted faster results, so he got the gas can out of the garage. Long story short, the grill quickly became a raging inferno after the flames traveled up the stream of gasoline and caught the can on fire. Luckily, the next door neighbor was home and helped to put the fire out. But, the heat and fumes from the fire killed most of BF's mom's prize rose bushes and scorched the heck out of the concrete driveway. Needless to say, we didn't have steak that night... Candy: Whoa. And is that impatient fellow now an ex-BF? Edmonton, Canada: Regarding the poster making dinner for their friend's family, what about a roast chicken? Not too complicated, tasty, and they'll probably have leftovers. If the poster has time, roasting a few game hens might be fun, interest the kids a little bit. Candy: Thanks for the idea. Sorrel - non-cream soup: Had this when I lived in Russia. Totally yummy. Just toss the sorrel in with some potato and onion and your favorite soup stock. Judith W.: Great idea. Its lemony flavor probably perked up the soup. Lemon ginger tea: I would suggest adding fresh mint to your tea. It's great for color and flavor. You might try chocolate mint - a nice flavor enhancer. Also, add some lemon slices or lime slices. I've been making "sun" tea by leaving a pitcher of water and some tea bags in the sun. Candy: Lots o' mint would definitely help the color. Washington, D.C.: I roasted a chicken the other day and it turned out OK but not great. Now I have half a bland leftover chicken. Any ideas for the meat? I'm thinking maybe shredding and reheating with canned tomatoes and a chipotle for taco filling. Nancy McKeon: it's hot out! you wouldn't consider a great chicken salad made with green grape halves, walnut pieces and a mayonnaise spiked with curry powder?! Washington, D.C.: Regarding the grilled pineapple dessert...Sounds delicious but I am watching my sugar intake. Do I really need to add sugar to the marinade ... will rum and vanilla do? Judith W.: Sure. Try it. no crack cheesecake: Run a knife around the rim of the cheesecake when you take it out of the oven. The cracks won't occur as it cools. For the flavorless grilled vegetables guy: Have you tried using fresh (not dry) oregano in your marinades/rubs? It's made a huge difference in my Judith W.: We agree. And at this time of year, it's very available. using mint up: Braised Lettuce and Peas With Mint This dish is delicious with simply cooked fish, roast or grilled duck. or Little Gem lettuces, halved lengthwise 14ouncespeas -- frozen is ok (ok, a pound is a nice, round number) a few sprigs of mint, reserve some for garnish In a wide, heavy pan over low heat, melt half the butter and saute the onions and lettuces, sprinkle in the sugar, salt and plenty of pepper. Cover & cook very gently for 5 minutes, stirring once. Add the peas, mint sprigs and stock or water. Cover and simmer for a further 5 minutes until the peas are almost tender, remove the lid. Increase heat to high and cook, stirring occasionally until the liquid has reduced to a few tablespoons. Stir in the remaining butter and adjust the seasoning. Transfer to a warm serving dish and garnish with the extra mint. Judith W.: Another very delicious mint idea. Mt. Pleasant, Washington, D.C.: Is there something special about store-bought honey mustard? Is it any different from the two ingredients in its name? Could one just mix honey and mustard and substitute? PS: The most impressive thing about your dinner plans are that you've planned them instead of walking into the kitchen and wondering what's for dinner. Candy: Yes, you could mix together honey and mustard, but why bother when all those nice companies have done it for you? (and yes, you're right, I'm very lazy.) Frederick, Md.: Ref: graduation (cup)cakes. Why not do both? You could bake a two layer round white cake with coconut icing (and marchino cherries on top) and also bake chocolate cupcakes. It's not really any more work than baking 40 plus cup cakes. The guests will love the variety. For the person who tries to grill their own veges for Med sandwiches, I found that grilling quickly on hot flames keeps them from getting soggy and broken-down. Judith W.: Good point about the cake issue. And the quick grilling. Los Angeles, Calif.: I have a standby cupcake recipe that's a must for all birthdays, from the Magnolia Cafe in New York. Simple, foolproof and MOIST several days after baking. I don't have the recipe with me at work but it's in the bakery's cookbook. Candy: Thanks, L.A. Maybe the person looking for a good yellow cake recipe could just use the cupcake recipe. Magnolia cupcakes!: I never thought I'd ever love something plain vanilla ... Makes about 2 dozen cupcakes (depending on the size of your cupcake papers and muffin tins) 1 1/2 cups self-rising flour 1 1/4 cups all-purpose flour 1 cup (2 sticks) unsalted butter, softened 4 large eggs, at room temperature Vanilla Buttercream (recipe follows) or Chocolate Preheat oven to 350 degrees. Line two 12-cup muffin tins with cupcake papers. In a small bowl, combine the flours. Set aside. In a large bowl, on the medium speed of an electric mixer, cream the butter until smooth. Add the sugar gradually and beat until fluffy, about 3 minutes. Add the eggs, one at a time, beating well after each addition. Add the dry ingredients in three parts, alternating with the milk and vanilla. With each addition, beat until the ingredients are incorporated but do not overbeat. Using a rubber spatula, scrape down the batter in the bowl to make sure the ingredients are well blended. Carefully spoon the batter into the cupcake liners, filling them about three-quarters full. Bake for 20-25 minutes, or until a cake tester inserted in the center of the cupcake comes out clean. Cool the cupcakes in the tins for 15 minutes. Remove from the tins and cool completely on a wire rack before icing. At the bakery we ice the cupcakes with either Vanilla Note: If you would like to make a layer cake instead of cupcakes, divide the batter between two 9-inch round cake pans and bake the layers for 30-40 minutes. And frosting - keep at room temp!! Makes enough for one 2-layer 9-inch cake or 2 dozen 1 cup (2 sticks) unsalted butter, softened 6 to 8 cups confectioners' sugar Place the butter in a large mixing bowl. Add 4 cups of the sugar and then the milk and vanilla. On the medium speed of an electric mixer, beat until smooth and creamy, about 3-5 minutes. Gradually add the remaining sugar, 1 cup at a time, beating well after each addition (about 2 minutes), until the icing is thick enough to be of good spreading consistency. You may not need to add all of the sugar. If desired, add a few drops of food coloring and mix thoroughly. (Use and store the icing at room temperature because icing will set if chilled.) Icing can be stored in an airtight container for up to 3 days. If you are icing a 3-layer cake, use the following recipe 1 1/2 cups (3 sticks) unsalted butter 8 to 10 cups confectioners' sugar Judith W.: Thanks a lot. Very helpful. Rockville, Md.: Re: Cupcakes versus regular cake. I would not personally want to ice and decorate 40 cupcakes. Much easier to make a batch of icing and slather it onto a large cake. I'd imagine that if you have a lot of preparation, aside from the dessert, that needs to be taken care of for the party, you would want to minimize the time spent on such a task. Judith W.: Another very good point! Silver Spring, Md.: Hi there. In my freezer, I currently have seven bags of frozen fruit: strawberries, raspberries, blackberries, peaches, rhubarb, logan berries (what IS a logan berry?!), and one other. What to do with them?!? Thanks! Walter: I'm thinking, you could make a lot of different smoothies. Mint: is great in a fresh fruit salad. it's that extra ingredient that people can't quite place but that makes the dish really shine. yum Candy: You're right, but just a little--too much and it's like you're eating fruit and toothpaste. Washington, D.C.: Any great ideas for lentil dishes I can bring to work and reheat in the microwave-- or cold lentil-based salads I could eat without reheating? I love them with chorizo but could use some variation. Judith W.: Lentils are great for salads--just bring them to room temperature (a situation that will surely be easy if you bring them to work). They carry flavor so well, that just about any dressing you use will change their flavor. And you don't need to stick with chorizo--most other sausages work well. Not to mention bacon! Small cubes of cooked potatoes are good too and filling. And marinated carrots, celery, small tomatoes, greens. Lentils are really all purpose. Arlington, Va.: Among my favorite uses for the grill when entertaining is to make dessert -- nothing impresses or pleases a crowd like pulling dessert out of the fire. (Plus, grilling dessert keeps the oven off in the summer kitchen.) Pineapple does particularly well on the grill, as do slices of pound cake. Add ice cream, fresh strawberries and whipped cream, or any other logical combinations and you're ready to feed a crowd. Tarte tatin can also be accomplished on a closed grill, in a cast iron skillet. Use the thick grill mitts! Judith W.: Tarte tatin--that is really brave. Tho probably, many French cooks went that route (or a rudimentary fire anyway) in the first place. Sorrel!!!: I was just in Seattle a few weekends ago visiting my parents. My mom has a sorrel bush in her backyard and she made a traditional Russian soup (we are originally from Moscow, Russia). It was so refreshing! We had it cold with a touch of buttermilk and some fresh parsley. Traditionally it's made with potatoes, onions, carrots - my mom added some pork to it as well. It's absolutely delicious. Wish I could find a place to buy it here, in Texas. Judith W.: Why don't you try to make it yourself? It sounds delicious. Austin ice cream: I was born and raised in Austin and moved here about two years ago. No Blue Bell, but the Austin Grill serves Amy's ice cream, and it's also the place for me to go when I'm feeling really homesick and think it's funny to have Barton Springs trout or Lake Travis nachos! Judith W.: Thanks very much for the Austin-less. Limoncello: I stored most of my limoncello in an old vodka bottle. It worked well with one exception - my bottle apparently had a leak, as the limoncello disappeared very quickly! Walter: The only good that comes from such a disappearance is that then, it's time to make more. Pine Plains, NY: Today's crabcakes sound good. What would be a good sauce Marcia: I had them with plain old tartar sauce. Tom Douglas serves them with the recipe below. Enjoy! 8 ounces tomatillos, husked, rinsed, dried and quartered 1 tablespoon vinegar (omit if your rice vinegar is seasoned) 2 teaspoons green Tabasco sauce 1 teaspoon mustard seeds, toasted* 1 teaspoon peeled and grated fresh horseradish Put the tomatillos in the bowl of a food processor and process until coarsely pureed. Remove the tomatillo puree to a sieve, drain off the liquid, and discard. Put the drained puree in a bowl and stir in the vinegar, sugar, green Tabasco sauce, garlic, mustard seeds and horseradish. *To toast the mustard seeds, place them in a small, heavy skillet over medium heat for a few minutes, shaking or stirring constantly, just until they are very lightly browned and aromatic. Spices burn easily, so watch them carefully. Blue Bell Ice Cream: Last I checked (which is when I was working for them) Outback only serves Blue Bell Ice Cream. Can't exactly take it home with you, but it can satisfy that fix temporarily. Candy: Wow! Who knew? But I bet they only serve vanilla. Cooking for friend's family: How about a nice big chef salad since it is way too hot to heat up the oven? Dressing on the side so they can have leftovers. Add a bagette and voila - dinner. Judith W.: And probably a welcome contrast to more traditional offerings. Takoma Park, Md.: A grill item that never fails to please, and that we never to fail to offer, is simply thickish asparagus wrapped in thick-cut bacon (pin down the end with a toothpick). The thick stalk holds up well while the bacon cooks up and the burnt bits can't be beat. I've had versions of this at spots ranging from Disneyland to a hip izakaya in Tokyo and my mother-in-law will even eat it and have a second! Judith W.: some things really are better with bacon. Rhubarb bounty: Mmm - stewed rhubarb can be frozen in small batches. Thaw it out whenever you do sausages or ham, it's an amazingly good side. To make stewed rhubarb, just cube the stems, add about 1/4 cup of sugar and 1 Tbsp water for each cup of rhubarb, and then cook on low heat, stirring frequently, until it all collapses into chunky, gloppy goodness. Don't overcook it! Judith W.: A wonderful way to enjoy rhubarb all year long. Thanks. For the lasagna-sick family: Hm, a chicken simmer of some sort would be good, no? Chicken piccata can be refrigerated and reheated very easily, if you use boneless thighs instead of breasts. Great way to get some veggies in too, like artichoke hearts. Judith W.: Good idea. Especially the possibility of vegetables. Washington, D.C.: Great section of the WaPo every week! Since I am city dweller without access to a grill, how long and at what temperature would I bake the honey mustard chicken featured today? Candy: D.C.--I'm only estimating here, since I don't bake them. Try 15 to 20 minutes at 350-375 degrees and then check the temp with an instant-read internal thermometer. You could also try broiling them. (and remember, I used boneless thighs. If you use bone-in thighs, it will take longer.) Minneapolis: Walter, please tell me more about the soft shells and panko. I ususally just flour my soft shells and pan fry them, but am looking for something different. Thanks! Walter: It's a three stage dip and dredge in flour, then beaten egg and into the panko crumbs that gives a softy a nice crunch. Grilled veggies: Don't use the basket! Cut nice thick slices of eggplant and squash (lengthwise) and grill those. That's what I do for my trademarked grilled ratatouille, which I eat all summer long. Cutting veggies into small bits and tossing in the basket exposes too much surface area, and you lose all the moisture. Judith W.: Good point. And they look so pretty cut that way too. Arlington, Va.: To the chatter who wants more flavorful veggies from the grill for sandwiches -- use a large zip-seal bag to shake sliced red onions, sliced yellow squash, halved cherry tomato with a couple tablespoons of olive oil, a heavy pinch of kosher salt, a few grinds of black pepper, and any herbs you might have on had -- cilantro or Italian parsley work especially well. Shake the whole bag up and grill until tender. Serve on a hoagie roll with feta cheese. Grilling/roasting vegetables: For those of us who live in apartments and can't grill, you can also get very yummy veggies by roasting them. My two standbys are roasting zucchini, red bell pepper, and onions with olive oil, balsamic vinegar, salt and pepper, and basil OR just throw some some salsa on there. For those veggies, it's about 15 minutes at 425 degrees. I also love my Roasted Vegetables cookbook. I can't remember the author, but it has some great recipes, including ones for different seasons (e.g., winter dishes with butternut squash) Judith W.: An important thing to remember. We are not lost without and actual grill. Thanks. leftover chicken again: Sorry, I can't make chicken salad -- I don't like mayonnaise. Candy: Sure you can make chicken salad--make or buy an Asian vinaigrette. Toss shredded chicken with sliced napa cabbage, sliced red bell pepper, bean sprouts, shredded carrot and some chow mein noodles. You could even add some orange segments or almonds. Crystal City, Va.: I've got shrimp and clams on deck for dinner...what can I do with them that's low carb (i.e., not putting them over pasta or rice) Thanks! Judith W.: A spicy tomato sauce works. So does olive oil, garlic, salt and pepper. But you know, you don't need much pasta to make it seem like a much more substantial meal. I know you hate to hear it, but "portion control'! Cold lentils: Lentils are great cold with lemon juice, served over a bed of lettuce. They are also really good cold if you cream them a bit with some goat cheese while they are warm, then chill. Toss in some hotter Indian spices with that dish, too. Think salad nicoise, and substitute lentils for green beans: tuna, hardboiled egg, lentil, salad greens. Judith W.: More lentil idea. Thanks. Grilling on Cap Hill: My oven has been broken for 3 years. It is bigger than the door frames and cannot be removed until I renovate the 100 year row house. Thusly I've turned to my outdoor gas grill for everything. Even chocolate chip cookies can be made on the grill by a girl desperate for chocolate. Bar none - my favorite thing to do is cook pizza homemade (or reheated delivery) on the grill. It is smoky, crispy, and slightly charred YUM. The 2nd thing is grilling up hot-dogs with a little melted cheese, putting them them in foil, then into thermal lunch bags, walk to RFK and enjoy a baseball game (take that Ararmark!). I love my grill. His name is Kenny. Candy: Chocolate chip cookies on a grill! Way to go Kenny. (I never thought of naming my grill. I wonder if my grill is a girl-grill or a boy-grill...) Washington, D.C.: Another idea for getting flavor into grilled veggies is to marinate them first, or baste them -- balsamic vinegar is great for either. Pine Plains, NY: For a graduation party last year, I made chocolate chip cookies, the basic Toll House recipe but made the Maida Heatter way with 16 oz. of chips rather than 12. They were gone in a flash. The party was to go from the afternoon into the night and a cake, chocolate with strawberries, was going to be served later. People really scarfed down those cookies. Candy: Chocolate chip cookies are one of the milestones in western civilization, to my way of thinking. For lemon ginger tea person: Boil some dried hibiscus blossoms. Strain the blossoms out of the water and add it to the tea. Pretty deep pink color. Cooking for friend's family: Either a ham or a roasted turkey breast offers a lot of leftover options, and both are good "comfort food". Judith W.: Lots of leftovers there too! Limoncello: Could you run a link to the recipe? I think I missed it! Fort Washington, Md.: The influx of different foods are being consumed by all customers not just certain ethnic group customers. Just having the availability of "ethnic" food is wonderful for everyone. We regularly keep hoisin sauce, tortillas, jasmine rice, green tea, Thai peanut sauce, salsa, green curry, fried plantains, and other "ethnic" food in our food pantry along with the green beans and jelly. In our home these foods are no more "ethnic" food than spaghetti/pasta sauce. Grocery stores should expand their food selection. If you build it they will come. Judith W.: You bet! Smart shoppers (and eaters)like you are taking advantage of the world of products out there, and enlivening their cooking in the process. Dinner for funeral-friends: A couple suggestions for meals for the family at home while Mom is at a funeral. (Don't assume Mac and Cheese is such a great idea... we got two of them and both were discretely introduced to the disposal. One had cherry tomatoes in it, for reasons that escape understanding to this day.) First thought: Look for something people can pick at, as appetites may be ebbing and flowing in grief. Also, consider stuff that can be frozen as complete or near-complete meals, so that when Mom gets back -- and still is grieving as she picks up her life with kids, etc. -- she can simply pull a lovingly-made meal from the freezer and have one less thing to fret about for later. (1) Barbecued chicken or pork for sandwiches. Put some c breasts/thighs or pork shoulder chunks into the CrockPot with bbq sauce of your own making or from a bottle. Simmer several hours until fork tender. Shred with two forks, put it back into the sauce. Advantages: VERY easy to reheat, very freezable, can be served as sandwiches or with other sides. (2)Especially if the kids are young, some casserole-y combo of ground beef, mushroom soup, rice, seasonings. They can throw in some frozen veggies when they are ready to eat it, or have those on the side. Likewise, this can be frozen and will hold. Alternative is a shepherd's pie. Third alternative is a Tex-Mex version of the same thing (no mushroom soup). (3) Soups and stews. Freeze well, reheat well, provide comfort. (4) Bake some cookies and wrap them in twos to be frozen -- treats for anyone, anytime. Just a few thoughts. Peace to the family, and blessings to the kind friend. Walter: Here are some good thoughts. Mayo Free Life!: Pshaw, no chicken salad! I make it all the time with red wine vinaigrette. You can also add some pasta spirals for a chicken pasta salad. One other alternative is plain yogurt and a touch of honey, apples, grapes, and walnuts. Judith W.: Yogurt's a great idea. Mint!: Try garlic-mint potatoes. Wash and cut potatoes into equal size pieces. I usually cut them to about bite size or bigger. Steam or boil them until a fork goes in easily. Drain and put in bowl with minced garlic, chopped mint, a little olive oil and coarse salt and mix it up. It's best served at room temperature, although good hot or cold too, and is great with grilled foods. Walter: I see, there are many mint lovers out there. Shishkabob: I can't believe an hour has gone by and nobody has mentioned the age old way of grilling veggies - on a stick - with or without meat. Walter: And now you have. Cooking for friend's family: I have a couple of friends who have lost parents - and the one thing they've said is that while they appreciate the casseroles that people bring, it can be a bit much after awhile. At on point they really just craved fresh fruit! Something lighter and that can be stored for awhile in the fridge is great. Candy: You're so right. Some fruit, some veggies--things that can be nibbled on. Judith W.: We might not get to all your comments and questions today folks. Thanks for being so helpful. Meanwhile, will the Arlington non-Hispanic and the Grill Horror story chatters send their contact info to food@washpost.com to collect their well-earned rewards. Los Angeles again:: Between the cupcake recipe and this berry tip, I'm feeling We make berry crisp with frozen berries very often because it's quick and easy. Our recipe is from Caprial's Desserts - basically, you toss the berries (I don't even bother to thaw them) with sugar, cornstarch, spices and vanilla, then top with a butter/sugar/oatmeal/flour topper that you mix with your hands. (My toddler loves that part.) I've varied the topper by adding almond extract and sliced Now, if someone can tell me how to make this less Candy: Heloise--you rock! Thanks for the tips. Washington, D.C.: I think too many people are intimidated by fish, especially whole fish, on the grill or otherwise. Usually, they end up overmarinating, overseasoning, and overcooking the poor (expensive) things. Here's a favorite. Grills vary too much for accurate timings... Fresh-caught (or bought from a good fish market) whole Red Snapper or similar fish. Olive oil, salt and pepper, inside and out. Hot grill, freshly oiled. Apply fish, cook till barely done (turning once). Serve with grilled mango or pineapple. Judith W.: Thanks. Lots of us are intimidated by whole fish. Foggy Bottom, Washington, D.C.: In regards to mint: Indian mint chutney Lemon juice, garlic, salt and cumin. Process it in a blender. Really good with potato chips. Judith W.: Hmmm. (As if we needed another reason to eat potato chips.) re: Cake Question: Thanks for the suggestions, but I'd prefer not to use a box cake. I'd like to make it from scratch. I've tried masking the flavor of box cakes before, and didn't like the result. How is it that all the scratch recipes call for endlessly separated and beaten eggs or butter, but you can add a couple of simple eggs and oil to a box cake and get such a great result? Is there a recipe for a homemade "box cake?" I have a recipe for a cake called "Black Magic" and it's perfect and moist everytime...just oil and eggs like a box cake. Looking for something comparable in the world of yellow cakes. Thanks!! Judith W.: And thank you too. Woodbridge, Va.: Are there any cookbooks that you would particularly recommend for recipes and instructions on how to use the less familiar vegetables and fruits that I find in my local Global Foods supermarket? Some of these are usually Hispanic and some Asian. Candy: Walter really likes "The Visual Food Encyclopedia" to help identify some of those mysterious fruits and vegetables (mysterious, at least, to us non-Hispanics). It also gives some serving and recipes ideas. Judith W.: Thanks for your enthusiastic participation folks. See you next week. 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.
The experts of the Food Section answer questions, share secrets and discuss all things food-related.
598.947368
0.842105
2.210526
high
medium
mixed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/30/AR2006053001224.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/30/AR2006053001224.html
Abuse, Deaths in D.C. Group Homes Detailed
2006053019
Newly filed court papers give vivid and startling details about the extent of abuse -- from severe scaldings to fatal starvation -- that mentally and physically disabled residents have endured in some of the District's group homes. Emily, 60, who liked movies, shopping and piling mountains of stuffed animals on her bed, weighed only 50 pounds when she died in 2004, the Justice Department wrote in a court filing last week, warning that hers was not an isolated case. Caregivers effused about Mike's love of eating out, watching sports and going for walks. The same caregivers stood by as his weight dropped precipitously, according to court papers, and he suffered anemia, gangrene of the stomach and organ failure. He slipped into a coma, then died last year at age 41. At his group home, Jake, 52, had periodic problems with diarrhea for 10 months before his death last year, and none of his caregivers increased his fluids or changed his diet, the Justice Department said. Matthew died at age 43. He loved eating out, going on trips and watching sports. Like the others, he was chronically underweight and, like the others, was not given proper attention, the Justice Department said. He died a month and a half after his housemate, Emily, dropped to her fatal 50 pounds. Each of these people was a mentally disabled ward of the District who died in the past two years after inexcusable lapses in care, the Justice Department said, urging a judge to hold the District in contempt of court for not meeting repeated promises of reform. Other mentally and physically disabled residents of group homes were beaten, berated, sexually accosted, neglected or targeted for theft, Justice lawyers said. To protect the victims' privacy, the Justice Department used pseudonyms for the people who died or were harmed. But the circumstances were real, the government said, and represented a pattern dating back decades. The papers, filed in U.S. District Court, cited 14 "preventable and questionable" deaths since January 2003. They included a 54-year-old woman who was never screened for colon cancer and died from the disease, a 58-year-old woman who was untreated for illness for so long that she went into septic shock and a 45-year-old man who did not get proper help for a swallowing disorder. University Legal Services, which represents the plaintiffs in a 30-year-old lawsuit over quality of care, wants the judge to order a court takeover of the Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Administration, the D.C. government agency in charge of caring for nearly 2,000 mentally and physically disabled residents. Like the Justice Department, its ally in the suit, the advocacy group filed papers detailing various abuses. "How many more deaths do we have to have?" asked Sandy Bernstein, legal director for University Legal Services. "These are not complicated problems: weight loss, bowel issues, hydration. These are issues any caretaker should be able to address." The documents bring renewed scrutiny to conditions in many group homes run by private providers for the city. U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle, who has faulted the D.C. government in the case, has scheduled a hearing for June 29.
Newly filed court papers give vivid and startling details about the extent of abuse -- from severe scaldings to fatal starvation -- that mentally and physically disabled residents have endured in some of the District's group homes.
15.948718
1
39
medium
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/27/AR2006052700089.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/27/AR2006052700089.html
Two Movie Formats, Heading for a High-Def Collision
2006053019
Eight years after the first HDTVs brought sitcoms and sports events into a clearer focus in our living rooms, there's still no simple, widely available equivalent of the high-def experience for a purchased or rented movie. And this is for lack of trying. Ever since a digital videotape format called D-VHS launched in 1998 -- just in time for DVD to wipe VHS off the face of the Earth -- and quickly sank into oblivion, it should have been obvious how to solve this problem. People just want a high-definition version of the compact, versatile DVD. But only now is the industry finally bringing that kind of disc to the market. And it's doing that twice. Instead of heeding every painful lesson of the past 30 years -- does VHS versus Betamax ring a bell? -- and putting in the effort to come up with a single standard, the consumer-electronics industry elected to Balkanize itself around two incompatible formats. Each one can boast manufacturers and movie studios that have pledged to support it alone. The first of these, HD DVD, arrived last month; the second, Blu-Ray, is due to debut next month. HD DVDs look just like regular DVDs; even their logo hardly differs from the one that's graced movies for the past decade. But they store about three times as much data as a DVD -- 15 or 30 gigabytes' worth. That allows an HD DVD to store a high-definition copy of a full-length movie, plus all the extras you'd get on a DVD, such as deleted scenes, alternate endings and commentary about the movie from directors and actors. (And you can browse and select these extras without stopping the movie; press your remote's "menu" button and a list of this bonus content appears at the bottom of the screen.) Some HD DVDs will feature interactive content that you can watch while the movie plays -- for instance, picture-in-picture overlays to show how a stunt was put together. This format also supports "hybrid" discs that include a second, DVD-compatible side to use in a standard DVD player or computer. Rewriteable versions are due later this year, even though users looking to back up ever-larger hard drives could use that help now. Only a few HD DVD players are available: two from Toshiba (the $500 HD-A1 and the $800 HD-XA1, which adds a fancier display, a different case design and other minor refinements) and one $500 model from RCA. Only one HD DVD-equipped computer is on sale, Toshiba's $3,000 Qosmio G35-AV650. The selection of HD DVD movies isn't much broader at this early stage-- a scant, puzzling mix of classics (for example, "GoodFellas" and "Full Metal Jacket"), recent releases ("Cinderella Man" and "Jarhead") and older flops ("Swordfish" and -- why, why, why? --"Doom"). Most have suggested retail prices of $29 to $35. HD DVD certainly does make movies look good on TV, to judge from the releases I've watched on a loaned HD-XA1 hooked up to a 40-inch Sony LCD. In the HD DVD of "GoodFellas" I could make out little details like the text on a paper on a security guard's desk and the title of a mural on a courtroom wall; on a DVD, those things were obscured or blurred.
Eight years after the first HDTVs brought sitcoms and sports events into a clearer focus in our living rooms, there's still no simple, widely available equivalent of the high-def experience for a purchased or rented movie. And this is for lack of trying.
13.6
1
50
low
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/24/DI2006052402165.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/24/DI2006052402165.html
Federal Diary Live
2006053019
The Post's Stephen Barr is the author of The Federal Diary , which runs Monday through Friday in the Business news section. Steve has been a reporter and editor at The Post since 1979, including stints as Federal Page editor, congressional editor and a National staff writer covering federal management and workplace issues. He began writing the column in May 2000, and takes the column live to answer your questions Wednesdays at noon ET . Stephen Barr: Thanks to all joining in this discussion today. As I'm sure most of you know, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that agencies have wide leeway in dealing with employees for things they say in the course of doing their jobs. Up on the Hill, Congress is moving toward providing a 2.7 percent raise, slightly higher than what the president recommended. With that, on to your questions and comments. Washington, D.C.: Steve, you are always writing about the traditional parity in pay raises for military and civilians. When did this tradition begin? When I was in the military in the 70s-80s the civilians typically got larger raises. Solders die everyday while my federal neighbor has not worked a five day week all year!! Parity? Looks like we need a new tradition. Stephen Barr: Congressional staff tells me that the tradition goes back about two decades, and your memory is correct. Some aides say the practice began as a way to pull up military pay each year, and then the situation flipped when Congress and the White House decided to put their focus on military pay after some embarrassing revelations about military personnel collecting food stamps. It's not perfect, but it seems to be what works now. Pickerington, Ohio: Will the already emaciated whistleblower protections be severely damaged by the U.S. Supreme Court's latest ruling? Will federal employees ever be able to feel comfortable to report wrongdoings? Stephen Barr: The Supreme Court ruling does not change current whistleblower law. The justices looked at a case involving a memo written by an employee, and decided that since writing the memo was part of his job, he did not deserve protection under the First Amendment. Still, the court also indicated that when an employees makes a disclosure in public, then that raises the possibility that the whistleblowing is protected. So, it depends on the context. Here's one solution: when in doubt, call your IG Hotline and make your complaint anonymously. Fairfax, Va.: Yesterday's Supreme Court decision essentially relegated federal employees to second class citizen status. How can our government continue to operate if we are continually subjected to either the 'if you're not with me then you're against me' mentality, or worse, the very real threat of punishment/retaliation for speaking out in opposition to those in control? Why do we civil servants continue to sit back and take this??? Stephen Barr: Well, frankly, they don't have much choice. Federal Circuit interpretations of whistleblower protections are fairly narrow. It has been established that telling your boss about some wrongdoing is not whistleblowing, because it is part of your job to make such a report. Now, I find all this confusing. After all, if your boss turns on you, what recourse do you have? I think this issue could be especially important in light of the nation's homeland security imperatives, etc. The high court seems to be suggesting that employees need to take all their complaints to the public, which apparently provides some First Amendment protection. But you are right, this is a big step that will probably lead to retaliation. Red Bank, N.J.: Even though the Supreme Court determined that federal agencies have some leeway in running their affairs, they still must recognize their legal and contractual obligations to their employees. In my opinion the ruling did not put them above those obligations. Stephen Barr: A good point. Thanks, Red Bank. Dayton, Ohio: It was announced today that the VA GS-14 analyst who lost sensitive personal records for millions of veterans will be "terminated." At 60+ years-old, he is/was probably eligible for a lifetime annuity. Since he was terminated, will he receive it? Stephen Barr: Yes. Under law, you only lose your pension for the most serious crimes, such as treason. Arlington, Va.: Any more information on why Gregg Prillaman left DHS, as mentioned in your story yesterday? Did it have to do with the fact that he was passed over to be the Acting Undersecretary for Management? Stephen Barr: I don't know that is a fact or factor. It's seems clear, based on the accounts of colleagues, that he and the department's other political appointees had different visions of how to reform DHS pay and personnel practices. Itasca, Ill.: Comment:I have a son currently enrolled in one of only eight universities that provide curriculum and training for future air traffic controllers. The government is not providing him with the help to obtain this degree that costs 30K per year. This ridiculous notion that saving money on a small select group of controllers that have taken on the responsibility and further more the distinct career path, for the safety and security of the country deserve to be paid accordingly. WE are wasting our time, our efforts on so many other mindless initiatives that it doesn't seem fair nor does it make common sense to short change this position for the future. The skies are more and more crowded, it is a small price to pay within the bigger picture, when you hire qualified and well trained young men and women that have focused there career path and education long-term for such a position. Let's get real, we need to compensate for those coming into this area... The FAA needs to look to other areas for savings, not beat up the air traffic controllers. They are not the bureaucrats that wastefully spend and are out of touch with the reality. Their salaries should not be equated with administrators, or file clerks that don't bear the burdens not to mention the stress of this position. I would like to see a reality check with the rest of the Federal government before, we cut the controllers out of their piece of the pie. Stephen Barr: Thanks for your comment. This is a difficult area, since it touches on budget, policy and politics. FAA officials believe the contract proposal they have put forward to Congress treats controllers in a fair manner. The union asserts that is not the case. Will controllers stay on the job? Will people like your son continue to volunteer to undergo rigorous training? Are six-figure salaries adequate for this kind of work? What do you think, folks? Houston, Tex.: How many voluntary agreements with Labor has the FAA come to under administrator Blakey's tenure? Stephen Barr: I don't know. But she has gone to impasse with the agency's two largest unions in recent months. Fort Worth, Tex.: As a Federal employee in the FAA, I find it extremely unbelievable that a Federal Agency would negotiate with a Union and then totally ignore all the Articles in the contract that have been agreed upon. The agency has submitted a contract that contains no previously agreed upon negotiations. I feel this is illegal and the Congress should never condone illegal actions disguised by a congressional coating. Stephen Barr: That's what happens when you end up in deadlock. Still, as I understand it, the both sides had agreed to numerous provisions, just not the big ticket items, such as pay and certain workplace rules. Houston, Tex.: The FAA claims that controller salaries prevent them from modernizing the ATC system. How many new ATC technologies have been introduced during Administrator Blakey's tenure? How many have been scaled back or eliminated? Stephen Barr: I'm no FAA tech expert, but the agency continues to develop new technology, and argues that it needs cost savings from the controller contract in order to keep upgrading the system. About 70 percent of FAA operating costs involve payroll, according to the IG's office. Atlanta, Ga.: Pay parity: One nice thing about pay parity is that it also benefits those former soldiers who became civilian federal employees. Let's not forget about their service too. And, no, I'm not a vet -- I am just a younger civilian fed who really appreciates having the opportunity to work with some of the heroes of our past wars. Stephen Barr: Good point. About a quarter of federal employees are veterans. Silver Spring, Md.: Those pesky numbers... Let's presume for funs' sake that we get the 2.7%. Any best-guesses on how much the locality will be and how it will be divvied up? I am a little (okay--a LOT) bit of a planner when it comes to money. I want to start seriously deciding how money will be allocated in 2007 (how much to CFC, Dep. care, health care, TSP -particularly TSP!]). Think of it as a parlour game. Stephen Barr: Past practice has been to carve off 1 percent for locality adjustments. This is one of the lower pay raises in recent years, however, so I'm not sure that the past is a guide to the future. Yes. Under law, you only lose your pension for the most serious crimes, such as treason. Or you cut a deal with the government, a la Hansen. Who wouldn't have been protected under the "Whistleblower Law" as well as he is for having committed treason. Stephen Barr: I'm not sure how whistleblower law would apply in his case. He basically cut a deal in order to ensure his family would receive federal benefits. Boo hoo: "The government is not providing him with the help to obtain this degree that costs 30K per year." So? Since when is it everyone else's responsibility (or the Government's responsibility) to pay off your son's college debt? Seems to me he/you should have made a better career choice or went to a different (if possible, in-state) school to get his education. If I understand this correctly, air traffic controllers make some good money -- better money than other professions that send the youngsters into thousands of dollars of debt. Suck it up and pay off your bills like everyone else. Stephen Barr: Yes, some careers provide high satisfaction and low pay, and others provide low satisfaction and high pay, and some get lucky and get both. Fairfax, Va.: OK, back to the Supreme Court issue: Hypothetically speaking, since it is my obligation to report wrongdoing but I know for a certainty that my boss will 'transfer' me elsewhere for speaking out, and I find it reprehensible that I would have to resort to anonymous tipster status, then the only way I might get First Amendment protection is by going public? So if I contact the Federal Diary and you report on the subject, I still don't see the Supreme Court decision as protecting me from disciplinary action for bucking the chain of command or releasing internal information, etc. Isn't the real net effect of the ruling a gag order for all but the very worst of offenses? Stephen Barr: I don't disagree. It puts a chill on public servants. Now, this court ruling focused on a memo, and the case is going back to the 9th circuit. It's possible that other aspects of the employee complaint will get a second look--such as public speech he made, where he disclosed problems in his office, and in a grievance he filed. The court recognized there has to be a way to balance all this, but five justices opted to uphold management's right to control the workplace. Washington, D.C.: Do you know if there is guidance about when products provided to the government are so flawed that it constitutes fraud? I always wondered why IG/GAO types didn't weigh in. Stephen Barr: This is generally a case by case determination. Contracting officers can take action against vendors who provide shoddy products, including terminating the contract or giving them low performance marks. In cases of fraud, IGs often seek prosecution or settlements. One weak link, in my mind, is the willingness of local U.S. attorneys to pursue such cases, since they have a lot on their plate. Newark, N.J.: Regarding the air traffic controllers, it's a thankless job. Our job is to protect the safety of the public and protect the economic interests of the aircraft owners. We don't get rich by doing this job and we work for the most dysfunctional federal agency in government. Controllers add a tremendous amount of economic value to an industry that accounts for 11% of gross domestic product. We move billions of dollars of aircraft and millions of lives every single day. A financial manager that holds that kind of value in his hands each day makes millions of dollars per year. The public receives a good value from the salaries paid to controllers. There is no amount of automation that can currently replace the human element of the national airspace system. Controllers are the glue that holds the system together. Stephen Barr: Thanks for that perspective, Newark. Va employee: If (and maybe when) some vets are victims of identity fraud do you think the soon-to-be ex Va. employee will be held personally liable? Unfortunately it will be difficult to prove that any problems with identity are directly caused by him but most of us will be able to figure it out where our SSNs and birthdates came from. Any word on what the VA plans to do as far as offering extra credit checks, etc? I don't believe the one free check per year is anywhere near sufficient now. Stephen Barr: I doubt the employee can be found personally liable. After all, his supervisor knew that he was taking the database out of the office to work on at home. Members of Congress are weighing possible remedies for vets who face the prospect of having their identities hijacked. I suspect we have some more sorting out to do on this matter before solutions are adopted. Va.: Would you advice a career as a congressional aide? Many I have met seemed to be young with fancy educational degrees but short on experiences. Stephen Barr: Some random thoughts. Most people who work on the Hill are there for the experience, not a career. In many cases, they start as interns, often unpaid, and sometimes move into a full-time job, and some move up rapidly in their member's office. But there is a substantial number of professional staff members on the Hill, usually working behind the scenes on committees. Many of them have wide experience in their fields, and high levels of education (usually a law degree or an economics degree). Many are nonpartisan, and represent Congress' institutional memory on issues. A number of them once worked in the executive branch before taking to the congressional lifestyle. One other observation: the Senate staff seems a bit older and more seasoned that the House staff. That may have to do with election cycles and the longevity of many senators. Re: Boo Hoo: Um, I am having trouble seeing who, other than the federal government, is going to employ air controllers. If that is the case, then why doesn't the government train them. They want military officers and therefore there is West Point, Annapolis, the Air Force Academy and Coast Guard Academy. So why not? Also, controllers may make relatively good pay, but I seem to recall they cannot work at that job because of the stress until full retirement age like the rest of us. What happens to these early retirees? What kind of demand is there for their services? Stephen Barr: The FAA runs a training academy in Oklahoma City, but it cannot accommodate all applicants, and some research shows that the private schools are as good as the FAA academy. Yes, controllers must retire earlier this most of us--at age 56. Some seeks jobs elsewhere in the FAA, often as supervisors. Others move on to second careers. Bethesda, Md.: Re: air traffic controllers My father has a pilot's license. I have flown with him and with big airlines. It is hard to believe that anyone can seriously think that they earn too much money for a job that involves moving millions of people a year, safely, millions of miles. A CEO with similar responsibilities earns 10x that amount AND they hide behind corporate law when things go badly. Doubling the salaries of air traffic controllers would be a good start. I'm no compensation expert, but would note that school teachers, police officers and firefighters are arguably underpaid for the services they render the public. When discussing salaries for people in public safety jobs, it's difficult to say exactly what is right. Fairfax, Va. re: Newark: I second Newark's statements, except for one: if we were to hold a contest to determine the most dysfunctional agency in the federal government, I think we would find all too many tied for first place. Silver Spring, Md.: Re: Illinois' son If I may--the gov't is making a LOT of noise about planning for the future. Air traffic controllers have a mandatory retirement age. IF the government is serious about the future, and the increasing air traffic, then it would be prudent to find those who ARE training to be ATCs, woo those who are passing muster, and even help or pay off their school loans IF they are hired and stick around long enough. Geez, we do it for all sorts of numbers crunchers, why not those who keep us from turning into toast in the skies? Stephen Barr: Student loan reimbursement is an option, yes. Thanks, Silver Spring. Rockville, Md.: The Court recognized there has to be a way to balance all this, but five justices opted to uphold management's right to control the workplace. You are who you sleep with... That decision doesn't make ME sleep any better at night! Stephen Barr: Well said, Rockville. Montgomery County, Md.: I am shocked at the lack of visual and dental insurance paid as part of federal employee benefits. Why have the unions let this go by? What is the history? Stephen Barr: The unions have decried the lack of dental-vision benefits as part of FEHBP coverage for many years. Congress has been wary of adding expensive new benefits for federal employees. In the program scheduled to start at year's end, federal employees and retirees will shoulder the entire premium cost. But the government's large purchasing power presumably will make the benefits available at a reduced rate. This was the same thinking behind the creation of the long-term care insurance program. Controllers & Cash: Well, hmm, why don't a bunch of the controllers form an ATC contracting company and bid for the work? A chance to get a bigger slice of the pie, no? Stephen Barr: Ah, what a sense of humor. San Diego, Calif.: A bill, H.R. 1739, titled 'FERS Redeposit Act' was submitted by Rep. Moran (Virginia) in April 2005. This would enable FERS retirees to recapture credit for service covered by a refund by repaying the amount, much like CSRS employees. Is there any movement on this bill? Stephen Barr: Have not seen any movement. Similar proposals have been introduced in the past, but apparently falter because opponents believe it would allow FERS employees to buy a larger annuity by making a relatively small personal outlay. This is one of the differences between FERS and CSRS. Va.: What is the difference between reporting DSS violations and whistleblowing? Is ratting on a colleague's downloading of computer games ok? Stephen Barr: Misuse of office equipment probably doesn't rise to the level of waste, fraud and abuse usually associated with whistleblowing. Are we really talking about someone goofing off at work? More on FAA/controllers: Since the FAA Academy cannot meet the demand, either for new controllers (or there wouldn't be private schools) or for applicants (same argument), then why (to get back to father's original complaint) can't the government offer a deal like ROTC which helps future government workers get training in return for a commitment to future service? Stephen Barr: Perhaps a solution. There are some scholarship for service programs offered by agencies, but it's important to remember that controller training includes on-the-job training that can last for more than a year or two. The unique nature of the job may foil efforts such as you suggest. I don't know enough to say, alas. Concerned: Your Social Security number is currently the tie to your financial identity. This needs to be changed. There is absolutely no security while this is in place. Stephen Barr: A good point, and hopefully someone is working on this issue. New York, N.Y.: What will be the first Federal Department to go, HHS? Education? Energy? Is anyone on the Hill calling for a severe reduction, or abandonment of these agencies anymore? Stephen Barr: No, but budgets are going to be tight for non-defense, and non-security agencies. We may see a gradual erosion in staffing and resources at some agencies, but that means the Congress and the public will have to reach some consensus on what to give up. That is hard work, as countless fiscal hawks have discovered. Once again, we've run out of time. Thanks to all for the lively discussion. See you back here at noon next Wednesday! Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
Washington Post columnist Stephen Barr answers questions about navigating the federal workplace. Federal Diary runs weekdays in the Business news section of The Post.
166.115385
0.846154
2
high
medium
mixed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/28/DI2006052800246.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/28/DI2006052800246.html
From Public Life to Private Business
2006053019
Washington Post staff writer David S. Hilzenrath was online to discuss former Defense secretary William S. Cohen. Hilzenrath examined Cohen's transition from public life to private business in an article Sunday. What was the point of your story? I read it expecting some smoking gun, and there wasn't one - just cheap insinuations from the usual suspects like POGO whose business it is to insinuate. If you don't think that former government officials deserve to make money after they leave public service, then come out and say it, rather than painting around the corners. David S. Hilzenrath: I see it as a story about the way Washington works. It's not my role to say whether or not former public officials should make money from the knowledge and relationships they developed in government. However, that's what many former officials do, and some citizens may want to know about it. The executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, Danielle Brian, was not insinuating. She was making broad points about the potential implications of career paths such as Secretary Cohen's. If a government official plans to become a consultant to industry, she said, it could give the official an incentive to be friendly with industry. Unlike words and actions, private motivations are hard to determine. Let me repeat Secretary Cohen's words. He said he carried out his government duties "without any consideration of future gain." Burke, VA: Regarding your story on former SECDEF Cohen and his transition to business/commercial life following his time in government, I couldn't figure out if you were trying to have us feel sorry for him--"his . . . disclosure from listen tens of thousands of dollars of charge-account debts with rates as high as about 25%"-- or were you saying that he sold himself afterwards to give him the lifestyle his wife and he had always wanted. Most of all, I was disappointed in the 'woe is me' of having to live on a government salary side of the story. What does that say about all the capable, hard-working government employees and military who some how find a way to prosper, save, buy a comfortable (but not excessive) house, send kids to college, save for retirement, take care of aging parents, etc. etc. You quote him as saying his financial condition was "probably typical of those who remained honest in public service." What does that say to government employees when the top of the food chain is saying he can't make it, even with a salary probably greatly in excess of theirs? David S. Hilzenrath: I was trying to tell the story. Among other things, I was trying to capture a sense of the pressures and tradeoffs that may accompany a career spent in government service. I was not trying to make either of the points you mentioned. As with most stories, individual readers may react differently. In my interview with Secretary Cohen, I was the one who raised the topic of his financial condition after three decades in government. He explained that he had chosen to stay in public service despite the financial tradeoffs. Philadelphia, PA: The revolving door between government and business creates an atmosphere of protection of businesses by government, in my opinion. Even if no offer is made, government employees know these jobs will be out there when their service is done, and I believe it makes them less aggressive to take actions that might help the public yet harm the business. While it is sad to see this with Secretary Cohen, is there any evidence that any of this was illegal, or that any offers were indicated would be available to him while he was in office? David S. Hilzenrath: The story does not allege any illegality. Rockville MD: Initially I thought your intent was to present the facts on the transition of one public official. As I read further, I would like to know if you planned to intimidate or incriminate? David S. Hilzenrath: Your initial thought was correct. Arlington, VA: Your article is full of innuendo but few objective facts to support the implication that Former Secretary Cohen has done something wrong by using his experience and contacts on behalf of clients. The only information that appears to have been conveyed is that Secretary Cohen has helped clients and that the article is devoid of any instance of impropriety. In other words, the facts run contrary to the innuendo. So, why such a negative approach to a man who dedicated so many years to public service honestly and ethically and is now representing private sector clients in a legal manner? David S. Hilzenrath: It's not our place to judge whether there's anything wrong with the services Secretary Cohen performs for clients. You can form your own opinion. Some of the people quoted in the story pointed to issues of potential concern. We set out to report on the business of the Cohen Group, the intersection of government and business in Washington, and one official's transition from the former to the latter. As a general matter, something doesn't have to be illegal to be newsworthy or interesting. San Francisco, California: Your profile of Secretary Cohen's newfound wealth oddly omitted another SecDef to find even greater wealth in the private sector, the current Vice President. Although the article you wrote mentioned Kissinger, Albright, and Carlucci, it would seem the most telling comparison of a SecDef's accumulation of new wealth after leaving the office would be with Richard B. Cheney. Is there a reason the article did not make this comparison? David S. Hilzenrath: The people mentioned in the story were meant to serve as examples of a Washington paradigm. Much has been written about the Vice President's time in the private sector. His service as chief executive of Halliburton has less in common with Secretary Cohen's post-government career than the examples cited. Tom from Chantilly, VA: This was a very poor case of yellow journalism. Why do you make numerous allegations by insinuation without any facts whatsoever to make the reader conclude Bill Cohen did anything illegal, immoral or for personal gain. Was your lengthy passage on his home purchase in McLean an attempt to suggest Bill Cohen was acting like Duke Cunningham? In quoting Paul Light and the other academic, it appears that you fudged their answers to give the suggestion of potential impropriety. Did you? Also, why did you lead the article with the point that Bill Cohen had credit card debt? Are you asserting (again without fact) that he was willing to compromise his professional integrity to pay off bills? Finally, I am curious as to whether the Post editorial board debated killing this story before it ran? It was so below the standard readers come to expect from one of the nation's premier newspapers? David S. Hilzenrath: I think I've covered this, but I'm happy to share your comment with our readers. DC: Enjoyed the story, but I was struck again and again with a sense of "was it ever thus" as I read through it. Question: Aren't there umpteen examples of this sort of cashing out and why is the Post just now exposing this now-very-common behavior? Further, and a bit broader, are the temptations of DC power and money such that former members of Congress or admin officials can't just go home after they leave gov't service? This bipartisan affliction (Clinton, Dole, Gingrich, Daschle) seems to have really worsened of late (ironically, while the amount of DC bashing has also been on the upswing) Seems now that the real news is when these types actually do go home. Perhaps that can be your next big story -- those who were at the pinnacle of political power and just walked away from it all to go home. David S. Hilzenrath: The paradigm we describe is a longstanding feature of business in Washington. We've written about it before, and we may write about it again. Annandale, VA: Your article only serves to once again undermine the dignity and selflessness with which many individuals enter in public service. They're scrutinized getting into it, during their service, and now after they leave office. After years of dedicated public service in both the Congress and as Secretary of Defense, Bill Cohen should be praised for his service not maligned for whom he represents as a private citizen. Bill Cohen was an exemplary Senator who went against his party and served as the Secretary of Defense under a democratic president. It took guts, and it would be wonderful to see him re-enter the electoral politics in the 2008 election. Either party should be pleased to invite him into their tent. But to the point of your article, Washington is full of revolving doors. Cohen, like others before him did not earn a hefty salary as a member of Congress or as the Secretary of Defense. (I believe Colin Powell bluntly stated when he left the Joint Chief of Staff position that he wanted to earn more money than the government salary he'd been on for so many years). Had your research found that Cohen had not run his shop reputably and met the requirements set forth in law, then you would have had an article worth reporting. Unfortunately, you did not and the result was a piece that maligned the reputation of an individual who should be a role model to many. David S. Hilzenrath: Thank you for participating in the discussion. Middletown, NY: Previous questioners have me puzzled- if all facts correct, classic conflict of interest issues. No? David S. Hilzenrath: Readers can form their own opinions. Bethesda, MD: David, thank you for the well researched picture of how Washington works. I found it fascinating. Those of us who spent much of our careers in government before leaving for the private sector can relate (on a much smaller scale). Did you get a sense of how Secretary Cohen is adjusting to his new life? Do you think he misses the action that came with being a Senator/SecDef rather than just one more highly paid Washington supplicant who has to patiently wait to see people who once would jump when he calls? I get the sense that if he could, he'd go back - credit card debt and all. David S. Hilzenrath: As Secretary Cohen said, he thrives on competition. Nonetheless, as the story says, he had decided not to seek a fourth term in the Senate before President Clinton nominated him to be defense secretary. Thank you for tuning in and sharing your comments. washingtonpost.com: That's all the time we have today. Thanks for joining us. Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
Washington Post staff writer David S. Hilzenrath was online to discuss former secretary of defense William S. Cohen's transition to private business.
84.52
0.96
4.24
high
high
mixed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/26/DI2006052601643.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/26/DI2006052601643.html
The Washington Nationals
2006053019
Washington Post staff writer Barry Svrluga was online Wednesday, May 31, at 2 p.m. ET to discuss the Washington Nationals and the latest major league baseball news. Barry Svrluga: Hello, folks. Beautiful day here at Citizens Bank Park on the South Side of Philadelphia. Bad news for Nationals fans: Livan Hernandez gave up a solo homer to Aaron Rowand in the bottom of the second to put the Phillies up 1-0. Good news for Nationals fans: Livan singled in the top of the third and came home on Alfonso Soriano's 19th homer of the year, this one off Cory Lidle. Currently top four, 2-1 Nationals. Washington, D.C.: How do the players feel about Screech? Do they think he's as annoying as the fans do? (And am I the only one who thinks his "thrusting" dance moves are inappropriate?) If I had to see him in front of the dugout everyday, I think I'd pull a Guillen and throw bats and gloves at him. Barry Svrluga: Well, we might as well get to the important matters first. First off, here's the Screech update that everyone wants, needs, craves and yearns: Club officials have informed me that Screech has been extended an invitation to attend the games in June in Baltimore. So the conspiracy theories are off. But John Dever, the director of baseball information seated directly to my left here at Citizens Bank Park, points out that Screech can be a little skittish, and there's no telling whether he'll accept or not. Other than that, I have not surveyed the players on their feelings about Screech. Perhaps I should use my time more wisely. RFK: SECTION 308, Good afternoon: Do you consider the Nationals attendance to be disappointing this season, especially the recent 10 game homestand? Isn't the Marketing department the weak link in the front office? What changes do you expect Kasten to make to improve this aspect? Barry Svrluga: I think it's early to say "disappointing," but it's absolutely a concern. Keep in mind what's driving this is something that's out of the marketing department's current control: The season-ticket base. Last year, it was more than 21,000. This year, it's more than 16,000. That means every single night the crowd starts out 5,000 less than last year, and it means that if they average 28,000 fans or so this season, they're "walk-up" -- or the people buying individual game tickets -- would be about the same. The Lerner/Kasten group will absolutely try to change this, but they'll do it with off-the-field stuff, trying to reach out to fans and make it a pleasurable experience overall so they'll come back time and again. Will it work? Who knows? But keep July 21 -- the "Grand Re-Opening" of RFK -- as a date to watch. We'll see what happens. Any chance the Nats would deal Chad Cordero for 2-3 good prospects? If they're going to blow this thing up and start from scratch, I'm not sure we need a top of the line closer at the back end of the rotation. Mariano Rivera wouldn't be too useful to the Royals. Cordero would be likely to return serious prospects, given that he is signed for multiple years and is a "proven commodity". What do you think? Barry Svrluga: The difference with Cordero -- and the reason why I think he's unlikely to be traded -- is that he's under club control and not eligible for arbitration for a few more years. He's not "signed for multiple years," but this is only his third season in the majors. That means he could remain relatively cheap for a while, and I think he's the kind of prospect the Nationals will be looking for, not giving away. Silver Spring, Md.: I follow the nats avidly but have to travel occasionally for work. Is it just me or did vento come completely out of no where or right field as the case may be. They mentioned in today's broadcast (that I have to pay online to even freaking listen to) that he's been tearing up the minors this year, what else can you tell us about him. Barry Svrluga: Mike Vento spent his entire career in the Yankee organization, where he was a Class AAA all-star last season. He made a brief appearance with New York last September, going hitless in two at-bats, and signed with the Nationals as a minor-league free agent in February. He already has a hit today, but I don't think he'll be the every-day right fielder unless he just sizzles. Silver Spring, Md.: I have enjoyed your articles for the past two years. With most the games not on TV, your articles really help me follow the team. One thing I wish you would drop is always saying "announced" before giving the attendance. I don't see that in any other sports article in the Post or in other write-ups of the Nats games. Is this your trademark? I think most readers understand that the announced attendance may not match the actual attendance. I would be interested in the views of others in the chat on this topic. Barry Svrluga: Thanks for reading. I have heard about this quite a bit. I guess it's a sensitive subject, but I just don't want to give the impression that when I write there are 38,503 people in the building that I believe there ARE that many people there. The announced attendance is tickets sold, and the Nationals have one of the highest rates of no-shows in the majors. This impacts concession sales and, therefore, club revenue. I think it's an important distinction. Maybe I'm the only one. Fairfax, Va.: If we are not going to use Fick, why not use his roster spot for someone else (like a 13th pitcher or a defensive catcher). Have you heard any rumors with his name in them? I can't imagine he would bring a prospect, but he might bring someone we would actually use. Barry Svrluga: It's a tough spot for Robert Fick, who has only five at-bats since being activated on May 13. But you're right: He may not bring much in return, especially if he's not being showcased. As for a defensive catcher, they tried one. His name is Wiki Gonzalez. He was a disaster, and we may never see him again. This organization is bereft of catchers beyond Schneider, and it's a major, major problem. Alexandria, Va.: Enjoy your coverage of the Nats! What are the chances of keeping Soriano past this season? Would the new ownership/management keep him and trade Vidro so Soriano can return to 2nd? Barry Svrluga: This is the central question of the season, really, and a very hard one to decipher. The Nationals are in the position of being sellers this June and July, and Soriano -- though his contract is over at the end of the season -- could bring something worthwhile in return. But if he's going to re-sign here, not only do the Nationals have to want to do that, but HE has to be willing to sign here and stay here, which would likely mean remaining in left field. This is a two-way street, and Soriano, to this point, has remained non-committal. Ashburn, Va.: Barry, if Soriano is to be traded before the deadline, which team do you think has the best crop of prospects that could be interested in trading for him? Barry Svrluga: The Angels, Dodgers and Mets all have worthwhile prospects in this regard. Brendan Harris: I'm learning to play catcher! I'm probably better than LeCroy already! Seriously, what to I have to do to get a two or three-month run in the big leagues? Barry Svrluga: Run out of options so the club can't send you back and forth at their will. That time is coming. Washington, D.C.: Just heard on the radio play-by-play today that Eischen has been placed on the 60-day DL, but I missed the details since I'm at the office and am theoretically working. The Nationals don't have anything on their site about it, so could you perchance give us any details? Thanks in advance.....due to his performance this year it reminds me of the old days when Joe Gibbs was the master of stashing rookies on injured reserve. Barry Svrluga: Well, let's see. You could check out www.washingtonpost.com/sports to find out about it, as I posted something an hour ago. Yes, I should've mentioned it earlier. Joey Eischen's MRI this morning revealed a thickness tear in the rotator cuff muscles in his left shoulder. Yes, he was placed on the 60-day disabled list, and it's possible his career is over. This will be something that requires surgery and will take a long, long time from which to recover. He is 36, and almost certainly won't pitch againt his year. It's a tough blow for Eischen, a very proud guy. But his health had clearly bothered him all year, as his 8.59 ERA would suggest. Announced Attendance: I appreciate your approach. A lot of people don't realize that the ball park can be empty and the attendance will be listed as 16,000. Barry Svrluga: Thanks for your support. Anonymous: I've got no problem with your use of "announced" attendance to indicate an obvious discrepancy... and I'm sure it's been used in The Post with the other local teams too -- particularly the Capitals this past year, and the Orioles, where there seems to be an even bigger gap. Will you be traveling to Oriole Park with Screech, or is that a good opportunity for you to take a weekend off and let Jorge do all the work? Barry Svrluga: Wow, more support. Yes, Screech and I will take the drive up the BW Parkway. You think I'm going to trust Jorge with coverage by himself? Dover, Del.: Are you confident that Jon Patterson is going to pitch again this season? Barry Svrluga: Yes, I am, but it's a valid question. Patterson's tendinitis in his right forearm has been bothersome since before the season, and it has shut him down since April 21. He is currently on a throwing program and could make a rehabilitation start next week. But at the same time, GM Jim Bowden has said that if the team was in a pennant race, Patterson could pitch every fifth day with no risk of further injury. So it does make people wonder why he's missed do much time. Bethesda, Md.: Who gets the next call up: Ryan Church, Brendan Harris, Larry Broadway, Frank Diaz or Kory Casto? Keep up the good work! Barry Svrluga: That'd be an interesting question. I don't think it'll be Broadway, as this team already has something like 17 first baseman. Diaz has been knocked around some. Church really needs to straighten himself out. Casto's playing 3B, so I don't see that happening. Or, perhaps, the team could go, say, 72 hours without an injury, and the roster could actually stay in tact. Barry Svrluga: Forgot to mention David Dellucci's solo homer off Hernandez in the bottom of the fifth that tied things up 2-2. Also forgot to mention the three unbelievably large sumo wrestlers on the field between innings. re: "announced" : I am with Silver Spring on this one. I have also enjoyed your writing but find the use of "announced" kinda annoying...I think most regular readers understand what the attendance numbers mean....are you saying that the nationals no-shows numbers are so far out of line with other teams that makes this significant? ...if so,,,how far out of line are the Nats? Barry Svrluga: Yes. Research last summer by the DC Sports and Entertainment Commission and the Nationals showed that the Nationals have more no-shows than most teams. One other caveat: I don't think I can assume that readers will just know things. Not everyone reads these stories every day. St. Louis, Mo.: The Cardinals could use an outfield bat; any chance Guillen ends up under the Arch? Barry Svrluga: I would say there's a slight chance, but he: 1. has to be healthy. Neither of those are happening right now. I would also say that Soriano in left field under the arch -- or, for that matter, at second base -- could provide a little bit of protection for Albert Pujols. Not that he needs it, of course. Update in Philly: Two to two, top of the 6th. Soriano hit a 2 run bomb (#19) in the 3rd. Barry Svrluga: Thanks for that. Washington, D.C.: "That means every single night the crowd starts out 5,000 less than last year, and it means that if they average 28,000 fans or so this season, they're "walk-up" -- or the people buying individual game tickets -- would be about the same." the thing is, most of the 5K previous season ticket holders becomes this year's walk-up. the "fan" base is smaller than last year's. Barry Svrluga: That is a valid point. Bethesda, Md.: Well, there goes one possible GM replacement. The Atlant Journal-Constitution just reported Braves Assistant GM (and former George Mason player and coach) Dayton Moore has accepted the GM job with the Royals. Barry Svrluga: Yes, this is true. And yes, the Nationals might have pursued Moore as a GM choice if Kasten/Lerner decide not to keep Jim Bowden. That process, however, is ongoing. Herndon, Va.: This is a bad inning I'm watching unfold through the box score. What's going on up there Barry? Barry Svrluga: Yes, it was an ugly inning for the Nationals in the bottom of the fifth. After Dellucci's homer tied it, Jose Vidro misplayed a ball into a double (should've been an error) and Livan mishandled a bunt that would've easily nailed the runner at third. But he got out of it by getting Jimmy Rollins to ground into a 4-6-3 double play. Bethesda, Md.: Why did it take the Nats this long to find out what had been physically wrong with Eischen? Tom Boswell marked Eischen as "washed up" (his words not mine) a month ago. Bill Bray could have easily been called up weeks ago instead of watching Eischen disintegrate on the mound. Barry Svrluga: Part of it was Eischen's choice. He shrugged things off and said he would pitch through it. He agreed to the MRI this time because things had gotten so bad. We'll get to see how Bray fares up here now. He'll arrive on Friday, and the most impressive thing about his resume' at Class AAA New Orleans is his strikeout-to-walk ratio of 45/9. McLean, Va.: I am a big baseball fan who knows that "36,000" does not mean there are 36,000 bodies int he stands, but I strongly agree with your characterisation of it as "announced". There are -not- 36,000 people in the stands, and to say that is incorrect. It's Journalism 101, I think. On another note, what kind of relationship do Frank and Kasten have? Barry Svrluga: Thanks for the support. Frank Robinson and Stan Kasten have only a distant relationship, and Robinson hasn't yet sat down with Kasten. But keep in mind: The more important relationship for Robinson is the one with the GM, whether it be Bowden or someone else. That's who's really going to decide his future, not Kasten. Section 312, Row 4: Mr. Boswell says that Mr. Soriano has bought a very expensive condo in DC...he thinks that is an encouraging sign. Our nemesis to the north, Jorge, says he is gone. Barry Svrluga: Soriano is renting, not buying. Just talked to him about some of this stuff today, and it will appear in a story in Friday's paper. If I'm a betting man, I say Soriano will be traded. The Nationals, as I said before, are in the position to be sellers, and he is their most valuable commodity. Rocket Man goes to Houston: Is it enough for Houston? Does it make them competitive with St. Louis? Barry Svrluga: Last I checked, the major problem with the Astros was the offense. Having Clemens around -- for anyone who missed it, the announcement that Clemens is back in Houston came earlier today -- can only help the pitching staff, but he only won 13 games last season there because of the bats. We'll see. It could bring some juice to the clubhouse, though, and the Cardinals are vulnerable with Edmonds hurting, Rolen not entirely healthy and little production in left field or second base. Fairfax, Va.: I saw a little blurb on ESPN.com about a Nats minor-leaguer who was suspended for drug violations, but I haven't heard anything else. Could you shed some light on the situation? Barry Svrluga: Yes. The guy's name is Greg Thissen, a utility man for the Nationals' Class AAA affiliate in New Orleans. He was suspended 50 games yesterday under baseball's minor-league drug policy last week, the third Nationals minor leaguer since last year to be suspended under the policy. Thissen wasn't considered a prospect that could reach the majors. TV Land: Why doesn't Angelos put the Nats on non-pay tv stations more? He cut back the number on channel 20 this eyar. There are plenty of potential outlets. Why doesn't he use them? Barry Svrluga: Angelos didn't cut back the number on Channel 20. Channel 20 cut back the number. It was their choice. Do you have any explanation for the high no-show rate at Nats games? I've been to a few, and I'm always struck by the number of people who still seem to be straggling toward the stadium in the late innings. Are Nats games currently seen as just one-more thing to do? Party at a club for a bit, then walk-up and buy a ticket to catch the end of a game? Barry Svrluga: Here's my theory, and it's just my theory: The bulk of season tickets are bought by companies, and in DC, companies amount to law firms and the like. I think at times like holiday weekends and some weekday work nights, it's hard for firms to dump the tickets on people who are able to go. I think that's also why so many people arrive late. They get out of work, go home and change, and by the time they get to the park it's 7:45. Also: Don't discount the impact of lobbying reforms -- in the wake of the Abramoff scandal -- on the Nationals. Free stuff just doesn't flow around Capitol Hill as much any more -- in theory. RFK: It's very difficult to attend a game if you're not a season ticket holder (I'm on by the way). I've talked to several people and the process over the net isn't good and they don't want to buy them at the game because they see 30 people behind window. They need to set up kiosks around the city a few metro stops where a Nat's worker can print out tickets. That would drive attendance up at least 5 to 10%. Thanks for your continued coverage. Barry Svrluga: This could further explain things. Mount Vernon, Va.: With all of this discussion of trading Soriano, would it not make more sense for the Nationals to try and move the contracts of either Livan Hernandez or Jose Vidro (or both)? Barry Svrluga: It might make sense to move all three, really, depending on what you can get for them. Hernandez and Vidro are both signed beyond this year. The urgency on Soriano, I think, has to do with the fact that his contract expires after the '06 season. If they keep him beyond July 31, they risk being unable to sign him for next season. Therefore, they would get nothing in return (other than a draft pick). Ellicott city, Md.: How is that Soriano for Wilkerson trade looking now? Ole Wilky's near 60 K's already and Soriano is tearing it up. Do I add Soriano to my short list of untouchables (Zimmerman and Schneider) or go for max value in a trade? Given his performance to date his trade value is probably as high as its ever been. We are in rebuild mode per Kasten. Barry Svrluga: Soriano, coming into today: .294/.346 OBP/.593 SLG with 18 homers (now 19), 35 RBI (now 37) and 46 strikeouts. Wilkerson, coming into today: .262/.354/.494 with 10 homers, 24 RBI and 60 Ks. But again, it's more than about numbers. It's about contract status. And you're right, his stock has got to be sky-high right now considering his performance on the field and because he hasn't made a big deal about playing left field. Barry Svrluga: Oh, and by the way: Soriano just came up with an RBI single up the middle in the top of the seventh to drive home Mike Vento with the tie-breaking run. It's 3-2 Nationals in the top of the seventh, Lidle's heading for the showers, and Soriano has all three RBI. Section 301: I'm a baseball fan who likes to ask questions about all sorts of tangential stuff that has nothing to do with the action on the diamond. Aren't you concerned that Screech -- who won't take off his hat for the anthem -- won't have the chance to embarass the Nats by screaming "Oh!" during the anthem in Baltimore, because Peter Angelos doesn't want Screech to appear on MASN during a game in Camden Yards? Barry Svrluga: I love you, Section 301. You are dear to my heart. Screech will be there. Did you miss my "Important Screech Update of the Week" earlier in the chat? Come on now. On your toes. funny stuff: posting the "update from Philly" with the score was funny stuff. What does this guy think you're doing Barry Svrluga: Yeah, just sitting at a cheesesteak stand on South Street. Wait, is there a game going on? Lobbyists and their Tickets: Justy spoke to a friend of mine over the weekend that has traditionally given their tickets to folks on the hill. In the current environment, the people that took the tickets willing last year have shown a lot of reluctance this year.... Barry Svrluga: That's what I'm talking 'bout. 19th & K St.: Great answer re: no-shows. Another factor, in general, is that DC is a workaholic city. Congressional staffers might be stuck on the Hill for votes, corporate folks tend to work more here than in many cities (based on my friends in places like Boston, Chicago, St. Louis, etc.), so people have a harder time getting to games on time or getting to them at all. The other factor, this year certainly, is that it's easy not to go when the team is playing badly. If you've already bought the season ticket, that's a sunk cost, but it takes a certain investment of time to go that isn't always as enjoyable when the team stinks. Barry Svrluga: I think the thing that drives it most comes in your last point. Attendance began to take off for this team last year when the team got hot and had that amazing run in first place. It's hard to sell tickets to a lousy product. Woodley Park Washington, D.C.: Barry, aren't you a little surprised that people are this upset about Screech? I was at the Saturday game against the Dodgers and Screech came through our section and the kids all seemed to quite enjoy it. Even the obnoxious Dodger fan behind me seemed to shut up for a few moments. Why are there so many complaints about a Muppet? Barry Svrluga: Okay. I promise. This is it. The absolute last Screech question of the chat. If we want to do a separate Screech chat, I'll see if I can arrange it with the good folks at washingtonpost.com. I will say that when I've been in the stands with my friends who have kids, the kids all look for him and scream, "Screech." Not saying that makes him less annoying. But I'm just saying. Washington Post, 2/24/06: Duffy Dyer, general manager of WDCA, said the station will carry fewer games than last year because that was the total offered by the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network, a regional network owned by the Baltimore Orioles and Major League Baseball. "In an inaugural year, they were looking for wide distribution in its initial package," Dyer said. " If MASN wanted to discuss taking some additional telecasts, that's something we would be looking to sit down and take a look at." Barry Svrluga: Nice find. I stand corrected. Pentagon City, Va.: Are the Nats using the same training staff this year as last? The number of injuries is very, very troubling. Barry Svrluga: For the most part, yes. And there were a lot of injuries last year, too. Barry Svrluga: Well, opportunity squandered here. Nationals leading 3-2 in the top of the seventh with runners on first and third, and Jose Vidro and Nick Johnson both pop up to short. Livan's going to have to nail this thing down to sneak out of town with a win. Alexandria, Va.: Re: the attendance business, it seems to me that your Sports Department ought to establish a consistent policy of doing it your way for ALL teams or not at all. For you to keep writing "announced" before the Nats' attendance figure when the term isn't used for the Orioles or others make it seem like the Nats are doing something dishonest that other teams are not doing. Barry Svrluga: That makes sense that we would have a policy for all. I'll inquire about it. For now, I'm doing what I think is correct. Okay, be honest. How much do you think Livan weighs? 265? More? Does he work out at all or does he rely on God-given ability and a ton of baseball smarts? Barry Svrluga: Believe it or not, he does work out. He also lifts a lot of cheeseburgers to his mouth, I believe. He is not a slave to the gym by any means, but he does exercise between starts. That said, your commenton God-given ability and baseball smarts is dead on. What was Bowden thinking by not signing a "true" catcher to be a backup this year? Was Gary Bennett so expensive that they couldn't have kept him? Barry Svrluga: Originally, they thought they could upgrade the position by signing someone like Todd Pratt, who ended up with Atlanta. Then, the backups started to trickle away. They didn't even pursue Bennett (who's with the Cardinals), and it certainly looks like they could use him now. Washington, D.C.: What's the temperature of the clubhouse on Frank? Any noticeable change following the LeCroy incident last week? Barry Svrluga: It's a tough read. No, I don't think there's a noticeable difference after the LeCroy incident. But I'd say he's like most managers of teams that are floundering: He has his supporters, but he has his detractors, too. Arlington, Va.: I'm sure you haven't had the chance to ask the question yet. But what are the chances Bray even gets used by Frank? He doesn't seem to be a big fan of heavily using rookies unless forced to. Barry Svrluga: The difference with Bray is that he's a lefty. Mike Stanton will certainly still be the first lefty out of the pen, but I'd guess Bray gets some chances. Barry Svrluga: Folks, the action's heating up here. It's 3-2 in the bottom of the seventh, Nationals ahead, but the Phillies have runners on first and second with one out against Hernandez. Thanks for chatting. Pick up the paper tomorrow to read all about it, and we'll see you next week. Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
Washington Post staff writer Barry Svrluga discussed the Washington Nationals and the latest major league baseball news.
319.666667
0.944444
8.722222
high
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/22/DI2006052200523.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/22/DI2006052200523.html
K Street Confidential
2006053019
K Street Confidential columnist Jeffrey Birnbaum was online to discuss the intersection between government and business on Tuesday, May 30 at Noon ET . Read this week's column: Wave of Corruption Fails to Move Congress to Act on Ethics Legislation . K Street Confidential appears every other Monday in the Washington Post business section. I hope you had a restful and reflective Memorial Day. My column this week was about the congressional ethics bill. I asserted that it has slowed to a crawl and was weak, certainly compared to where it started. Why is that? Is that a good idea? Are the congressional scandals a serious problem or just business as usual? Let's discuss these things and others today. And thank, again, for writing in! Washington, D.C.: Why allow business lobbying at all? Corporations exist to generate profit for a limited number of individuals (who may or may not be compatriots). A country, on the other hand, like society, is an end in itself, and to the extent a government governs in the best interests of the governed, it is a good government. A corporate lobbyist does nothing more than try to convince, say, a member of congress to put his clients' interests ahead of those of the people in the district. If it were otherwise, money wouldn't be exchanging hands. So is there any justification at all? I can't see it. Jeffrey Birnbaum: I can't say I agree with you that corporate lobbyists want things that are not good for people. That might be true sometimes, but usually corporations want things that do save or increase jobs. The question is at what cost, and that is not always an easy calculation. As for whether businesses should be allowed to lobby--the Constitution takes care of that question. The First Amendment makes lobbying a national right, and we should all be glad to have it, businesses included. The ability to petition for redress of grievances is one of the things that makes our country great! Washington, D.C.: I just have to get this off my chest in a public forum. Yes, I am a lobbyist. I understand that it is chic to bash us for what we do (not unlike making lawyer jokes - I REALLY feel sorry for the folks who are both), but lobbying isn't evil work and can be important and useful for society. Many lobbyists, like myself, manage to lobby professionally and ethically. Not to break up the fun of talking about sending us all to Iraq or anything, but some of us are trying to make a difference and we deserve the same basic respect as all the other non-criminal American workers who are putting in long hours to fulfill our responsibilities and support our families. Just had to wave the flag for those of us bearing the brunt of the attack over the sins of a few. Jeffrey Birnbaum: I hope you don't class me among those who bash lobbyists all the time. I do criticize lobbying and lobbyists but I also believe as you do that lobbying is important to the system and can be done effectively. Have I been too harsh, do you think? Washington, D.C.: How badly has the Abramoff scandal affected K street? Will PAC's suffer? Jeffrey Birnbaum: I think lobbying has taken a big hit, as has Congress and all of Washington. If people did not think so earlier they now believe (in the post-Abramoff era) that the capital is too steeped in money and that something should be done to loosen the bonds between lobbyists and lawmakers. Congress is headed toward disclosure as the answer to this riddle. Other would like a crackdown on behavior, such as limits on meal, travel and the like, paid for by lobbyists and interest groups. It's debatable that any of this will actually change things and I tend to think none of it will. Nonetheless, the voters are restless and want change. Will they believe it if change actually comes? Will any legislation really matter? That remains to be seen. But most people agree that unless campaign fundraising is restricted then other "reforms" won't amount to much. And, so far at least, no one on the Hill is seriously thinking of proscribing the money chace. (The reining in of so-called 527 groups probably won't make it into the final ethics bill this year.) As a result, I think that PACs will continue to function and grow. The attacks on Abramoff have not dampened lawmakers' hunger for campaign cash. Washington, D.C.: Government contracting companies are forbidden (with heavy penalties attached) from billing the Government for lobbying costs, even if such costs are incurred indirectly in overhead-type accounts. Is there any indication that auditors are looking at the companies who have received/are receiving earmarked contracts? Jeffrey Birnbaum: I have not heard of any such inquiries. Have you? Please e-mail me at kstreetconfidential@washpost.com Vienna, Va.: Appears Congress is incapable of policing itself as the constitution requires. In your research, what 2-3 steps can be taken to put an impartial group that has teeth, funding, and the guts to investigate and bring action. Money for access, follows power; power corrupted follows money. Jeffrey Birnbaum: Thank you for writing in Mr. Wong, I haven't ever given my own lobbying reform solution. I have noted in one column that Republicans and Democrats agree that full-fledged, comprehensive disclosure about interactions between lawmakers and lobbyists would be a great step forward. But the legislation on Capitol Hill would not do that, or even come close. Full time reform advocates list a handful of changes that would help the public and improve congressional ethics. These include: an independent office of public integrity in Congress an end to private jet travel for lawmakers Each of these can be debated. I wonder how practical publicly funded elections are, for example. But these are the building blocks for a new ethics regimen. I should point out that none of them are on the table at the moment. Glover Park, D.C.: Curious about the earlier posting in defense of lobbying, as I wonder if that person lobbies for money or pro bono...to that end I am reminded by the late Sen. Paul Simon's epxlanation that at the end of the day, with 20 phone calls to return, he invariably would return calls from the major contributors and lobbyists. Remind me again how average people -- Joe and Jane Q. Sixpack -- are supposed to make their voices heard... Jeffrey Birnbaum: A good question. I suspect the earlier correspondent was a lobbyist for pay. Washington, D.C.: I share the concern about Congressional wives who can be hired or rented and therefore, their husbands manipulated. Is there any thought about not letting wives work with the Hill for that reason? Jeffrey Birnbaum: Wives, sons, daughters, siblings, even parents. There are examples aplenty of each of these types of relatives of lawmakers working as lobbyists and also as service providers to the lobbying industry. What can be done about it? Nothing. There was talk about restricting relatives of lawmakers from lobbying in some way but that went nowhere. There was never any discussion that I'm aware of about preventing relatives from doing other sorts of work. This is where enhanced disclosure might be a boon. Just let the public know what a lawmaker's wife or husband does and let the voters decide. But, then again, Congress would have to care enough about ethics in government to act and there isn't much evidence of that these days. Washington, D.C.: I work for a lobbying group however I am not a lobbyist or a lawyer. I would like to point out that what I see as the main problem with lobbyists, is also the same problem with politicians. Neither sees anything other than themselves as they live in a world encapsulated by the beltway. Maybe if both lobbyists and politicians took even a fraction of as much time to talk with constituents as they do with each other, maybe then they would understand that they usually serve no good purpose, given that it all comes down to corporate money in political campaign coffers. Jeffrey Birnbaum: A good suggestion for sure. But, then again, lawmakers are supposed to be talking to their constituents all the time. It's a sad notion that they aren't. Is that the way anyone else sees it? New York, N.Y.: The Constitution assures our right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." But giving a politician money, be it cash for the freezer or a campaign contribution, in hopes of furthering your cause is not a petition. It's a bribe. Jeffrey Birnbaum: You'd think so, wouldn't you? In fact, federal courts have made bribery conviction very difficult. Rep. William Jefferson, for instance, would have to be accused of doing an "official act" in exchange for any money he received in order to be accused of bribery. He isn't charged with anything right now and it could be hard for the feds to accuse him of doing an "official act" for money if what he did was try to persuade people outside the U.S. government to send business to a constituent of his. Maybe that is why the raid on Jefferson's office was so important to the FBI. Who knows? Anonymous: You said once, the story of Enron will be to follow the money. Here's a clue for you. John Ashcroft's K Street firm is now lobbying for the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Ashcroft's Justice Department blew up Andersen. Deloitte & Touche, Ernst & Young, PricewaterhouseCoopers and KPMG got Andersen's business for nothing. Enron's retirees didn't have a chance. The accounting industry now rewards Ashcroft. The movie for this generation will be "Mr. Smith Becomes a Lobbyist." Jeffrey Birnbaum: Thanks for the tip. I now welcome a response from Mr. Ashcroft. Fair is fair. Pierre, S.D.: Regarding the impact of lobbyists on the political horizon, do you think the fact that Tom Daschle's wife, Linda, has been a lobbyist with Boeing will be an issue if Tom wants to run for president in 2008? Here in South Dakota, Tom's multimillionaire lifestyle in D.C. was a factor toward ending his career in the Senate. What has changed from 2004 to 2008 that makes Tom think he can win the nomination? Jeffrey Birnbaum: I don't know offhand which interest Linda Daschle lobbies for. But her work as a lobbyist has long been a factor in her husband's political career. It will certainly play a role if Sen. Daschle decides to run for office again. Especially after the Abramoff scandals, lobbying is a decidedly negative fact politically speaking. Federal Way, Washington: I do not support the FBI entering any Congressional Office. But how can the Justice Department gather evidence and move forward and indite Congressman Jefferson? It does appear there is enough evidence without the FBI raid? Jeffrey Birnbaum: I have been covering the trial of David Safavian off and on. He's the fellow indicted for lying and obstruction in connection with Abramoff. Teh government is accusing Safavian, once a top federal procurement official, of lying about the help he was giving Abramoff to buy or lease a couple properties, including the Old Post Office on Pennsylvania Ave. Safavian has pleaded innocent. In any case, watching that painfully slow process makes clear to me that what we read in the press about a legal accusation has almost nothing to do with what prosecutors have against defendents and what defendents argue in response. To say that we know there's a ton of evidence against Jefferson is to presume something we could not possibly know. Until I see the particulars in an indictment against Jefferson, I would have to say that the FBI needed more information to make a case against him. Because making such a case is an arduous and highly detailed task. Main Twp., Pa.: to the point that corporations are granted the right to lobby by the first amendment: is it necessary that corporations continue to have the same rights as individuals? the 14th amendment was twisted to extend such rights to corporations. with less business influence this might be reversed. Jeffrey Birnbaum: I see your point. Until corporations are stripped of their rights, though, I have to defend their ability to ask for redress as well. Am I wrong? Ottawa, Canada: I am a lobbyist in Canada and the federal government is in the midst of passing the Federal Accountability act that would limit severely the amount of money individuals can give to campaigns, make lobbyist register all interaction with senior government decision makers and disallow MPs or government staff from becoming lobbyists until 5 years after they leave. Many here think the political environment is ripe for this kind of legislation but the unforeseen consequences of such a bill will hurt Canadian democracy. You can find out more about the bill here: Jeffrey Birnbaum: Thank you very much. I think lobbying regulation and campaign finance restrictions help democracy rather than restrain it. But I have not looked at the particulars in Canada. I will do so, however. And maybe, in a future column, I will opine on the topic. Please keep reading--and writing in as well! Alexandria, Va.: In my book, lobbying is synonymous with manipulating. While it is common knowledge that trade groups lobby legislators, it is not common knowledge that they lobby regulators as well. For example, the Securities Industry Association not only shapes the laws created by Congress, but they also shape the way that regulators interpret and enforce those laws. The same can be said about many other trade groups and their respective government regulators. Why do the regulators even entertain these lobbyists? I don't think most laws in America that affect the average American are up for debate. Jeffrey Birnbaum: Lobbyists provide most of the information that government decision makers use in their work. Regulators and legislators have no choice but to listen to lobbyists. But they don't have to believe them. Good government officials get data from all sides and make independent decisions. Tampa, Fla.: Have the recent scandals affected the DC entertainment industry? I read in the Post that fancy restaurants are taking a hit because Members won't go out to lunch with lobbyists nearly as much as before. Has this extended to seats at sporting events (Nats, Skins, Caps--delete Caps, no one would want to see them to start with). I've also heard some wine shops have noticed a drop in purchases of expensive trophy wines (the kind you serve to Members at dinner parties). Jeffrey Birnbaum: We are watching this story develop. The sports teams are worried that season tickets sales could fall if Congress restricts gifts (such as tickets) too much. At the moment, only the Senate is on the verge of imposing any such restrictions from lobbyists. The House doesn't. We should wait and see if there are any restrictions anywhere in the end. My guess: none at all. The reason for the falloff in entertaining is self-restriction at the moment. Once Abramoff fades as an issue next year, I bet restaurants will fill up again. Washington, D.C.: In response to the man from South Dakota: in this town, it's more unusual when a politician's spouse DOESN'T work as a lobbyist. The entire lobbying/Hill scene is one big incestuous orgy. It's nothing but favors and money for each other, not for Americans. Jeffrey Birnbaum: There's enough hyperbole in this response for it be downright journalistic. Thanks for the answer and I agree with its direction if not its specifics. Long Beach, Calif.: Why allow 3rd party paid lobbying firms at all? Private and corporate organizations can hire and send their own representatives to do the talking... It's the mercenaries that are exploiting both ends against the middle who have brought sleaze to a new all time high in DC... Personally I think it should be illegal to accept pay for lobbying - but the pigs at the trough want them in so badly the least we could do is require the requests for assistance be out of the original horse's mouth.. What do you think? Jeffrey Birnbaum: That's a new one. I don't know how the government could prohibit lobbyists-for-hire. I would assume that the wholesalers and other middlemen would object to that kind of bar. Government has gotten too big and complicated for average citizens lobby effectively. That alone creates a market for the types of folks you want to cut out, I'm afraid. Isn't this the same Rep. William Jefferson (D-La) who tied up at least two military trucks who delivered him, then waited in his front yard for nearly an hour, while he removed material from his New Orleans home immediately after hurricane Katrina? (Rumor has it there are still truck tire tracks in the front yard "muck.") Somewhere I heard that even a helicopter was diverted from other New Orleans rescue duties to check on the situation. Many of our elected "leaders" (both parties) seem to display this same type of character fault: "I am more important than the rest of you unwashed masses." Arrogant. And yet, they get away with it time after time. My favorite was the $1000 turned into $100,000 by Hillary Clinton trading in cattle futures (or some such). Please. Nice to see The Post going after BOTH parties. Fair and balanced. I like that. Jeffrey Birnbaum: The Post takes great pride in writing about the good and the bad of both political parties. And yes, I read something about those things with Jefferson--in the Post! Washington, D.C.: I find this part of the earlier post defending lobbyists quite comical: "...some of us are trying to make a difference and we deserve the same basic respect as all the other non-criminal American workers who are putting in long hours to fulfill our responsibilities and support our families." Long hours? You mean on the golf course and at Signatures? I work in a lobbying firm and they definitely work odd hours, but I think most all Americans would do it for six figures and free food, trips, spas and golf. The whoa is me attitude shows just how out of touch K Street is with America. Give us a break. Jeffrey Birnbaum: Most Americans don't golf or eat steak for dinner. Official Washingtonians need to remember that, I agree! Washington, D.C.: Hi Jeffrey... Great column, keep it up! What do you make of the looming merger between The Bond Market Association and the Securities Industry Association? These two combining would make one powerhouse of a trade association representing Wall Street. What are the motives and what can we expect from such a combination in the years to come? Jeffrey Birnbaum: Trade associations combine all the time in order to save their member companies money. That's what is behind this merger as well, I suppose. It's rare that equities and bonds have different policy prescriptions and when they do the companies can lobby for themselves. My guess is that the combined associations will be even more potent than they are separately now. In addition, the big folks in the financial services industry have at least a couple other groups through which they lobby as well. I wouldn't worry about them for a minute. They'll do fine. Washington, D.C.: Lobbyists definitely are a big part of the Caps and the Wizards and the Nats, but the Skins are NOT fueled by these weasels. The Redskins are supported by Life Long Washingtonians who love their team. Please don't confuse the matter. Jeffrey Birnbaum: Ok, I won't. Ballston, Va.: Jeff, on NBC this morning, James Carville just let Bill Jefferson have it, saying the House was ridiculous to object to the FBI probe of his office. "What? Can they hide a dead body in there?" But he wasn't asked: Doesn't this really threaten the whole "culture of corrpution" talking point? Jeffrey Birnbaum: Unless Democrats can get Jefferson to quit, they can say good bye to their culture of corruption issue, at least as a pure Election Day play. To their credit, the Dems were already backing off the issue, realizing that they have to connect the abstract of "corruption" with specific public problems, such as high gasoline prices or high drug costs. I suspect that "corruption" will be an underlying, contributing cause for anti-incumbent feeling this November in the same way that attacks on the federal budget deficit was in the past. Scottsdale, Ariz.: How can we expect these people to police their own when they themselves are all corrupt? Is their any way to fix this mess? Jeffrey Birnbaum: Fix? I doubt it. Improve the mess, certainly. Will voters believe that things have gotten better? I doubt it, even if they have. Arlington, Va.: Hi Mr. Birnbaum, I read Joel Achenbach's article on global warming sceptics this weekend, and I was wondering if you could offer some insight as to how something accepted by the large majority of active scientists is refuted so strongly by the majority of Republican lawmakers (who generally do not have science degrees). Has there been a concerted lobbying effort by certain industries? If so, do politicians make any effort to get a counterpoint, say from universities in their districts? washingtonpost.com: The Tempest , By Joel Achenbach in The Post's Sunday Magazine, May 28, 2006. Jeffrey Birnbaum: There is a real debate about what causes Global Warming and how to reverse the damage. I don't think Republicans or anyone else thinks that the earth isn't warming at least a little. But how to repair things? That's where the disagreement comes and I don't think either side has all the answers. Do you? Sanibel, Fla.: Regarding your column yesterday, Washington nearly always underestimates the public's perceptions and attitudes -- despite the accuracy of today's polling techniques. Maybe this time it's a combination of: "Everyone else is corrupt except our guy" (the power and dollars behind incumbents tends to blur the issue locally). while what might be the sleeper is if there is a huge increase in stay-at-home voters out of disgust for all of them, and fifty to sixty incumbents lose. That was quite a story the Post ran on The Cohen Group. Sounds like being a former Secretary of Defense or State is the key to a $10-50 million K Street jackpot -- much, much more with Kissinger. washingtonpost.com: Here's Monday's K Street Confidential: Wave of Corruption Fails to Move Congress to Act on Ethics Legislation Here's Sunday's story by David Hilzenrath on The Cohen Group: From Public Life to Private Business Jeffrey Birnbaum: I do believe that voters care about ethics. Is it a top tier issue with them? I doubt it. Taken together with other, more deeply personal issues, however, and seen in a pattern with them, I do think "corruption" could lead to a strong anti-incumbent wave this November. But how big a factor remains to be seen. We can disagree (in a friendly way) until one of us is proven right. Okay? Long Beach, Calif.: In the matter of the Senate bill that just passed, the so-called immigration reform measure, I thought this was supposed to be about securing the borders. In 5 years since 9/11 neither the Democrates or Republicans have done much about our porous borders. The fact that there has not been another attack,although the Pres. is taking credit for it, is do more to the fact that it is obviously, easier for terrorists to destroy our image in the world, with the help of our policies,than to mount another attack, that might garner a little empathy.Both Democrates and Republicans in the 20 years since the 1986 laws were passed to secure the borders and enforce legal immigration, have done absolutely nothing. Now we are at the same game again. Any bets on action to secure the borders. My vote is a NAY. Unless the American voter stops only being a Republican or a Democrate and shows we expect elected officials to do the job they are put in office, nothing will change. Jeffrey Birnbaum: I think Congress will act to enhance border security and to pass a relatively broad immigration bill. How broad? I don't know. But when the president puts his prestige on the line over an issue, even a weak president, then something usually gets done. It will be an ugly fight to get there, though. Indianapolis, Ind.: Sen. Reid and his boxing tickets: I don't believe he is so cheaply bought but it's so obviously out of touch with voter sentiment to have taken them. ow could he have been so clue-less and out of touch? Jeffrey Birnbaum: If Reid did accept tickets gratis, he made a mistake. That mistake is much worse now that Abramoff has made us all hypersensitive to such ethical missteps. It also hurts the Democrats effort to claim "corruption" as an issue they can use against Republicans. I worry sometimes, though, that petty infractions are distracting us all from the bigger injustices that go on in legislation all the time. Billions of dollars misspent etc. etc. Maybe we should look for and care more about those than a boxing match? Chicago, Ill.: Why should it "move" them when they've been snuffling like pigs at the trough for five years and no line item veto in sight? Jeffrey Birnbaum: Not sure who "them" are but I get it that you don't much like our elected representatives. Well, join the crowd. I think I see a theme! Jeffrey Birnbaum: Thanks all for writing in. Let's have another session in a couple weeks after my next column. 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.
K Street Confidential columnist Jeffrey Birnbaum will be online to discuss what happens when business and government collide.
271.736842
0.894737
2.894737
high
medium
mixed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/30/AR2006053001160.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/30/AR2006053001160.html
Ex-President Clinton Lauds Bentsen in Texas Service
2006053019
HOUSTON, May 30 -- Former senator Lloyd Bentsen (D-Tex.) had a "massive, positive impact" during his two years as Treasury secretary in one of the country's most economically challenging times, former president Bill Clinton told mourners Tuesday. Clinton spoke at a memorial service at First Presbyterian Church, held after a private graveside service for Bentsen's family. Bentsen represented Texas in Congress for 28 years and was Clinton's first Treasury secretary. He died at his Houston home May 23 at age 85; he had been under a doctor's care and in a wheelchair since suffering two strokes in 1998. Bentsen, the running mate of former Massachusetts governor Michael S. Dukakis in the 1988 presidential election, was "one of the very few candidates for the vice presidency in the history of the republic who lost and came out better than he went in," Clinton said, drawing laughs from the crowd of about 1,200 mourners. As Clinton's first Treasury secretary, in 1993-1994, Bentsen was instrumental in developing the country's economic plan and in winning passage of a plan to expand trade relations with Mexico, Clinton said. "It's still a controversial issue, but I ask you to think how much more complex and difficult this immigration debate would be today" if that plan had not been approved, Clinton 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.
6.214286
0.404762
0.5
low
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/30/AR2006053001203.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/30/AR2006053001203.html
Official Critical Of Somalia Policy Is Transferred
2006053019
A U.S. political officer previously responsible for monitoring Somalia received an early transfer to another diplomatic post after expressing concerns about U.S. payments to Somali warlords who are battling Islamic groups, according to several administration officials and outside experts on Africa. Michael Zorick, who handled Somalia issues from his job as political officer at the U.S. Embassy in Kenya, was due for another assignment this summer but left several months early, taking a post in Chad in April. One U.S. official said yesterday that earlier this year, Zorick used the State Department's "dissent channel" to file a memo critical of U.S. policy in Somalia. But the official disputed suggestions that Zorick's transfer was a punishment. "It wasn't any secret" that his views differed with official policy, said the official, who was authorized to speak only without attribution. The official said Zorick's departure came by "mutual agreement" between him and his embassy superiors. Another administration official, also barred from speaking for attribution, said that Zorick had initiated the process that led to his temporary transfer to Chad, a placeholder until his next regular assignment becomes available. Still, the case provided fresh evidence of a sharp dispute within the U.S. government over how to deal with Somalia, a lawless state on the Horn of Africa with no effective government. The capital city of Mogadishu -- scene of a disastrous U.S. military intervention in the early 1990s -- has again become engulfed in violence, with a jihadist militia vying for control. Reports have circulated for some time of hidden U.S. aid to the warlords, who have styled themselves as a counterterrorism coalition. The support, which is said to be funneled through Pentagon or CIA channels, has drawn objections from some State Department officials and outside specialists on Africa. They argue that the aid program lacks clarity and risks the contrary effect of rallying Islamist groups. Greater effort, they say, should be put into establishing a legitimate central authority in Mogadishu. "There are those in the U.S. government who feel this policy of paying warlords is not working, but there are others who feel it is a necessary measure," said Ted Dagne, the leading Africa analyst for the Congressional Research Service. The Bush administration has declined to confirm its backing of the warlords. But it has made no secret of fears of Somalia becoming a haven for al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Administration officials have said their policy is to work with those abroad willing to fight terrorism. According to one source familiar with Zorick's case, the dissent memo was not the only critical cable filed by the diplomat. Zorick reportedly also sent a memo directly to the Pentagon raising concerns about U.S. policy in Somalia. Asked about Zorick yesterday, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said he could not discuss "particular personnel matters." But he noted that embassy employees who disagree with U.S. policy can opt for a variety of different mechanisms. When news of Zorick's transfer appeared yesterday in Newsweek and a Reuters report from Nairobi, Zorick phoned the State Department to provide assurances that he had not leaked the story, an administration official said.
World news headlines from the Washington Post, including international news and opinion from Africa, North/South America, Asia, Europe and Middle East. Features include world weather, news in Spanish, interactive maps, daily Yomiuri and Iraq coverage.
12.978261
0.456522
0.456522
low
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/29/AR2006052900757.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/29/AR2006052900757.html
That Look -- It's Catching!
2006053019
It takes only a sneeze, a cough or a handshake to spread cold or flu germs from one person to another. But emotions can be transmitted even more easily, faster than the blink of an eye. Research has found that emotions -- both upbeat ones like enthusiasm and joy, and negative ones like sadness, fear and anger -- are easily passed from person to person, often without either party's realizing it. Emotional contagion occurs in a matter of milliseconds, says Elaine Hatfield, a professor of psychology at the University of Hawaii and co-author of "Emotional Contagion" (Cambridge University Press, 1994). If you're the receiver, you may not know what exactly happened, just that you feel differently after the encounter than you did before. It turns out this phenomenon depends on a basic, even primal, instinct: During conversation, humans unconsciously tend to mimic and synchronize the other person's facial expressions, posture, body language and speech rhythms, explains John T. Cacioppo, professor of psychology and director of the Center for Cognitive and Social Neuroscience at the University of Chicago. When it comes to this monkey-see, monkey-do dynamic, "the more expressive and sincere someone is, the more likely you are to see that expression and mimic it," Cacioppo says. "The muscle fibers [in your face and body] can be activated unbeknownst to you, at much lower levels than if you were to express those movements yourself initially." In a study at Uppsala University in Sweden, researchers exposed people to pictures of happy or angry faces for 30 milliseconds, immediately followed by neutral faces. Even though the participants didn't realize they'd just looked at a happy or angry face, they responded with distinct facial muscle reactions of their own that corresponded to the emotion they'd just seen. Those incremental muscle movements then trigger the actual feeling by causing the same neurons to fire in the brain as if you were experiencing the emotion naturally, according to Hatfield. In other words, the mood feedback loop can travel in both directions: Normally, when you feel happy, your brain might send a signal to your mouth to smile. With the mood-contagion effect, the facial muscles involved in smiling might begin to twitch when you're with a cheerful friend and those tiny muscle movements then send a signal to your brain, telling it to feel happy. But there may be another mode of transmission: In the course of conversation, people have a tendency to match the emotional tone of their word choices -- particularly when it comes to using negatively charged words such as "hate," "worthless," "anger" and "sad" -- with the tone being used by whomever they're talking to, according to research presented at the Midwestern Psychological Association's annual meeting earlier this month. "Communication requires the matching of specific words and contents so [people] can understand each other," explains study co-author Frank Bernieri, an associate professor of psychology at Oregon State University in Corvallis. "So it's not hard to imagine the language driving some part of this contagion process." Whether it happens at home, work, school or other settings where you have close interactions with other people, this communicative dance is highly adaptive and functional, experts say, because it allows you to know what other people are feeling or thinking. "It's the very first idea of mind reading," Hatfield says. "For the vast majority of people, you want to know what other people are thinking, to be in sync with them, to have sympathy and empathy." Not only can this phenomenon help people connect on a very basic emotional level, but it has practical applications, too, including survival value. "If there was some emergency like [you are part of a group of people] about to be hit by a car, I would want to be able to catch their emotions because they're signaling things that are critical to my survival," Cacioppo says. Being able to read and experience other people's emotions also has benefits in the face of conflict (such as a marital spat) or competition (such as a sporting event). And it may be useful in work settings -- if the moods swing the right way. In a recent study, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when business leaders were in a good mood, members of their work group experienced more positive and fewer negative moods. They also found that groups with leaders in an upbeat mood were more coordinated and expended less effort on tasks than groups with more downbeat leaders. The degree to which people become emotionally in sync with each other depends partly on the level of intimacy and emotional investment in their relationship. Not surprisingly, people living under the same roof are especially likely to catch each other's moods. In a study at Northwestern University, researchers periodically induced and assessed emotional responses in both dating partners and college roommates: Over the course of a year, they found that people in both types of relationships became more similar in their emotional responses. Among those who were dating, the partners who experienced emotional convergence had relationships that "were more cohesive and less likely to dissolve," the authors concluded. Meanwhile, research at the Arlene R. Gordon Research Institute in New York found that among elderly couples, when one spouse is depressed, the other is likely to experience similar symptoms. And a study at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston found that depression was highly contagious among college roommates, with those who sought a lot of reassurance and support from their depressed roommates being particularly vulnerable to catching the feeling. But even mere acquaintances can catch each other's moods, depending on their individual susceptibility. Peter Klaus, a public relations professional and an actor in the District, has experienced this with a neighbor in his apartment building. "Whenever I bump into this woman, while taking out the trash or waiting at the elevator, she always has a smile and an openness and pleasantness to her," he explains. "And it makes me want to respond the same way. After talking to her even for a minute, I feel happier and more outgoing." While some people are more prone to infecting others with their moods, others are more likely to become engulfed by people's emotions. People who are more expressive -- meaning, they wear their hearts on their faces and their sleeves -- may be more likely to spread their emotions because they telegraph their feelings more powerfully. On the other hand, it appears that people with high autonomic reactivity -- they respond strongly internally to emotional events (their hearts may race when they're nervous though they seem calm on the outside) -- may be more susceptible to catching other people's moods, Cacioppo says. With any luck, people catch the positive emotions -- a colleague's enthusiasm for a project at work, a friend's excitement over an athletic event -- and miss the negative ones. Some psychologists suspect, however, that negative emotions may be more infectious. "If someone is sharing negative emotions in a self-disclosing, personal realm, you have to be empathic and acknowledge it," Bernieri says, which makes the emotion more likely to spread. Marta Wiseman, a mother of two in Oakton, has experienced this firsthand. "I try to start my day feeling hopeful and positive," she says, "but some mornings my 15-year-old mopes around, complaining about having to get up so early, and his disposition brings me down." While the idea of making yourself impervious to other people's emotions may be appealing, putting up an emotional barrier is not the answer. "There's a cost to it -- you lose empathy," Cacioppo says. After all, shutting out other people's dark moods precludes you from catching their good cheer, too. · Stacey Colino regularly writes about psychological issues for the Health section.
It takes only a sneeze, a cough or a handshake to spread cold or flu germs from one person to another. But emotions can be transmitted even more easily, faster than the blink of an eye.
38.775
1
40
high
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/29/AR2006052900737.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/29/AR2006052900737.html
California Initiative Renews Preschool Debate
2006053019
From coast to coast, states are pushing to get more 4-year-olds into classrooms like Cheryl Smith's thriving pre-kindergarten group at Cool Spring Elementary School in Adelphi. Many youngsters arrive in Room 10 speaking English as a second language and Spanish as their first. Nearly all come from homes where paying for preschool is impossible. But by springtime, after passing or nearing their fifth birthday, children in this state-funded program have formed valuable relationships with peers and Smith, gained a familiarity with letters and numbers, and developed a thirst for learning that should propel them in school for years to come. "It's almost time for kindergarten. We are ready now!" Smith's children sang one morning last week, swaying from side to side. "We have learned so much this year, it's time to take a bow!" A few states have made public pre-kindergarten open to all; others are debating the expansion. Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) proposed universal access to pre-kindergarten last year during his campaign. But debate over a universal pre-kindergarten proposal on the ballot June 6 in California shows that widespread disagreement continues over whether the education of all 4-year-olds should be a public obligation. Proposition 82, pushed by actor-director Rob Reiner, would require California to offer three hours of preschool a day to all 4-year-olds, with funding obtained from a tax increase of 1.7 percent on individual income of more than $400,000 and on joint-filer income greater than $800,000. Advocates say every dollar spent on public preschool will save $2.62 by lowering remedial education costs, reducing crime rates, and providing other long-range social and economic benefits. Opponents reject the savings estimate as exaggerated and question whether the proposal can achieve lofty goals that may be contradictory -- closing achievement gaps and raising performance of all students. Some critics say helping students who have advantages will only reinforce those advantages, leaving the disadvantaged perpetually behind. Polls show that the initiative's prospects are uncertain. Many newspapers have lined up against it. "Universal preschool, like world peace or thoughtful television, is a worthy goal," the Los Angeles Times wrote in an editorial opposing the initiative. The newspaper added: "Studies make clear that preschool can be a boon to disadvantaged kids. But they don't tell us whether preschool helps more than, say, full-day kindergarten, or smaller class sizes, or family literacy classes." Many education analysts are tracking the California debate over whether pre-kindergarten should be universal or targeted to disadvantaged kids. "From Ted Kennedy to George Bush, we have policymakers pushing to close achievement gaps," said Bruce Fuller, an education and public policy professor at the University of California at Berkeley. He was referring to the Democratic senator from Massachusetts and the president, who teamed up on the No Child Left Behind law. "The way you close gaps is to target public assistance on those children and families at the low end of the income spectrum." But W. Steven Barnett, director of the National Institute for Early Education Research at Rutgers University, said many children who fail at school or drop out come from the middle class -- strong reason, he said, for the nation to move toward universal pre-kindergarten.
From coast to coast, states are pushing to get more 4-year-olds into classrooms like Cheryl Smith's thriving pre-kindergarten group at Cool Spring Elementary School in Adelphi.
19.545455
1
33
medium
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/27/AR2006052701082.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/27/AR2006052701082.html
'Wells Guys' Take Their Vows as New Priests
2006053019
To the seminarians he inspired over the years, Monsignor Thomas Wells exuded joy in everything he did: celebrating Mass, orchestrating large ski and golf outings, simply gabbing on the phone for a few minutes with people he loved. And those he befriended know he would have found joy in seeing four Maryland men who worked with him be ordained yesterday for the Archdiocese of Washington. The four, with another ordained last week for an Illinois diocese, are nicknamed "the Wells guys" because they were inspired by the beloved priest, who was killed by a homeless man in the rectory of his Germantown church in 2000. Before an overflow crowd of about 2,700, the Wells guys were among a dozen men who became Catholic priests at a solemn yet joy-filled ceremony at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Northeast Washington. One by one, the names of the new priests were proclaimed "for service of the church of Washington." One by one, each answered "Present!" When they turned to face the congregation -- which gave them a long, heartfelt round of applause -- some struggled to contain their emotions. Blinking eyelids, bobbing Adam's apples and firmly pressed lips betrayed their composure. Theirs is the second-largest group of new priests in the nation, and the largest class in the Washington Archdiocese since 1973. Nationwide, the number of new priests is declining. Final figures are not available, but initial reports suggest that 359 men will be ordained this year in the United States. That is a decrease from 438 last year and 454 in 2004. The Arlington diocese is ordaining seven, its largest class since 1999. Even more remarkable is that so many priests in the Washington Archdiocese were nourished in their faith by one man. Four had worked with Wells at Our Lady of Lourdes Church in Bethesda, and one met him at a parish in Bowie. "It's so rare to see this many from one place," said the Rev. Edward Burns, who heads the office of vocations for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "It just shows the impact one priest can have." Wells had worked at Our Lady of Lourdes for a couple of years in the 1980s and then for five years in the 1990s. A year before his death, he was transferred to Mother Seton Parish in Germantown. Soon after he was killed, his friends set up the Monsignor Thomas M. Wells Society, which provides financial assistance to seminarians, sponsors retreats for men considering the priesthood and encourages prayer. Now some of his proteges are drawing widespread attention. Outgoing Washington Archbishop Theodore E. McCarrick prayed at Our Lady of Lourdes on Friday night. Each of the newly ordained priests was to have Masses this weekend. A procession of more than 200 churchmen, including 180 priests, opened yesterday's two-hour ordination liturgy. Incense filled the vast, soaring nave. Happy women among the families of the 12 new priests dabbed their eyes with tissues. Little girls in flouncy dresses and hair ribbons pretended to be grown-up. And 8-year-old Dillon Smith, who said he wants to be a priest, watched the ceremony through a mini-telescope. "It's been since 1973 that we've had a class this large, so what a great blessing that is from the Lord for us," said McCarrick, presiding at his last ordination because of his retirement in July. Wells was 56 when he was killed six years ago. His sister, Mimi Shea, was at the ordination. "It's the first time I really feel, 'Wow, his death meant something,' " she said.
To the seminarians he inspired over the years, Monsignor Thomas Wells exuded joy in everything he did: celebrating Mass, orchestrating large ski and golf outings, simply gabbing on the phone for a few minutes with people he loved.
16.465116
1
43
medium
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/26/AR2006052600586.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006053019id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/26/AR2006052600586.html
Libya: Getting Warmer
2006053019
Q. With America's renewed relations with Libya, what tips or guidelines do you have for travel there? Ashleigh Wells, Chapel Hill, N.C. A. The United States and Libya have been getting friendlier, especially after the Bush administration removed the North African country from the state-sponsored-terror list and lifted the ban on American travel there. But just because relations are warmer doesn't mean you can catch the first flight to Tripoli. "You can't get a visa in the United States," says Mary Dell Lucas, owner of California-based Far Horizons Archaeological and Cultural Trips (800-552-4575, http://www.farhorizon.com/ ), which is offering a September trip to Libya. "The diplomacy is not normalized enough; you must go through Canada and be 'invited' by some group or entity in Libya." Since Libya does not have a diplomatic office in the States, Americans must apply for a visa through the Libyan Peoples Bureau in Canada (613-230-0919). Alex Thomas, corporate manager of Travel Document Systems (800-874-5100, http://www.traveldocs.com/ ), which helps travelers obtain foreign documents, says that while some of the paperwork can be completed by mail, occasionally he has to send a client to Ottawa. He also adds, "For individuals, it is very hard. Tour companies are the only ones getting visas, and not even all of them. If you or I were to apply for a visa, it would take a long time." The visa costs $100, and TDS charges a $45 service fee on top of that. If your visa does go through, Lucas does not recommend going solo. "Libya is not set up for a person to go alone," she says. The main obstacles are Arabic-only signs, substandard hotels and unqualified tour guides, due to the nascent tourist industry. "It is a really new tourist destination and has all of the pitfalls of all newly opened areas of the world," she says. "You really need to go with a reputable company and have a really flexible attitude." For additonal advisories and visa information, check the U.S. State Department's Consular Information Sheet on Libya ( http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_951.html ). Whether you go with an organized group or on a customized tour, make sure the itinerary includes the five UNESCO World Heritage sites, Tripoli's old city, and the Byzantine mosaics at Qasr Libya. My grandchildren are going on a cruise with their parents. How can I stay in touch? Back before satellite phones and WiFi, the only forms of communication between cruisers and landlubbers were ship-to-shore telephones and the postcard. Nowadays you can stay in touch with the press of a "send" button. "In general, most cruise lines have Internet centers and WiFi access," says Brian Major, director of public relations for the Cruise Lines International Association, a trade group that represents the major lines. "Some ships even have cellphone and PDA access." The cruise lines' communication capabilities differ, but Major says most lines have computer centers with Internet service as well as WiFi access for those with personal computers. In addition, some ships even rent laptops. All of these services cost extra. For example, Carnival charges a one-time Internet activation fee of $3.95, plus 75 cents a minute, or $55 for 100 minutes or $100 for 250 minutes. The line also rents PCs for $35 a day and WiFi cards for $10 a day (prices do not include Internet charges). For cellphones, some ships have at-sea service that allows cruisers to use their phones when no land is in sight. Passengers must sign up for the plan (check at the customer service desk), which costs extra. When at port, your grandchildren can use a phone card or international cellphone plan to call the States. Be careful, though: If they don't have an international plan, they could be charged exorbitant fees. We'll be in the Santa Fe area during the June summer solstice. Are any pueblos hosting dance ceremonies at this time? On June 21, the Northern Hemisphere celebrates summer solstice, the longest day of the year and the kickoff of summer. While none of the eight pueblos in the Santa Fe region will be hosting dance ceremonies for the solstice, they will be dancing -- for other reasons. On June 13, four pueblos (Santa Clara, San Ildefonso, Tesuque and Picuris) will celebrate Saint Anthony's Feast Day with dancing, food and music. And on June 24, the Ohkay Owingeh and Taos pueblos will perform corn dances. For info: Indian Pueblo Cultural Center, 505-843-7270, http://www.indianpueblo.org/ ; or Eight Northern Pueblos, 505-747-1593, http://www.eightnorthernpueblos.com/ . For a summer solstice activity, the Museum of International Folk Art and the Labyrinth Resource Group are holding a meditative walk of the Milner Plaza Labyrinth on June 18 (they organize four a year). The event will include West African music and time to contemplate life. Info: Santa Fe Convention and Visitors Bureau, 800-777-2489, http://www.santafe.org/ . Send queries by e-mail (travelqa@washpost.com), fax (202-912-3609) or U.S. mail (Travel Q&A, Washington Post Travel Section, 1150 15th St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20071). Please include name and town.
Is Libya a travel destination option again? Where can you see authentic Native American ceremonies in Santa Fe?
52.5
0.7
0.8
high
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/23/DI2006052301137.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006052919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/23/DI2006052301137.html
Books: 'The Defining Moment'
2006052919
Newsweek senior editor Jonathan Alter will be online Tuesday, May 30, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss his new book, " The Defining Moment: FDR's Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope ," which examines Franklin D. Roosevelt 's leadership during a time of national crisis. Alter provides enlightening detail about crucial moments in his presidency, such as drafted (but never delivered) speech in which Roosevelt considers enlisting a private army his first day in office. The new president's decisive actions shaped the course of history, from his bank bailout to the beginning stages of Social Security. FDR, who privately battled Polio during his four terms as president, engaged the public with his famous "fireside chats" and inspired confidence with his public programs and legislation during his first hundred days in office. LaPlata: Did FDR know of the concentration camps before we entered the war? If FDR were alive would he have used the bomb like Truman on Japan? Jonathan Alter: No, FDR did not know of the concentration camps before the war, or at least not of them as death camps, in part because the transformation of them into death camps came later.. Waldorf, Md.: I've always considered FDR one of our greatest presidents--and certainly THE greatest of the modern era (not even a close contest). However, my parents, who lived through the Depression and WWII, detested him, and made fun of Eleanor, which always struck me as small-minded and nasty (plus ill-informed). Why do you think FDR engendered that bit of hatred in some people? I've been trying for decades to figure it out. To me it seems absolutely clear he saved the country, never mind an occasional problem here or there. Jonathan Alter: It's a great question. Anyone who tries to change the country greatly will be hated for doing so. Recall how Lincoln was viewed in the South, for instance. And not to disrespect your parents, but the ingratitude afoot in the 1930s was amazing. It made FDR a bit bitter and caused him to overreach sometimes, but you can see why. He compared the opposition of the wealthy to his program to a man in a silk hat who is rescued from drowning by a lifeguard. Four years later (1936), the man returns and demands of the lifeguard: "Where's my hat?" FDR saved the capitalist system but was immediately confronted with a "What have you done for me lately?" response. But remember, this was a small minority of the American public. A healthy majority loved him. Arlington, Va.: Any thoughts on the FDR/Pearl Harbor warning conspiracy theories that have been swirling around? Many suggest that he had at least some idea, based on intercepted knowledge, that Japan planned to take some action there. Jonathan Alter: I'm no expert on this, because my book ends--except for Social Security and the Epilogue--in 1933. But I don't see the logic in it. Why would FDR want a two front war when we weren't even prepared yet for one war? I know he wanted to get into the European war, but it was months before we were mobilized. Also, if he had known they were attacking at Pearl Harbor, we would have had a lot more carriers and battleships out to sea that morning... Clifton, Va.: Some general on the radio today said radical Islam is a savage, globalizing ideology like fascism or communism. Any guess, in historical speculation, how FDR would have dealt with 9/11? And radical Islam in general? Jonathan Alter: It's speculative, of course, but I can say one thing: If FDR were president after 9/11, he would have insisted that our ports and chemical plants be secured by the end of 2001 or mid-2002 at the latest, and the same for fixing the computers at the FBI so they "connected the dots." The idea of it taking nearly five years and counting for these essential goals would have been unfathomable to FDR. For instance, he ordered 250,000 young hobos working in the CCC in four months, and later during WWII 50,000 combat aircraft built in less than a year. These were seen as impossible goals at the time, but he understood enough about the gearing of government and accountability for performance to get them done. On the larger issue, yes, I think he would have taken Islamofascism very seriously, but he would have fought it in a smarter way. York, Pa.: I believe that FDR was an effective leader especially of a nation that had lost its confidence. There is no doubt that he did try his best to get America out of its slump, but I believe that WWII is the main reason why the economy really turned around. Why was FDR not able to implement a form of economic taxation that was able to hurry the process up? And do you believe that FDR is overrated because of his inability to balance the budget? Jonathan Alter: It's true that the Depression didn't end until World Ward II, but FDR was able to restore faith and hope in the system in 1933, which is what my narrative is about. The economy remained terrible for most of the 1930s, but the country thought we were on the right track. Today, the inverse is true--strong economy, but the country thinks we're on the wrong track. The difference is leadership. Re budget balancing, FDR actually balanced the budget in his first 100 days, by cutting spending by 30 percent. But budget balancing wasn't worth anything during a Depression,; it actually hurt--so he moved to Keynesian deficit spending. More tax increases would not have helped--but tax cuts would not have either. By modern standards, he was lacking a "growth agenda" beyond public works. But it's not clear anyone else could have ended the Depression any sooner. I'm very clear-eyed in the book about which programs worked and which were utter failures. Fairfax, Va.: I know it is virtually impossible to speculate about never-was history, but do you think FDR would have made the same decision regarding the atomic bomb that Harry S Truman did? How did he foresee the end of World War II? Jonathan Alter: It's speculative, but yes, I believe he would have dropped at least the first bomb, to hasten the end of the war. I like to think that because he was a clever man, he might have waited to see if Japan surrendered before dropping the second on Nagasaki. Rockville, Md.: Is it your thought that the Democrats would have a better chance at winning today if they had a candidate who could tell the American people now that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself? And not the relentless politics of fearmongering? Can't we find a Democrat who will pierce the illusion that we face grave threats around every corner that require military solutions? Jonathan Alter: Yes, it would be better to quit the fear mongering. I sometimes feel that today's slogan is: "The only thing we have to USE is fear itself." But having said that, you should know that had you been around in 1932, it is unlikely you would have identified FDR as a leader. He was seen as a huge flip-flopper and straddler--for the League of Nation before he was against it, as just one example. So leadership comes in many packages and I believe we can still find an FDR leader out there. He might come from either party--or from neither. Regards from Gene Sittenfeld, your circulation director at the Monthly all those years ago. I know how proud Charlie must be of you and I have enjoyed watching your star rise. Just finished 25 years on the business side of magazines and am taking a year off to write some fiction. Thanks for being in touch! Hope you and everyone else out there likes the book. Sorry to be late and happy to discuss FDR!! Hot Springs Village, Ark.: FDR told intimates that he believed God afflicted him with polio in order to prepare him to be president. Does his sense of being under divine guidance explain not alerting Pearl Harbor that an attack was on the way? Jonathan Alter: I'm not sure where you saw that one. I'm not familiar with him saying God afflicted him so he could be president. He believed in God and that God had his purposes and I have a lot in the book about FDR, God and polio, but I never saw that reference. Lyme, Conn.: We forget that we know far more in retrospect than what was known back in 1933. Would you please discuss some of the general consensus that existed then, which was that the government was mostly helpless to interfere in economic matters and how Roosevelt took, what for then, were some daring and innovative actions in attempting to stimulate the national economy? Jonathan Alter: That's exactly why I call the book "The Defining Moment"!! Before FDR, the consensus was that our social contract did not include a safety net. Each man was the captain of his own fate. Voluntary efforts were fine, but if people were starving, it was essentially their problem. FDR made plenty of mistakes and he never cared much about the alphabet soup of agencies he created. But over the course of a year--the main narrative of my book--he developed a whole new bargain--a "new deal"--with the American people that endures to this day. Consider Hurricane Katrina. There's a lot of argument about the competence or incompetence of the government's response, but no argument--even from the extreme right--that it was none of government's business in the first place that people were drowning and starving. That's FDR's legacy in a nutshell. He believed we must as a society at least try to help those subjected to "the winds of chance and the hurricanes of disaster." Angers, France: Hi: My parents and everyone in my family adored FDR. I regret that I have not read your book but hope it will soon be available here. Do you see anyone on the political scene in the U.S. or in another country who could compare to him in the near future? We all seem to be yearning for leadership. Jonathan Alter: The book should be available at your local bookstores right now. If it's not, try amazon.com I agree that we are yearning for leadership, which is why I wrote this book--to give people a sense of what it felt and tasted like. But another lesson of my book is that great leadership is not always apparent beforehand. FDR did not look like a great leader in, say, 1930. (He was elected in 1932). But I try to give some clues to his success. To greatly oversimplify, I think great leaders excel at VISION, COMMUNICATION and EXECUTION. These in turn require a series of other traits. Among them are great political skills (anyone who wants someone "above" politics has not studied great presidents), tremendous open-mindedness and intellectual curiosity (which is different than being an intellectual)and a willingness to put performance ahead of loyalty when judging subordinates. (Eleanor was a great help at providing accountability, as I explain). It also helps to have what was described as a "first-class temperament." Great leaders can slough off trouble. For instance, when Al Smith attacked FDR on the radio, and the press asked for a response, FDR said, "He did? My radio must have been broken last night!" This sounds like a way of avoiding the question, but being able to deflect criticism with a quip is essential. I have just ordered your book on President Roosevelt. To what degree did FDR reach out across the aisle to Republicans as he prepared to meet both the challenges of the Depression and the War? Is it in stark contrast to the present President? Jonathan Alter: He had Republicans in his Cabinet from the outset, the best-known being Harold Ickes. Later, he made Hoover's secretary of state, Henry Stimson, his own secretary of war. He made the 1936 GOP VP candidate, Frank Knox, his navy secretary. He took a critic of Halliburton-style contracting abuses during WWII, Harry Truman, and put him on the ticket. I don't write about President Bush in my book (except in a few footnotes), but the implicit contrast is a sharp one. It's also true ironically that the two men had many things in common before coming to the presidency. I fact, both were depicted with the exact same epithet--"lightweight." Anonymous: Did FDR trust Stalin as an ally? Did FDR and Churchill have a good relationship? Jonathan Alter: Yes, FDR and Churchill had a good relationship, as my colleague Jon Meacham has explained in a wonderful book. FDR and Stalin didn't have a close relationship, but they were allies and Stalin was essential in beating Hitler. Fairfax, Va.: Why do you think revisionists feel the need to question the decision to use the atomic bomb to end WWII? My Dad entered the Navy in 1944 when he became of age. It is likely without the bomb that Dad would have headed for Japan instead of Guam and some of the other Asian and Pacific locations he went to as a Seabee. That presents a real clear opportunity for me to not even have lived if the bomb were not used. Jonathan Alter: My dad actually WAS headed to the Pacific (from Europe where he had seen much action)at the time the bomb was dropped. So I would not be here if it were not. The dropping of the second bomb is a more complicated question. So my basic position is, "Hioshima, yes, Nagasaki, no." Alpharetta, Ga.: Did people comment negatively or inquire a lot about FDR's marriage? Jonathan Alter: Not in those days, no. The fact that FDR had an affair in 1918 with Lucy Mercer was not public knowledge or even much known as gossip. The fact that Eleanor and Franklin had separate bedrooms and the White House sometimes resembled a French farce was not publicized. Nor, for that matter, was the fact that the president used a wheelchair, One reason is that FDR gave the press so much else to write about. He held two press conferences A WEEK. So the implicit deal was, if you want to chase dirt, you won't be coming to these press conferences with this wonderful access. The editorial pages were pounding FDR daily in vicious terms but the reporters kept out of the bedroom in those days. In 1932, FDR demonized the utilities baron Sam Insull after his utilities holding companies crashed, leaving some 600,000 shareholders in the lurch. What do you think FDR would make of the dismembering of the Public Utility Holding Company Act, allowing big utilities to re-consolidate? John Wasik, Author, "Merchant of Power: Samuel Insull, Thomas Edison and the Creation of the Modern Metropolis" Jonathan Alter: Excellent question. FDR generally chose tongue-lashing ahead of dismemberment, especially as applied to bankers. But power companies would have likely been different. From the time he was governor, when his first radio addresses were about public power, he opposed the big power companies. When Insull's empire collapsed, FDR piled on. His later New Deal regulation was so strong that Wendell Wilkie, a liberal power company executive, ran for president in 1940 because of his objections to FDR's power policies. (The two men were planning to cooperate on a new party shortly before Wilkie's death). So on balance I think FDR would have been appalled by the extent of power company re-consolidation. Woodbridge, Va.: Thanks for taking my question. As a long time admirer of FDR, what do you attribute to his longevity in office? By that I mean, it seems that most Presidents don't have the stamina for 1-2 terms, let alone 4, yet FDR, who didn't exactly fit the picture of health, managed to do it. We didn't enter the war until his third term so it wasn't like he had that referendum to go by. Also, his focusing on a different VP each election clearly showed he was concerned about his reelection chances. Your thoughts? Jonathan Alter: It was not a different VP each election--"Cactus Jack" Garner (an important figure in my book because he would have been president had FDR been killed in Miami two weeks before the inauguration) ran with him in both 1932 and 1936. FDR ran for a third term in 1940 over many objections inside and outside the Democratic party because war had broken out in Europe. Hitler was marching through Paris just before the Dem. convention. So there were extraordinary circumstances. As for 1944, FDR should not have run that year; he was dying. But World War II was not over yet, so his stepping aide was almost unimaginable. What effect, if any, did the lack of media oversight during Roosevelt's time have on his ability to get things done? Do you think that any President in the 21st century would be given the "space" to accomplish his goals that Roosevelt received in the 30s? Jonathan Alter: I don't accept the assumption behind your question. America had hundreds of newspapers in that era. Many cities had four or five dailies. They went out and reported on New Deal programs all the time. In fact, I'd argue that they reported more on the substance of government programs in those days than they do today. I had a great time reviewing old newspapers as part of my research. On the whole, they were worse than today. But there were a lot of them. And they came up with expressions like "boondoggle" to describe New Deal programs that weren't going right. Schenevus, N.Y.: Mr. Alter, I recently selected this book for my local library's collection. If someone asks me why should I read this book, what would you like me to tell this person? Additionally, what do you believe were FDR's biggest success and biggest failure of his New Deal programs? I am looking forward to reading your book! Jonathan Alter: All I can do is tell you what reviews like the NY Times, American Heritage and others have said about my book. (I don't have much perspective!!). The reasons that it's being given so much for Father's Day--and also by older people to their children--is that its a highly readable book about leadership. Americans are anxious to learn what great leadership is about, not just for their country but so as to better understand how to lead in business, or even the PTA. FDR was arguably the most important man of the 20th Century. The beginning of his presidency (often neglected in all of the recent books about FDR and WWII)brought the greatest crisis since the Civil War. My book is a story about man meeting moment. It's is also frequently described as a good introduction to Roosevelt, though even experts tell me they have learned lots of new things. End of pitch!!! Harrisburg, Pa.: Churchill supposedly commented that his "blood, sweat, and tears" speech was not only an effort to galvanize the British citizenry, but that it was directed primarily to an audience of one: FDR. He needed to convince FDR that supporting the war on England's side would not be a folly and that England was prepared to fight. How much importance do you believe FDR placed on that speech? Jonathan Alter: Their relationship has dominated scholarship about FDR for 30 years and I chose to focus on an earlier period that much less has been written about. So I cannot truly answer the question. Washington, D.C.: What are the things that interested you in researching this section of FDR's life? Where did you conduct most of your research? Hyde Park, D.C.? Jonathan Alter: I was fascinated by how close we came to having a dictatorship in 1933. The word "dictator" actually had a positive connotation!! I also truly enjoyed researching how FDR was almost not nominated for president in Chicago in 1932 and was almost assassinated in 1933. Sometimes what does not happen is as interesting as what did!! I did most of my research at the FDR Library at Hyde Park, but I spent time at the Library of Congress, Columbia Univ., Stanford Univ and other archives as well. The Internet also let me see other data bases from home and to buy books that had been out of print for 70 years. It all helped.. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Please discuss the gulf between the FDR who led the country through the Depression and WWII, inspiring trust and faith and the politician who was known as "a difficult man to have an agreement with". Jonathan Alter: great question. FDR was very difficult to pin down in person, which was part of what made him effective. I have Huey Long and others in the book explain how how he was to deal with. This manipulative quality was put to great ends, but I want to show the reader how it worked. FDR described himself as a juggler who never let his left hand know what his right hand was doing. Henry Wallace described him as "keeping everyone's balls up in the air except his own." Philadelphia, Pa.: During FDR's first term, what did FDR think of Henry Wallace, whom he would later pick to be his Vice President? Has FDR comfortable with Wallace's vision, and did FDR think Wallace could have made a decent President if needed? Jonathan Alter: I was puzzled by how much FDR liked Wallace, whom he picked to be his running mate in 1940 after having him as Agriculture Secry for 8 years. Part of it was that Wallace was simply brilliant. He had revolutionized American agriculture when he was in high school. But he also was more than a little eccentric. He began writing "Dear Guru" letters from an early point in 1933 and tried to get FDR to bring his guru into the government. It was a sign of FDR's tremendous open-mindedness that he never held this strange mystic quality against Wallace. New York: Do you think FDR could have done more to save the extermination of the Jews? Specifically could n't he have at least bombed the rail lines bringing these innocent people to the death camps? Jonathan Alter: It's a complicated question I deal with in the Epilogue. By definition, he could have done more--and should have. But bombing the rail-lines would not likely have worked. My dad was a bombadier in World War II; the bombing sites were simply not accurate to hit rail lines. It might have been worth a try to hit more mustering yards, but would not likely have made much difference. New York, N.Y.: The Office of Wage and Prices (OPA) was a fascinating office of public control of the private sector. Some such as John Kenneth Galbraith argue it could have been more successful if it had been used more forcefully. Richard Nixon worked there and would even attempt wage and price controls during the Republican Presidency. What were FDR's thoughts on wage and price controls and on how well the program worked? Jonathan Alter: FDR was always looking back to WWI, when the War Industries Board ran the economy. But he also knew by the 1940s that the NRA had not been hugely successful at price fixing. As far as I know, FDR was not much focused on Galbraith's work. He had bigger fish to fry in World War II. But I am not an expert on that subject by any means. Generally, he had too much faith in price-fixing by modern standards, but so did many others of the day. He kept banking in private hands during the 1933 banking crisis instead of nationalizing the industry, but continued to be a big believers in regulation as an alternative to nationalization. Tampa, Fla.: I read that FDR was inclined to admit Jewish refugees from Europe (at least before the war started), but that leaders of the American Jewish community withheld their support, thus killing the idea, because they wanted encourage the refugees to go to British Palestine. Is this correct? Jonathan Alter: No, that's a bit of an over-simplification of a very complex debate. But you're right that FDR listened attentively to the Jewish community, and that the community did not push as hard as it might have for more exceptions to the rigid quotas of the day. Old Lyme, Conn.: What impact did Eleanor Roosevelt have on the decisions that were made during the first 100 days of the Roosevelt administration? Jonathan Alter: Eleanor is an important part of my book. She was extremely reluctant to be first lady. In fact, she threatened to run off with her Albany bodyguard and blow up FDR's career at the Democratic Convention in 1932. She was crying on election night, 1932, and grew deeply depressed at the idea of moving to Washington and passing cookies and serving tea. She wanted to be FDR's secretary but FDR said no. Missy LeHand, his "office wife" (and likely more), would have objected. But with the help of her extremely close relationship with a talented newspaperwoman, Lorena Hickok, who advised her to hold the first press conferences ever by a first lady, write a newspaper column and travel widely, Eleanor blossomed in the Hundred Days. She became an essential backchannel to her husband, traveling rail coach class around the country to report back on what was and was not working in the New Deal. FDR, unlike some of his successors, wanted to know the truth, and it was Eleanor who often told it to him, filling up his in-box with dispatches. Then he would tell his Cabinet, "My Missus says..." And things would be fixed. During the 100 Days, two of her children's marriages were breaking up, the first-ever divorces in a first family, so that also occupied her time. And she did amazing work with the return of the "Bonus Army" marchers. By going out to their camps and singing camp songs with them and serving them coffee and generally charming them, she also kept them from causing trouble, though FDR was not actually giving these veterans more of their bonus. So she was a great asset to her husband and helped change history. washingtonpost.com: Thank you all for joining us today. 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.
Newsweek senior editor Jonathan Alter discusses his new book, "The Defining Moment: FDR's Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope," which examines Franklin D. Roosevelt's leadership during a time of national crisis and how his decisive actions shaped the course of history.
105.26
0.98
23.38
high
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/26/DI2006052600644.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006052919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/26/DI2006052600644.html
The Garden Plot
2006052919
Got a chronic case of green thumb? Like getting your hands dirty? Adrian Higgins , garden editor for The Post's Home section, is here to help. Higgins is a firm believer in "tough plants for tough times" -- the varieties that combine good looks with stiff resistance to disease and pests. He currently rules over a garden filled with spring bulbs, daffodils, ornamental onions, perennials, asters, yarrows, hostas and day lilies. Higgins, an avid organic gardener who believes chemicals are a last resort, also tends his own herb and vegetable gardens where he grows peas, garlic onions, lettuce, rhubarbs, radishes, carrots and more. Catch up on previous transcripts of The Garden Plot. Higgins is the author of two books, "The Secret Gardens of Georgetown: Behind the Walls of Washington's Most Historic Neighborhood" and "The Washington Post Garden Book: The Ultimate Guide to Gardening in Greater Washington and the Mid-Atlantic Region." Ward 4, Washington, D.C.: So, I gave in to temptation this weekend and bought a hanging fuschia for my front porch. I've killed several of these in past years, but they're so pretty, and... well, I decided to try again. So how should I care for it to keep it alive and blooming? Adrian Higgins: Fuchsias are difficult here, they don't like the high heat and humidity, which has certainly arrived in spades now that Memorial Day has passed. They are doubly stressed by being in hanging baskets. I would move your fuchsia to a pot that has been filled with a soilless mix and given excellent drainage. Fuchsias need moisture but hate wet soil, which will rot the roots. Also, keep it in a shady location. A type of fuchsia named Firecracker or Gartenmeister has less showy blooms but does better in the heat. Western Howard County, Md: I read the archives and saw that you recommend dividing hostas in the fall. Do you dig up the entire plant, then just cut them into the pieces you need and plant them where you want them to be? I'm guessing that you divide them before the foliage has died back? Early October, maybe? Adrian Higgins: I find it much, much easier on the plant and the gardener to lift the entire perennial and then divide in a way that you can see what you are doing. To work, divisions needs the entire plant, roots, crown and crown buds (next year's stems), and the big tangle, as I say, is better handled when you can see what you have. I recommend doing this to hostas in the fall, in part, because you run the risk of damaging the leaves in the early spring, which will give you an awful display the season long. Linden, Va: Adrian - I'm a novice potato grower working on my second crop and I had a couple general questions. Are the flowers related to the potato growth? In other words, if I attempt to get some new potatoes, do I have to wait a few weeks after flowering or are there already potatoes forming below ground? Speaking of new potatoes, how do I know when to pick them? And how do you go about doing it? Pull the whole plant up or brush the dirt away? Also, is it customary to take a few potatoes as new potatoes and leave the rest for a later harvest of fully grown potatoes or is it an all or nothing strategy? Adrian Higgins: Typically, once the plant flowers, you have young potatoes. You may be able to fish out some young ones and then hill up the plant for further crops, but I think it easier to lift entire plants for young potatoes and then leave others for the main crop. Or, plant a whole row for new potatoes and then plant something else in its place, say greens for fall. Growing potatoes may be one of the guaranteed ways to get new potatoes. Certainly the "new" potatoes in my supermarket are anything but. They are small spuds from last season, but they are not new. Part of the definition of a new potato is that the skin rubs off by hand. Stockton, NJ: My husband and I are laboriously pulling out garlic mustard from our yard and in our 2 acres of woods. We are also trying to eliminate the multiflora rose and honeysuckle. What would you suggest to replace the plants we pull out in the woods so the invasives can't reestablish themselves? We are thinking of ferns and may Adrian Higgins: Both of those replacements would be sweet. Along with colonies of trillium and Virginia bluebells. Richmond, Va.: We are growing strawberries in our garden and the fruit are being eaten by squirrels and birds. We have put some plastic netting over the plants but the squirrels and birds still crawl in through the sides of the netting. How do we prevent these animals from eating all our yummy strawberries? Adrian Higgins: I think you have to create some frame of wood or piping on which to hang the netting. It doesn't have to be high to secure strawberries, perhaps 24 inches. And the netting should be pegged to the ground with landscape staples, which go deep. Arlington, Va: Hi Adriam,Love these chats! A friend of mine has tiny garden at his row house in DC. It might be 20X20. He would like to plant some bamboo as a privacy screen. Since this is extremely invasive, I suggested that I consult you before he considers that too seriously (we don't want his neighbors to hate him!) Is there a less invasive kind of bamboo which grows nice and tall? Or is there another tall skinny plant that would be less invasive...perferably, easy to care for? Thanks!! Adrian Higgins: I would vote against bamboo. You can create effective screening in the city with some of the narrower grasses, such as calamagrostis, panicum and molinia. Annapolis, Md: Shade, shade, shade. Is there anything besides ferns, impatiens and begonias? Adrian Higgins: There is much to plant and on hot sunny days, much to enjoy. The key is to paint your garden not in flowers but in textures of leaf and shades of green. I would visit some shade gardens with a notebook and camera. Go to McGrillis Gardens in Bethesda and Asian and Fern Valley at the National Arboretum. On my travels, some of the best shade gardens I have seen are at Mt Cuba Center in Wilmington, Del., Chanticleer in Wayne, Pa., and Stonecrop in Cold Spring, N.Y. Maryland: Forgive me if you've covered this topic before, but what's your take on watering flowers with "used" water? I sometimes recycle water used to boil pasta or eggs (after allowing it to cool, of course). Adrian Higgins: I think that's fine, as long as the water wasn't heavily salted. Washington, DC : Hi, I have a question about using coffee grounds as plant food: How much, how often? I'd read that the grounds are very good for plants, so for a while, I put all the grounds from my coffee press on top of the soil in my flowerpots. First the plants seemed to love it, then after a month or two they started to look not so happy, so I stopped. Now I'm experiementing again, and it occurred to me that maybe I shouldn't bother to drain the left-over coffee from the press before adding to the pots, so I poured that on. Please tell me what's right and wrong, including whether the coffee and/or grounds needs to be fresh. These are indoor plants, if that makes a difference. Thanks from my plants and me! Adrian Higgins: I have seen conflicting reports on the acidity of coffee grounds, but they are acidic and too much will sour the soil. Your indoor plants may been repotting and with fresh soil. The grounds are fine as one ingredient in a compost, but shouldn't be more than (this is an intelligent guess) 10 percent of the mix. for Stockton, NJ: Why would you want to get rid of honeysuckle and roses??? The scent of honeysuckle is the smell of summer in New Adrian Higgins: Japanese honeysuckle has become invasive in the wild. The multiflora rose is even more vigorous at taking over open sites and can cover an entire meadow if left unweeded. It was used as a rootstock years ago for its vigor and hardiness. It is not a pretty rose. Georgetown, Washington, D.C.: I had a beatiful wall of espaliered climbing hydrangeas that had been growing well for 3 years, since I put them in. This spring, they were dry almost down to the bottom of the plant, and I lost them in large part. Some friends have said they have heard of plants being lost due to the dry winter and dry March after the initial blast of spring-like weather we had early on. I had never before watered them in early spring, and they had done beautifully. What do you think happened, and do you recommend replacing them or seeing if they come back next year? For now, I cut them back down to about two feet, since there are green sprouts coming from the base. Sad over my hyrangeas in Georgetown, with a bare wall.. Adrian Higgins: This may be so, it was dry as the hydrangea came out of dormancy. I suspect the bigger culprit was the lack of moisture last fall, when the vine was trying to grow more roots and couldn't. Climbing hydrangeas detest drought. Do try again. It is a beautiful plant. Bethesda, Md: Adrian -- I bought a large hanging basket of lastana about a month ago and put in the front of my house which gets afternoon sun. I keep it watered but it still seems very wilted looking not lush and vibrant. Should I move it? Also you had mentioned that when you move peonies you need to make sure you move all the pieces you need (e.g. crown etc.). What do these pieces look like? I moved my peonies to a sunnier location this past fall but I only got one bloom. I'm wondering if I didn't transplant them correctly. Adrian Higgins: Lantana needs hot, dry conditions. I think you may have overwatered it, even in sand. Remember that a young plant needs far less water than a mature one, even if you have to be careful that the roots don't dry out. Make sure it is in a pot that drains and put it in the sun and see if it makes fresh growth. You may want to buy another as insurance. If you dig up the peony you can examine all the bits, though I wouldn't do that now until September. This will give the plant time to develop eyes large enough for you to see. Weird, isn't it? Takoma Park, Md: I feel like I'm about to kill a good tree: I need to transplant a Japanese willow with a two-inch trunk about five feet. How big should the root ball be? Other issues? Adrian Higgins: Willows seek out water with deep, probing roots and they don't move well once established. I wouldn't try it now, anyway. I don't think root pruning would help with this tree. I would consider getting a replacement (they grow quickly) and place it where you need it. Fairfax, Va: Last year all of my squash and melon vines were destroyed by hundreds of bugs that seem to suck moisture out of them.I try to be organic and don't want to spray heavy pesticides. OTOH, I can't physically remove all the critters. Any suggestions for a safe way to deal with this problem? Adrian Higgins: These sound like cucumber beetles. The key with any pest management is to control it early before populations go wild. Plant away, but monitor the bugs early on and keep plucking them off and dropping them into a jar of bleach solution. Washington, DC: Adrian - Suddenly this weekend my back and front yards seem to be teeming with mosquitos. Standing water isn't apparent anywhere (except in my neighbor's stagnant water feature). Do they breed in damp soil? Can I plant anything to dissuade them or should I plan to unleash chemical warfare? Adrian Higgins: This is like saying my car is fine except for the fact the wheels fell off. Mosquitoes don't respect property boundaries. You should kindly remind your neighbor that the pond is a breeding ground for mosquitoes. A pond should have fish, which will eat the larvae, but this requires a filtration and oxygenation system to keep the fish alive. You can also put in pellets of Bt, but I view this as a stop gap measure. San Francisco, Calif: My husband and I recently moved to California. Having grown up in the Mid-Atlantic, I don't know much about the climate, soil, pests, or plants here. Do you have any book suggestions? Other resources? Adrian Higgins: I think Sunset has a good range of books tailored to the West. Again, go to a good public garden (where the plants are labeled) with a notebook and camera and see what works well and note too the mature size. This seems an aspect of gardening that is elusive to many people. Cleveland, Ohio: Hello! I am a chronic seedling killer. I have no luck with starting seeds indoors. Sometimes I underwater and they dry out. Sometimes I over water. Though there are other problems, watering seems to be my main one, followed closely by regulating temperature and light. I have tried adding plastic "lids" over the seedlings---which you can buy as a kit at Home Depot and similar places...but I had the same problems and eventually got mold. I can't be there all the time watching my little seedlings for any sign of underwatering/overwatering, so I would like to know if there is anything I can do to make things more consistent and require less time "micro-managing" so I wouldn't need to deal with them every day? Adrian Higgins: You need even moisture, and the lids do help you control that. Without them, the soil loses its evenness of moisture and the seedlings do get stressed. Another common problem is not enough light. Walkersville, Md: Any advise on Japanese Beatle control. I have put down milkly spore power, but the requirement of three applications a year for 2 years seems a little but much. I am more concerned about the injury to my lawn than leave damage. Adrian Higgins: Is that like Hey, Judo? I don't know any gardener who has had luck with milky spore. Perhaps it works, but I haven't had luck with it. This is a shame because it is a nice organic biological control (in theory). Some catalogues also sell predatory nematodes. If anyone has used them with success, I would love to hear about it. I think the insecticide imidacloprid is effective on grubs in the lawn, if that's where your beetles are coming from. Arlington, Va: We have noticed a couple volunteer tomatoes growing in our garden this year. Would you let them grow and see what comes out of them, or would you assume they won't produce something we want? We do not have unlimited space. We have planted both hybrid and non-hybrid varieties over the years. Thanks. Adrian Higgins: They may well be cherry tomatoes, which seed prolifically and are perfectly good but extremely rampant. I would grow the tomato plants you want. Washington, D.C.: I just planted a couple of Japanese eggplants in my community garden space. Every summer, these plants seem to die within a few weeks. Any tips for successful eggplant growing? Adrian Higgins: The main problem with eggplant is an early and devastating attack by the flea beetle. Once the plants reach a fair size, they are able to ward it off. I would plant the seedlings in a good rich compost soil and grow them under a tunnel of lightweight fleece or Remay for the first month or six weeks. Silver Spring, Md: Dear Adrian, Thanks for this informative chat! I'm growing allium for the first time this year. A few weeks ago, the beautiful purple blooms were at their peak, but now they've faded. My question is, now what? Do I dead head them or leave them alone? Will they rebloom? Adrian Higgins: Alliums are shy rebloomers but some will come back. It might have been better to cut off the flower globe right after blooming. If it has already set seed, you're too late for that step to be effective. Make sure you don't remove the leaves. Herndon, Va: Mr. H: GRASS! I finally succeeded in getting grass to grow in a couple of areas on my lawn which were bare. With the "hotter-drier" season approaching, how often should I water and, since I fertilized the lawn in March when I seeded, should I re-fertilize before September? Adrian Higgins: I'm assuming we are talking about tall fescue. Don't fertilize now, it's too late. Prolonged heat and drought will force this grass into a summer dormancy, unless you water an inch or more a week. This should be done with deep soakings, rather than shallow waterings, which will be counterproductive. Prepare to reseed or overseed in September. This has been a good spring to get March sown grass established, assuming you have been watering it. Speaking of seedlings......: I successfully started a bunch of seeds indoors this year, but had no luck with Purple Coneflower. Should I have soaked the seeds or done some other trick to get them to grow? Adrian Higgins: I think they germinate best after a period of cold treatment. In nature, this is winter. Look on the seed packet and see if it recommends a period of coldness, which is sometimes called stratification. McLean, Va: I have lots of wild mountain laurel, and they are growing out of control. I have heard they are very fragile. Can the branches be pruned to give them more shape and density, or will pruning kill it? What time of year is best to prune? Adrian Higgins: A conservative and artful pruning is fine. Don't imbalance the plant, shear it, or otherwise do great violence to it. Leesburg, Va: I planted some of my dahlias in an area that is shadier most of the day than I had realized. Will this deter them from blooming? If so, is it worth stressing the plants (which are now over 12" tall) by moving them at this point? Adrian Higgins: Yes, dahlias need a sunny site. I would move them now. They are heavy feeders and need good, well drained but moisture retentive soil and staking. On the topic of shade . . . : Turns out now that the sun's angle has shifted, the spot where I planted ferns, astilbe, tiarella, and hostas early this spring gets only a couple of hours of sun - but right in the middle of the day! Will the sun's angle keep shifting, so perhaps nearby trees (dogwoods) will soon cast a bit more shade in that direction? Or am I looking at a problem? When would you move the plants, if moving becomes necessary? Thanks - Adrian Higgins: Maybe you can do a deal with the dahlia grower. These plants will take sun as long as they are in good, moisture retentive soil and are watered deeply from time to time. It sounds as if you have enough shade on the edges to make this work without moving them. Days will get shorter in about three or four weeks, alas. Fairfax, Va: My husband constructed a compost box for our yard clippings etc. Any hints on getting started? He built wooden slats on the bottom. What should be the first layer, does it matter? We have been reading that shredding materials makes it decompose must faster so will do that. Adrian Higgins: Shredding is really important for quick composting. It is all too easy in the summer for compost piles to dry out quickly, which will stop the action. The key is to have enough mass of material to minimize this and to keep it moist. We are out of time. I'd say summer is knocking on the door, a time when the garden shifts into another gear. Same time next week. 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.
Post Garden editor Adrian Higgins is online to answer your plant questions.
316.692308
1
1.615385
high
high
mixed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/23/DI2006052300823.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006052919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/23/DI2006052300823.html
Life at Work Live
2006052919
Washington Post columnist Amy Joyce writes Life at Work on Sundays in the Business section and appears online every Tuesday to offer advice about managing interpersonal issues on the job. An archive of Amy's Life at Work columns is available online. Find more career-related news and advice in our Jobs section. Amy Joyce: Good morning, everyone. I hope you're recovered after a nice, long weekend. Strange question for you: Are you superstitious? If so, how does that play into your work days? I think about those athletes who refuse to cut their hair or change their socks so they can stick to their winning streak. Do you do the same at work? In addition, some reporters here have been receiving funky emails about Tuesday being 6/6/06 and people wary about coming to work, etc. Strange, I know. But it got us thinking: Do you have a lucky suit you wear to presentations? A special coffee mug that, if it disappears, would throw your entire day off? E-mail me at lifeatwork@washpost.com with your workplace superstitions. I'm going to write about it for next Sunday's column. Alrighty, then. Time to chat about our lives at work. As always, join in with your own advice and stories to help your fellow workers. Washington, D.C.: Thanks for your column "Snagged by the Network." As someone who works for the public sector, my networks frequently expect me to make magic happen with mistake-laden cover letters, unclear job objectives and lengthy resumes listing irrelevant work experience. I only hope the folks who are doing the "snagging" will read the column and reflect on how to improve their job searching techniques. washingtonpost.com: Here's that article: Snagged by the Network , (Post, May 28) Amy Joyce: Well, here's a hint for them. Hopefully they are reading. Washington, D.C.: Hi Amy. I was wondering if you heard any other networking horror stories while you were writing your column, that you could tell us. Here's one that recently happened to me: an acquaintance I told about a job started calling me daily to ask if I knew if he'd be hired or not! Amy Joyce: I'm sure that one happens a lot! Folks, feel free to jump in with your networking nightmare stories. I know there are a lot out there. It's important, networkers and networkees, to really walk the careful line when reaching out for help or when helping others. It's important to ask for help and just get out and let people know you and what you do, but some people can really take networking too far. Washington, D.C.: My boss's daughter is working at our office for part of the summer. She's a really nice young lady and it has been very helpful having her here. That being said, I am uncomfortable giving her work to do (proof and mail my letters, schedule appointments). She is filling in for the office secretary two days a week. I have seen what can happen when someone's kid comes into work and messes things up. It has happened here before. Two people almost came to blows because one didn't like the way the other spoke to his kid (not the same one as here now). It is a really small office and I would rather avoid any potential pitfalls. Should I just bite the bullet and do the work myself for the summer? For what it's worth, the boss doesn't request any special favors for his daughter. But I am still uncomfortable with the situation. Thanks. Amy Joyce: She's WORKING there. Give her work. Otherwise, she'll walk out thinking this was the most boring job ever. Just treat her like you would any other new employee: Kindly, professionally. Give guidance and thanks. And if she screws up, explain to her what she did wrong. Then give her another try. washingtonpost.com: Job Connections Start as Social Connections , (Post, May 21) Amy Joyce: This is the previous week's networking column, about how networking is a good thing. Lake Ridge, Va.: Amy, I know you've answered this question about a million times, but never expected to need to know the answer. When do you tell your boss that you are pregnant? I am really sick this morning (yay! the first day of morning sickness), but it's obviously too early to say anything. Do I wait until the end of the first trimester? Or until I'm showing? How do I explain not feeling well a lot of the time, and potentially under performing as a result? I am an executive assistant, so I am concerned that this will be especially noticeable. Amy Joyce: There is no set rule, but many say to wait until the first trimester is over. As for the running to the bathroom issue, just explain that you're not feeling well. People may start to get the idea. If they don't, they'll find out soon enough. Just do what you can to get your normal workload done. Good luck and congrats! A reason for flip-flops: Hi Amy, Not to beat a dead horse, but last week you said you couldn't think of one reason to change shoes/flip-flops. I walk to the metro every morning and the fastest way is up a grassy hill. Heels tend to get dirty and stuck in the ground -- so I wear sandals in the warm months to the metro and change into shoes in my office. Also, I wanted to note that I'm short and my pants tend to be hemmed for about a one and a half inch heel, so I wear jeans with my suit jacket and sandals and change when I get into my office. I probably look Seinfeld a la 1997, but that's a whole other issue...! Amy Joyce: No dead horse to beat here. You're wrong about me. I wear flip flops to work. Today, I wore my black Converse tennis shoes (with a skirt)... and changed at work. I'm all for it. I just don't think flip flops should be worn in the office. No problem whatsoever wearing them to work. Vienna, Va.: Hi, Amy! Love your column -- it's my favorite part of the Sunday paper. I wrote in last week with this question, but I really am curious to hear your thoughts so I wanted to try again. I am interviewing for a job with a local PR firm. The person I've been interviewing with told me that he wants to hire me, but first, needs to fire the person who is currently in the job I've been interviewing for. Is this normal? I was horrified, but when I asked other folks I respect -- my parents, my former boss -- they just laughed at me for being so naive and said it happens all the time. What do you think? I think it was pretty unprofessional for him to admit this to you in an interview. It shows a lack of respect for those working there, and to me, throws up a red flag about how he treats his employees. I'm not saying to stop interviewing with him, but this might be a sign of the atmosphere. Did you ask him why he is firing this person? I say be bold and feel free to do so. You should try to find out as much as possible before you agree to take a job here. Any HR managers out there want to comment? Anyone deal with this, um, direct comment before? Washington, D.C.: A former colleague suggested that I contact his boss regarding an opening for which he thought I'd be a great fit. I contacted the boss, and scheduled several introductory phone calls with his assistant, all of which were cancelled for various reasons. The first two times I let my friend know, but it's become an exercise in frustration for me. Apparently the boss has other fish to fry. Should I contact my former colleague and let him know that I'm really not interested (and that I would never work for anyone so seemingly disorganized or rude)? Amy Joyce: It was nice of your former colleague to recommend you. Just call and say that it doesn't seem to be working out, but thanks. If it gets to the point where he wants to know why, explain. But if you say you'd never work for "anyone so seemingly disorganized and rude," that means you're insulting him, his workplace, and his offer to help you find a new gig. Not cool. "Lucky" mug: I drink a lot of water during the day...upwards of a gallon. I used to have an insulated mug purchased at an amusement park that I loved. First because it was LARGE and second because it had an amusing message. I broke the mug last month. I swear that things have been different ... cannot keep myself organized, forgetting assignments, losing files, etc. I know there is an explanation and don't -- really -- think it was the mug that made me so good at my job but ... Amy Joyce: Okay, Lucky Mug, we must chat. Can you email me at lifeatwork@washpost.com? Washington, D.C.: I've been working on networking -- I figure as long as you are polite and think you have the qualifications it doesn't hurt to ask. And you take the time to thank them. If it's with friends I'm more comfortable with the prospect of networking. I can be up front and so can they. I mean I don't want them to put themselves out there if I'm not right for the job. But how do you approach acquaintances, people you meet at networking events, etc. Can you write an e-mail that you think their company is great, can I send my resume for you to decide if you have anything I'm qualified for, or is that just inappropriate? Amy Joyce: Not inappropriate at all. If you met them at a networking event, they were there -- at least partially -- to find people just like you. E-mail them, remind them how you met, and ask if you can forward your resume their way. Even better if you know just what job you might want at their company. Washington, D.C.: Good article on networking. I find myself in the position of trying to get a new job in a new city. An old boss has a good friend in the agency I want to work for, but the job openings are in his sister branches. Of course, I can't ask this stranger I've talked to on the phone twice to vouch for me, but I will certainly mention that I am applying. Then it's open to him to offer to put in a good word (based on my old boss's stellar recommendation). My advice -- if you under-salt a dish, you can always add more. But if you add to much salt, you're sunk. Same with networking. Amy Joyce: Good advice. Good luck with the search. (And you're right: If nothing else, this person can walk your resume to the hiring managers which gives you a big leg up on the competition.) D.C.: I had been one of the guilty parties once of networking badly. I tried to get a job through a relative for a position for an entry-level techie training program. She offered to take my cover letter and resume to the hiring manager. I wrote her a cover letter and resume -- she sent it back with corrections. I made the corrections and sent it back to her. I followed up a couple of weeks later and she said she forgot to send it to the hiring manager. Now I felt she was just trying to be nice and what she really meant was based on my cover letter and resume, that she did not feel comfortable sticking her neck out on my behalf to the hiring manager. Which is fine by me. But rather than be straight and honest with me she just conveniently "lost" my application. I thanked her for her time and didn't pursue the matter any further. But we haven't been very friendly since then. Amy Joyce: Well *that's* unpleasant. She should have been upfront. Okay, I'm genuinely at a loss here. I've been at my current job for two and a half years now, and I'm getting more and more unhappy with it. The reason for my unhappiness is because I'm moving further and further away from what I want to be doing, and despite the many talks I've had with my supervisor, there seems to be little that can (or will) be done to get me back to what I want to be doing. This alone says that I should be sending out my resume, but I'm held back by several factors. The biggest being, I'm treated very well by my current company, in that they really look after their people. The reviews of my work have been positive, I get yearly bonuses and salary increases (something I never got at any of my previous jobs), and they go out of their way to show that everyone here is a valued employee. To sum it up, it's an unfulfilling job in an otherwise very rewarding environment. The other reason I'm hesitant to leave is because, I've been in some bad work environments before (my last one, in fact, was the worst I'd ever encountered), and a positive work environment is nothing to shake a stick at or take for granted. So I keep wondering, what kind of work environment will I go to from here? Will it be another bad one, or a good one? Because I don't want my current positive work environment to turn into the classic example of "you don't know what you have until it's gone". And the final reason I don't send out resumes now is because of my family, who as a general rule is very resistant to change. Every time I want to make a major change in my life, my family by default plays devil's advocate and has to move heaven and earth to convince me to stay on my current course and NOT make a major change. (Gotta love the support I get.) Any thoughts would be appreciated, because I feel genuinely stuck. Amy Joyce: Get over the family. Now. Unless these are dependents whose lives you'd shake up royally with a huge move. If it's parents or siblings who just don't want you to grow/experiment/change for whatever reason, then stop. Now. Start sending out resumes. It's always a tough call between staying somewhere you're bored or unhappy, but that has a good atmosphere. You need to ask yourself if you would be happy at a place where the work is more fulfilling, but you might not get those annual bonuses. Think about what your ultimate job would be and start to figure out if you can find it. Then try to figure out if you can find another supportive atmosphere. You're only doing yourself a favor if you get out and find out what other opportunities await you. Springfield, Va.: My husband is interviewing for a job out of state. If he's offered the job and it's the right situation for both of us, we'll be moving. Is it a good idea for me to give my manager a heads up on this possibility? My group at work is already losing two of five people this summer who are moving away from the area. I'll wait at least until we see how the interview goes. Amy Joyce: Sounds like you're doing the right thing. I would wait until after the interview, too. You have no idea when or if he might get this job out of state. Once it gets closer, go ahead and warn your supervisor, if you're comfortable. If your team is already losing a few people, your boss will be desperate to get things back in order. Silver Spring, Md.: An acquaintance recently asked me to submit their resume for a position at a company where I have contacts. He had submitted his resume previously without any response. I eagerly agreed to help. The acquaintance ended up getting the job but never called to thank me for getting him in the door or letting me know he had started his new position. My company does some work with his new company, so needless to say I've felt burned by the whole experience and am reluctant to help out others after this experience. A simple thanks would have sufficed. Amy Joyce: You know, that's someone someone else mentioned to me that I didn't end up putting in the column: All these people or headhunters who ask for help and then don't send a thank you. What's up with that?? K Street, D.C. : Hi, Amy. Last week I went to a clothing store during my lunch hour and bought a couple of items. On my way back to the office I suddenly felt very self-conscious holding the shopping bag and that perhaps I should have put the clothes on layaway and bought them later. At my office we get paid seven hours a day, not including lunch. Do you think shopping is a no-no during work hours? Amy Joyce: What an interesting question. I've actually struggled with this one before. (My situation: A quick glance in a window at the PERFECT shoes ... on sale. My size. I bought them, but stuffed them in my work bag because I felt silly. Or guilty. Or something. Then I felt silly about feeling silly!) My take: it was your lunch hour. No one should care. But I understand your self-conscious feeling. It all boils down to what you are comfortable with. You weren't doing anything wrong. (Particularly if the clothes were for work. Then you could even justify the shopping as work related.) Arlington, Va.: When I graduated from college I tried to network my way into a job. I worked full-time in office jobs throughout school and also volunteered a lot so I had quite a few professional contacts who were two or three times my age. It yielded a few interviews and even a couple of offers but eventually I decided to take a different position -- one that I had gotten on my own. About a year later I was looking to move up in my field and applied for a few jobs, but didn't really contact any old contacts to speed up the process. I learned I was one of two finalists for a job and that they would be checking my references. I called one of my former supervisors to let him know he would be contacted, and lo and behold he was close friends with a VP at the place I was interviewing. I guess he called her up and extolled my virtues and sure enough I got my dream job, and have been happy ever since. You never know when someone's contacts will come through for you! Amy Joyce: That's great. Thanks for sharing! Firing comment: I'm an HR advisor in the federal sector, and here, privacy rules. So a federal sector manager who told an applicant that the former employee was or is being fired could possibly be violating the law. In any event, it's tacky, and I wouldn't want to work for someone who just says anything that pops into his/her head without thinking about it. Let's hope that's just the person doing the screening for the one the writer will be working for. Amy Joyce: My feelings exactly. Alexandria, Va.: Hello! I could use a bit of advice. This summer I am getting married and moving (within a ten day period). My fiance is in the military, and this is why we are moving. My boss knows about the wedding (and has been extremely supportive and encouraging) but does not know how soon the move will be (the time frame has been moved up). The project we are working on requires planning for the fall, but I won't be here. The project team is small (basically the two of us) and I feel as though I am misleading her when we discuss future plans. How much notice do I give? (FYI-nobody in my office has ever been asked to leave immediately when notice has been given.) Two months feels like too much time, but I feel as though I'm living a lie. I've already been sitting on this for over a month! What do you suggest? Thanks! Amy Joyce: Since you do know the specifics, and if you are sure they are not going to change, you might as well talk to your boss. It sounds like a good, close atmosphere. I think you can explain what is going on, reiterate that you're telling your boss so everyone can plan ahead, but that you hope to keep working. Also, leave some room for any changes. (When you chat with your boss, make sure to explain that it "looks like" you will move within 10 days of the wedding, etc.) RE: Alexandria: I left a job last fall because I was offered what I thought was a great opportunity, raise, etc. The office dynamics in my new job are strange, I get no feedback from my boss, there's no office "fun." My last job was completely different. I loved my boss and my co-workers. I enjoyed going to work. I'd give ANYTHING to be back in the nice office environment, including the big raise I received. Amy Joyce: Well, sure. There is always that chance. But would you be just as happy in that old position if you hadn't taken a chance at what you thought was a great opportunity? Not all potentially great opportunities end up being bad situations. (Have you considered going back to your old company?) Washington, D.C.: I'm leaving my current position in two months. (My position has been eliminated due to fiscal reasons.) How should I let my colleagues know? So far I'm the only one besides my immediate supervisor that knows. I don't want to make a huge announcement unless I accept a new position. Is it OK to imply that I'm seeking new opportunities? Also how do I get my favorite mug back. It seems to have disappeared. I washed and put in the cupboard and it grew legs and walked away. Amy Joyce: Is your supervisor okay with you telling people that the position was eliminated? If so, then you should start telling people one by one. This could lead you to another opportunity outside of the company. You never know who has contacts in the right places. As for that poor mug... post a little "Have you seen me?" sign on the cupboard. Say that they can put it back where it was, no questions asked. Ugh. Stop stealing mugs, people! Va.: Why on earth would someone feel funny about bringing a shopping bag back from a lunch hour? It's YOUR time, for goodness sake. I mean, I can see if it were from an adult book store, but even then ... nobody's business! Amy Joyce: Well, in a perfect world. But I know what she's thinking: People are going to see me with shopping bags and think that's how I spent my day, rather than working. Braces?: Hi Amy! What are your thoughts on interviewing for jobs with braces? I'm in my mid twenties, I'm returning to the States after some time abroad, and I'm going to get braces as soon as possible upon my return. I already look pretty young, so I'm worried this might hurt my chances of coming across as a serious job applicant. Any words of advice? Thanks for all the great chats! Amy Joyce: First off, there are invisible braces these days. They've come a long way from my awkward teenage years. Second, if you have the qualifications and interview well, the braces will disappear. I am in a job I hate so much that it has put me in therapy and I now take pills for an ulcer. I have enough money to get me through June and July and I am seriously considering walking on Friday when we get paid. Is two months a good cushion? I mean there's always temp agencies if the full-time thing hasn't come through by then, right? Amy Joyce: Are you looking for permission? If so, I give it to you. But make sure it is your job that is stressing you out. If you give that up and find it's been something else, then being out of work might only exacerbate your stress. Start sending your resume out ASAP. Figure out if you can calmly walk out on Friday, or if that will only irritate you even more. There *are* part-time jobs, temp jobs, etc. But they also might just cause you more anxiety. Don't jump until you are sure you're ready. To me, it sounds like you're ready. But I don't know all the details. Virginia: I had an interview for a new job last week, and I am expected to hear sometime this week whether or not I get it. I have a pretty great chance of getting it (whoo!)-- although unfortunately would have to start later than two weeks notice, because it would run into a week-long vacation that was already planned. If I get the job, should I tell my current job, even though I wouldn't be leaving for maybe a month? Or do I just sit on it until it really IS two weeks notice, and then leave? My yearly job review is also coming up, so I feel like I would be lying if I didn't say anything ... Amy Joyce: If you feel like you'd be lying, then yes, tell them. There's no RULE to two weeks' notice. Everyone is in a different situation/culture/workplace. Wait until you get the offer and know you're going to take it, though. Amy Joyce: Okay, gang. I'm outta here. Time to get back to work. Don't forget to e-mail me with your workplace superstitions at lifeatwork@washpost.com. Have a great week. We'll be here same time, same place, next week. 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.
The Post's Amy Joyce takes your questions and offers advice about workplace issues.
332.375
0.875
1.125
high
medium
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/26/DI2006052600642.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006052919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/26/DI2006052600642.html
What Global Warming?
2006052919
The conventional wisdom is that we humans are driving ourselvestoward the brink of climate change disaster if we don't do something soonabout the greenhouse gases were are emitting into the atmosphere. Well, notall scientists believe that. Joel Achenbach, whose story about global warming skeptics and theirthinking appeared in Sunday's Washington Post Magazine is online Tuesday, May 30, at 11 a.m. ET , to field questions and comments. Joel Achenbach is a Magazine staff writer. Joel Achenbach: Is this mike working. Joel Achenbach: Why is there a little red light on that camera that is aimed at me. Washington, DC: How dare you award all this print space to people who are all prostitutes for petroleum. How dare you decide for all of us that we should try being misled for fun. How is it "journalism" to take the half-baked, full-paid liars and put them in your magazine? Joel Achenbach: Hello! Thanks for your questions. Before I answer this, I'm sorry I'm a little late here to the chat, but had a technical problem. Let me answer this directly: If you type "global warming" or anything like that into Google, you quickly hit a zillion links to sites written by people who deny that global warming is a problem. Who are these people? That's what my editor wanted to know. I think that was a good question to ask. Who are they and why are they denying the reality of global warming? The overwhelming response to the story has been positive from the people are most concerned about global warming, and from the scientific community, which grasped the central feature of the story: the skeptics as they present their case tend to undermine it. Washington, DC: Who edited your article? It was interesting, but seemed like it needed some cutting in places. Joel Achenbach: It was a long piece. It was 7,500 words or so. At one point it was about 11,000, so we took the chain saw to it. Arlington, Va: Thanks for your great article. I expect you'll be overwhelmed by questions, but I'll give it a shot: I still am confused why an issue accepted by, say, 98 percent of active scientists, is so strongly attacked by conservatives who are non-scientists. Do you get a sense that there is anger towards Science in general (which brought us Evolution and the 6000+ year old Earth)? Whatever the cause is, it seems to be a uniquely American phenomenon. I don't see this sort of debate in places like Europe. Joel Achenbach: It is striking that the debate is so different in Europe. Partly this is because America has a lot of hardline conservatives who don't want to be told (especially by the government, or by elites at universities, or by the news media) that they shouldn't be rolling down those highways in gas guzzling cars. Freedom's just another word for tanking up and hitting the road. I bet there are folks out there who still pine for the days when gas has lead in it. Washington, DC: I think the argument that "How can they predict something 50 years down the road if they can't tell me if its going to be a hot summer THIS SUMMER?" is one that resonates with your average American. Why didn't you address the core of this argument more (the difference Joel Achenbach: I think a graf on weather v. climate might have been a good idea. Bethesda, Md: What does it say about the age we live in that America can elect a president who will consult a Science FICTION writer (Michael Chricton) to advise him on global warming, but not actual scientists? Just stop and marvel at that one for a moment. If we are - as some of the more chauvinistic denizens here wish to think, the "pinnacle of modern civilization" - isn't it pretty much a foregone conclusion that the human race will eat itself for dinner one day? Joel Achenbach: Let me address the second half. I believe the human race will figure out a way to survive in the future, because we're a clever species, but it's very much an open question whether we'll live on a planet that we're familiar with at present. And whether it will be a planet of justice and equality or one that's Hobbesian as you seem to suggest is most likely. As for Bush and Crichton, too bad we don't have secret White House tapes anymore to listen to. Herndon, Va: Did you feel when interviewing these scientists that they had their minds made up and were looking for evidence to support their positions, or did they seem to feel the "jury was still out" and willing to look at all of the evidence whether it supported their position or not. Joel Achenbach: I interviewed a number of scientists, including some who didn't get quoted in the story but who were very helpful. In science, the jury is always out, in a sense: There aren't many absolute, final truths. But I think the overwhelming majority of scientists, both the climate modelers and the ones who do direct observation, are strongly persuaded that climate change is happening very quickly and with potentially malign effects to the biosphere and human civilization. And that's not a situation where you wait for the jury to come back with a unanimous verdict. M St NW, Washington, D.C.: You did readers a disservice in introducing the Competitive Enterprise Institute in your story. By using descriptors such as "a factory for global warming skepticism" you make them sound merely cranky, when instead, their scientists have deep industry ties. CEI is a conservative institution largely funded by the energy industry, which has a financial stake in opposing policies that seek to combat climate change. CEI has received substantial funding from the fossil fuel industry, including more than $2 million from the Exxon Mobil Corporation since 1998. A story by Jeffrey Birnbaum on March 19 noted: "The Competitive Enterprise Institute, which widely publicizes its belief that the earth is not warming cataclysmically because of the burning of coal and oil, says Exxon Mobil Corp. is a 'major donor' largely as a result of its effort to push that position." In two recent ads that downplay the significance of global warming, CEI misrepresents several scientific studies, according to Media Matters. One ad suggests that environmentalists have falsely labeled carbon dioxide as a pollutant when, in fact, it is "essential to life." But the ad ignores that it is not C02 itself that is inherently harmful, but it is excessive discharges of the gas that scientists argue is harmful to the atmosphere. The second ad claims that recent scientific studies have proven that "Greenland's glaciers are growing" and that the "Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker, not thinner." In fact, the Greenland study found increased snow accumulation only on the island's interior, while separate studies conducted during the same period found significant melting among the coastal glaciers. The author of the study on Antarctica accused CEI of a "deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate." CEI is no benign think tank that your story presented them to be. Joel Achenbach: My story explicitly states precisely what you are saying, and so I have to suggest that you re-read the piece and, while doing so, ask yourself why it is that you were tone-deaf to the narrative the first time you read it. Boston, Mass.: Bill Gray comes off as a movingly tragic figure. One thing that wasn't clear to me from the piece was what work he had done to rise to his level of stature. What does it mean that he is the pre-eminent hurricane expert? (I'm not asking this to be slighting; I'm really interested in learning more about him.) Joel Achenbach: Good question. Bill Gray organized tropical meteorology conferences around the world. He all but built the field of hurricane science, according to a number of people I spoke to. There's a lot of affection for him for his many years of doing that -- and I think some consternation that he's gotten off on this anti-global warming kick. Can't you see that if I produce CO2 naturally by breathing, the logical conclusion is that no amount of it can be harmful ever? Each morning when I wake up, I purposefully hyperventillate just to produce more of this wonderful gas. If it's a nice day out, I may even sit in my garage with the car on just so that I can bask in wonderful CO2. Why do you hate America? No, seriously. Joel Achenbach: Kids, don't try this at home. Great Falls, Va: It's nice to see the other side of the global warming debate featured. Many of the dire predictions are based on anecdotal data and computer modeling that at best is questionable at the times frames quoted. Sounds like the chicken little hype of the ozone hole a few years back. What ever happened to that? Looks like the Ozone man has transformed into the Global Warming man! Joel Achenbach: Glad you brought up the ozone hole. It was a serious problem, and may yet be -- and in fact, has probably caused countless additional cases of skin cancer, particularly in places such as Australia. It's unclear whether the hole will close back to its pre-industrial level. What's certain is that CFCs were damaging it, and the solution was a worldwide treaty to ban CFCs. It was an environmental success story in terms of how we responded to the discovery of the problem. Alabama: In the article, I find this paragraph: "Gray says the recent rash of strong hurricanes is just part of a cycle. This is part of the broader skeptical message: Climate change is normal and natural. There was a Medieval Warm Period, for example, long before Exxon Mobil existed." The Medieval Warm Period took place over hundreds of years (c. 800 or 900 to 1300, depending who you speak to), and some experts think it was localized around the North Atlantic -- we know Europe experienced increases in warmth, as did North America and parts of Africa, but that is not evidence that temperature increases took place around the globe. In fact, there's good evidence that warm and cold periods followed each other during this time. This was not "global warming" -- it was not global and it was not a long, sustained increase in temperature. Apart from the Big Thaw at the end of the last Ice Age, there is NOTHING in history that matches the pattern of climate change that we see today, and skeptics are deluding themselves if they think otherwise. Joel Achenbach: My story said that explicitly. Read the whole thing. I come back to the Medieval Warm Period and make the point you are making. South Carolina: Wow, Joel. Wow. I think the article was great and your presentation of the opinions of global warming skeptics was (excuse me for this)fair and balanced. But I am shocked and amazed at the complete short-sightedness and selfishness of the people depicted in this piece. Their clear disdain for anything friendly to the environment that doesn't earn them a dollar in the long run is shameful. What I don't understand is their endorsement of harmful and potentially toxic substances that are used by industry, such as the abestos comment made by one of the subjects. Even if the gloabl warming issue is not included when considering industrial activities, how can they endorse such business when you consider all the other harmful results to humans as a result of industrial activity? High cancer rates, air pollution, mesothelioma in the case of asbestos, just to name a few? I guess their stance is that if they make money, it is justifiable. My question is, in the minds of these people you interviewed, does the dollar and the preservation of captialism trump everything else, including health of industrial workers and the environment? Joel Achenbach: I think CEI articulates a libertarian perspective that is very powerful in Washington right now. One thing I didn't mention in the piece is that there's a movement to bring back DDT. The argument is that DDT will kill mosquitoes that cause malaria in subSaharan Africa. Laurel, Md: There is no denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its amount in the atmosphere is increasing. The planet can compensate to some degree, but eventually CO2 effects will overcome the compensating feedback. This is straight forward physics. So its not a question of "if" but "when". I have never heard the debate with the naysayers on this matter. Joel Achenbach: Well, it's already happening, it's really a debate over the degree to which the atmosphere is sensitive to, say, a doubling of CO2. But even "debate" is the wrong word; it's more like a scientific inquiry with different possible answers. And the range of possibilities includes scenarios that most people would consider dire. Washington, DC: Joel, do you think the editors of the Washington Post could be persuaded to run a 7,500 word article on the actual science of climate change, as understood by the overwhelming majority of scientists who study the phenomenon? I don't mean short reports of recent journal articles, although there are scant few of these in the Post,but a comprehensive piece in plain English that puts the current state of knowledge into perspective for lay readers. Perhaps, you could write it? Joel Achenbach: It's definitely possible. I am sure we will continue reporting this story from many angles. I found the book by Tim Flannery helpful, by the way, in preparing the story. San Francisco, Calif: Your article, The Tempest, was grossly irresponsible. Would talk about folks that claim that the hollocaust was a hoax in these terms? The fate of multiple millions of souls hang in the balance of what's going to happen to world climate. In the next decades, 2/3's of Bangledesh may dissappear. How many of the 150 million or so folks that live around the Bay of Bengal will perish in the chaos? If your writing slows the effort to mitigate the damage to even an 'nth degree, you can count your small self incrementally responsible for those deaths. Nobody knows exactly what will happen, but there is universal concensus amoung weather scientists that it is happening. You tag yourself a fool of the highest order writing this sort of drivel. Your careless irresponsible excuse for journalism should be cause for your dismissal. Joel Achenbach: I think "The Tempest" helps people understand the origin of global warming skepticism, and thus provided a public service. I'm very happy with how it turned out. Arlington, Va: Joel - Very impressive and thorough Sunday article sorting out (to the extent possible!) the yins and yangs in the global warming debate. I first came across the so-called Skeptic positions at the time of the Kyoto treaty signing. As a liberal and an environmentalist, I was surprised that some of those arguments still did give me pause and seem persuasive. Especially when so many "smart scientific" folks seemed to be party to them. As I have a good many smart scientific people as my own friends and colleagues, I initially didn't think of the positions of the Global Warming Skeptics as necessarily "conservative". But as I read more widely, a pattern did seem to emerge, as those writers and speakers often drifted wide-rangingly into (rather jaw-dropping) accusations about the other side's broader social agenda, communism, intentional annihilation of all poor folks in third world countries, etc. You talked a little about this, as personified by this movement's especially colorful characters like Bill Gray and Fred Smith. But my question is more about the more "mainstream skeptics", for lack of a better term. As you looked at the people, journals and organizations who in general get in line behind them on the underlying position on global warming, are the demographics still skewed largely to the political right? And if so, any theories as to why? I realize time will have to tell which group has the right answers on this critical issue. But it seems if we could somehow remove the political-spectrum overlay, we might have better and more productive conversations about it. Joel Achenbach: The partisan nature of scientific debates is dismaying to me. But yes, skeptics tend to be conservatives, as far as I could tell (though Gray said he used to be a knee jerk liberal). I think "skepticism" in general is a good thing. I don't think people should blindly believe everything they're told. I think the consensus can sometimes be wrong. And I don't think people should make decisions about science based on the political affiliations of the people presenting the arguments. Science works in part because you can be right even if your politics are wacko. I actually called Michael Shermer (editor of the magazine "Skeptic") and asked him about all this, and he said that until recently he'd been a GW skeptic, too, but was converted by Gore's movie. Johnstown, Pa: I read the article on Global warming by Mr. Achenbach with interest. However to my surprise, every aspect of global warming was covered, except the role of SUN! in global warming. Many of us apaprently have forgotten that all of earth's activities, as far as the water and ice and winds are concerned are affected by SUN's activities' directly, not to mention life on earth. I would suggest that Mr. Achenbach write an article on the central role of SUN in the global warming and cover that REAL story for all of us. I am sure there are cyclical events happening in regards to the activity of SUN that are affecting us here on earth. Joel Achenbach: It's true that scientists believe that increased solar radiation early in the 20th century was a factor in the global warming in those decades. But only Fred Singer seems to think that the sun is the cause of the warming of the past three decades or so. Washington, DC: You might have delved into Tech Central Station a little deeper, after mentioning that they contracted media handlers for Dr Gray at the Hurricane Conference. It was recently revealed by the Washington Monthly that Tech Central Station is a project of DCI Communications, a Washington lobby firm in fact THE registered lobbyists for ExxonMobil according to House and Senate records. hmmmm.... what does Exxon have to gain from Dr. Gray's voice being amplified? M St Again: I'm sorry my question made you so cranky. In fact I reread your piece more than once to make sure I didn't miss anything before submitting the question. Is no one allowed to criticize your work? Tetchiness isn't a useful attribute for a reporter. Joel Achenbach: You can criticize my work! I'm sorry if I was defensive. I should have better manners than that. I just don't think you were giving that CEI section a fair reading. But I guess the deconstructionists would say that the author doesn't really get to decide what a text "means." Washington DC: I'm often curious as to the motives of global warming skeptics. In your personal opinion after having spoken to so many of them, was your sense that they are just nuts, just chasing industry money, or do they actually honestly believe that global warming won't have the dire consequences some think it will? Joel Achenbach: I find that, to a remarkable degree, people say what they believe. That doesn't mean they won't cash a check from some source (industry, a non-profit, a think tank, whatever) that agrees with them and is happy that they made the argument. But most people are true believers. That's what gives them energy. Faith is a greater motivator even than money. Crab City (Baltimore), Md.: Your critic from Alabama is quick to criticize the evidence of a Medieval warm period, which raises an interesting question: If we're supposed to dismiss evidence from back in that era because of the faulty collection of data back then, then exactly how are we supposed to accept data from ages ago as evidence that the planet was cooler back then? Could not a great deal of the evidence cited for global warming actually be due to vastly more accurate and widespread data, rather than just sampling tree rings in the Amazon and ice bores in the Arctic as evidence? I know scientists are supposed to extrapolate for such data refinement, but....... Joel Achenbach: I don't think the climate record of the past million years or so is based on a single ice core or a single data point. And to the extent that there have been studies that were based on limited evidence, they've been battered pretty hard. The fact is, scientists like to disprove things. They like to find out that someone else's work is faulty. There's a hazing of the evidence. Look at the debate about the ivory-billed woodpecker, or the debate about the "Hobbit" of the island of Flores: There's always someone ready to poke through the data and come up with a different interpretation. That's why in our story we talk about the consensus as something that continues to emerge and firm up. Washington, DC: Wow-- the vitriol you're getting in this chat for even mentioning those who are arguing against global warming--in a non-complimentary way at that--is pretty staggering. I am just about as certain as a non-scientist can be that it's a serious problem, and I'm very interested in what should be done about it. But the responses you're getting here make it pretty easy to sympathize with all of the folks you mention in the article. Apparently, if you don't believe that the world is coming to an end tomorrow you're evil. Who knew? So the question-- you make note of this in the article, but do you think there's any way this country will ever return to a time when scientific issues can be discussed, umm, scientifically, without all of the partisan antics? Or am I just too young to realize that that was never actually the case? Joel Achenbach: Well, vitriol is part of the mix these days. This hasn't been too bad. You should check out -- dare I say it? -- my blog, Achenblog -- here on our site -- because the people who comment there are intelligent and rational and sober. Well, intelligent and rational. Often sober. I mean, they CAN be sober, at certain times of day. They've been spotted sober on occasion. Knoxville, Tenn.: I think the questions in this discussion really show why having a shrill political debate on the topic of global warming is so detrimental! People who are taking the logical and right position that we should do something about global warming are so enraged by the debate that they fail to see the fact that your article was about putting sunshine to flawed arguments. As someone who does science writing on the PIO side, I loved the article - you gave these folks the opportunity to sell their side, and they failed miserably. Joel Achenbach: Thanks, Knoxville! I like that sunshine phrase, I'll steal it if that's OK. Batesville, Va: "Gore believed in global warming almost as much as Hitler believed there was something wrong with the Jews." By quoting some nut who compares Al Gore to Hitler you perpetuate the ugly slander so that still others will pass it around; sort of like, ah, Goebbels, I suppose. Joel Achenbach: Any sane person would find that the quote is more damaging to the speaker than to Gore. Washington, DC: How could you write an article about the "Skeptics Industry", and interview so many, yet ignore how Exxon Mobil has funded near all of them ? (Yes, the exception seems to be Gray - but why would anyone give so much credibility to the words of a leaf specialist if their concern is with the forest?) For starters, try exxonmobilsecrets.org - it's an easily accesible funding database set up long ago by Greenpeace. By not examining their skeptics' funding, you've highlighted the rather large difference in journalistic acumen between WashPost and NYT's magazines. Joel Achenbach: My story explicitly states that fossil fuel industries have poured millions into the anti-global warming campaign. And it gets more specific: "CEI relies on donations from individuals, foundations and corporations. The most generous sponsors of last year's annual dinner at the Capital Hilton were the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Exxon Mobil, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, and Pfizer. Other contributors included General Motors, the American Petroleum Institute, the American Plastics Council, the Chlorine Chemistry Council and Arch Coal." "[CEI] still gets money from Exxon Mobil, the biggest and most hard-line oil company on the climate change issue, but many of its donors have stopped sending checks." bc in DC: HI JOEL. I'M SCREAMING THIS AT THE TOP OF MY LUNGS BECAUSE I CAN'T AFFORD A TV AD CAMPAIGN, DEDICATED WEB SITES OR A LOBBYING GROUP/TRAVEL AGENCY TO GET YOUR ATTENTION. I -WOULD- SET MYSELF ON FIRE, BUT THAT WOULD PROBABLY KEEP ME FROM SCOOPING THE LITTER BOXES AND TAKING THE TRASH OUT TONIGHT, WHICH MAKES IT A NON-STARTER ACCORDING TO MY WIFE. AND IT WOULD ADD TO THE AMOUNT OF METHANE IN THE ATMOSPHERE, WHICH WOULD MAKE IT AN IRRESPONSIBLE ACT. Gosh, that was tiring. Anyway, we've been hearing both extremes of the Global Warming debate, and thanks for bringing the far conservative point ot view. Short of having our own Ariel to help us make everything right in a few quick Acts, it there a person or an organization that you think might be an effective focal point for a reasonable middle ground, one that advocates (and more importantly) and can coordinate large-scale actions to reduce the human contributions to global warming? I know we may have lost a chance with the Kyoto accord... Secondly, here on Earth, we're facing Global Warming and potentially disasterous effects at some point in the future, yet the rest of the universe is facing a possible Heat Death, a future where Everything has cooled off to a point near absolute zero C, and eternal nothingess. I'm worried about both possible futures. What should I do? I heard you tell Bob Wright on bloggingheads tv the other day "I don't know", so I'm hoping you have had some time to consider a different answer. Joel Achenbach: I don't know. Actually, I may do a story on the future of energy, and would love to explore alternative energy, conservation, etc., and will keep you updated about what I find out -- on the Achenblog. Maryland: Well, Fred Smith is right about one thing: CEI's commercials (video on their website) do bring a tear to my eye. I often tear up when I'm laughing that hard. Do the skeptics really frame the economic argument in terms of using fossil fuels vs. not using any fuels at all? It seems like there should be money to be made (and jobs to be created) from development and marketing of alternative fuels, as well the growth of emerging technologies in the building industry. Joel Achenbach: I think the solution to global warming is going to make some entrepreneurs a lot of money. To that end, it needn't necessary require across-the-board suppression of the spirit of competitive enterprise. Washington, DC: I really appreciate your illumination of the insanity and delusion of the global warming naysayers. It was a fun read. But you missed a few points. Tech Central Station is run by DCI Communications the Hill registered lobbyists for ExxonMobil!! no small item that EXXON was essentially running Dr Gray's media at the hurricane conference. Also, having watchdogged these clowns (CEI and friends) for a decade, the lead has to be that the only reason they have staff and offices is corporate funding. They are the definition of FRONT GROUP. CEI is the largest recipient of Exxon funding since the Kyoto Protocol, now topping $2 million dollars 1998-2005 according to Exxon documents, a significant portion of the $19 million in skeptic funding from Exxon we have tracked on www.exxonsecrets.org. As Mr. Smith slips in the last stanza of your piece saying other companies no longer fund their dirty tricks. That is because Exxon is the laggard and American Petroleum Institute, which they dominate has been the spearhead to a campaign to deliberately slow down and stall action on global warming. Its not just about questioning the science, its how the science drives the policy train and CEI knows that if they confuse the public on science all else slows down. Joel Achenbach: Thanks for interesting comment. Perhaps the Tech Central Station folks could have been explored more. Arlington Va: Thank you for your excellent piece in the Magazine. Some understanding of Bill Gray's myopia may be gained from understanding the distinction between two different types of meteorology: short- and medium-term weather forecasters and the much longer time horizons of climatologists. Bill Gray does great work forecasting the number and severity of hurricanes based on near-term observations of weather patterns. It is unfortunate that he dismisses the recorded observations and modeling of long-term climatologists, who are warning us of climate disruption. They do work with different data, different assumptions, and different methods. One other point that was left unsaid is that, while climate change skeptics warn with hyperbole about the disastrous effects of limiting fossil fuel, the Chicken Littles of industry (especially auto industry and electric utilities ) opposing environmental regulation have been proven wrong over and over again for the past 3 decades. Whether addressing smokestack controls for acid rain, fuel economy standards for car efficiency, reducing tailpipe emissions, or what-have-you, the polluters have claimed that meeting these clear air requirements would mean economic ruin. But in each case, ingenuity and smart engineering have provided solutions at little or no cost while providing enormous benefits. We have off-the-shelf answers to avoid exacerbating climate change, and surely a national commitment will bring forth more. Joel Achenbach: The classic example is complying with the CFC ban -- a top-down ban by governments that led to a lot of profits, ultimately, by the chemical industry as it switched to different refrigerants. We're running over here. I'm going to post a few of the comments/statements/invectives even though I don't have time to craft much of a response. Arlington, Va: Do you really think it's appropriate to give so much space to an idea (global warming doesn't exist) for which there's so little scientific evidence? Are you responding to some push to be "objective" when all you're relly doing is giving equal time to the other side? Joel Achenbach: I would invite readers to look at the Technorati links to the story. Very few people have argued that it shouldn't have been written. Durham, NC: Some people say that the only scientists who still question the human causes of global climate change are those who are bought and paid for by big oil. How do you answer those charges? And how much of your funding comes from ExxonMobil and other corporations in the fossil fuel industry? Joel Achenbach: My funding? I actually am funding ExxonMobil a LOT lately. Thanks for covering the 'other' side of the global warming debate. I think that it's important to point out how a lot of people are coming to swift conclusions, and that you just can't do that in science without hard data to back things up - you would never approve a drug if your 'trends showed' that it was safe. Maybe it was the people who you interviewed for the story, but I did have a major problem with the linking of the skeptics to their opinions on fossil fuel consumption. I agree that there are other environmental problems that we should address - lack of sustainable farming, for example - but bundling the lack-of-data skepticism with the 'why should we become oil-independent' throughout the article seemed a bit much. I think that their opinions of fossil fuel use are completely separate from the argument against global warming, and your article seemed to keep linking them together. That, and the other comment I had is that Bush isn't a 'skeptic' by any means. He would have to understand the science to have an opinion. But thanks again for bringing this 'dark side' to light. Joel Achenbach: Thanks for the comment. I understand how the opinions of the owners and producers of petroleum products who wish to sell thier products are derived. I also understand a certain type of conservative/right wing who find environmentalists/left wingers annoying (being slightly right of center myself). The thing that I do not understand about the conservative opinion in America, is that there are a lot of conservatives who think that, regardless of global warming, America's reliance on foreign oil has been detrimental to America financially not to mention politically. I talk to my friends and they (mostly) think global warming is a bit chicken little, but they all agree that alternative energy sources produced here in America (solar, wind, whatever..) if viable would be a great thing. The key word there is viable obviously. But I do not understand why the conservatives, in the financial, small government sense are not jumping on the bandwagon to turn America in that direction. Did you do any research as to the opinions of this subset of conservatives? Where are their views? Joel Achenbach: Tom Friedman argues in "the World is Flat" that Bush had a golden opportunity to put America on a moonshot-style program to achieve energy independence before the decade wasa out. Boodledelphia, Md: I thought it was a great piece, Joel, and it was a great service to the debate to profile the skeptics' side of the argument. But it is so hard to have a reasonable, sane discussion about almost any issue anymore without somebody in the blogosphere going ballistic. Have you had any "blowback" from any of the skeptics themselves yet? Joel Achenbach: I am waiting to hear from Dr. Gray. I heard one skeptic say the piece was fair. We're doing a radio program this afternoon, and there may be more blowback then. Washington, DC: I think this article made it clear that the anti-global- warmalists were looping their logic and getting tangled in their own rhetoric. As someone concerned about global warming, it was an intriguing window into the other side. Washington, DC: Joel, tried to post previously... Maybe a technical difficulty you referred to.. Overall, a wonderful job of objective journalism related to a highly emotional and controversial issue. And I'm glad you cited that comment by Professor Gray over the predictions of a "New Ice Age" back in the '70s. That's just a mere 30 years ago and I recall it generated considerable concern and controversy (we discussed it in school, I recall).. Quick question.. Did anyone provide a reasonable answer as to why rising CO2 levels are not being "neutralized" by increasing plant growth?? Suggest you research the work of the late Dr. John Martin and his claim that the oceanic "nutrient deficiency" is one of the causes of rising CO2 levels, citing that phytoplankton, responsible for 90% of all global CO2 seqestration, are unable to grow in response to this increase in the gas they consume. His proposal has the beauty of being controllable, highly effective, efficient and cost effective, and beneficial to the entire realm of the oceanic food chain. But no one wants to discuss "geo-engineering", despite the fact that the planet engages in altering its climate every day. Thanks again for a great article!! Joel Achenbach: Thanks. I'll let readers track down the Martin research, I'm unfamiliar with it. And I don't know to what extent plant growth could counter CO2 increases over a longer period of time -- though there's a lot of research on that at the moment. But if climate is destabilized rapidly, nothin' much good can come of that. That's the more important point. One of the problems with the constant mentioning of the Ice Age fears of the 1970s is that it's irrelevant NOW what scientists said THEN. Climate science today is so much more advanced than it was then. Baltimore, Md: One issue I've yet to see raised is that of just how reliable the scientific community can be in all this. If we are to dismiss those whi dismiss or question the science behind global warming theories because they're taking money from "big oil", automakers, and the like, why should we accept the theories of environmental scientists, who--at least in theory--can be viewed as people advocating decades of government-subsidized spending on more scientific research, all by crying "crisis"? I'm not one to dismiss or ignore global warming theories, but it seems to me that the scientific "community" stands to "profiteer" from a global warming "crisis" as much or more so than auto makers, etc. stand to profit from the status quo. And no one's answered the $64 trillion dollar question: If humans revert to cavemen-like existence and global warming continues upwards (possibly because of some unremarked factor that humans can do nothing about, like animal flatulence or seismic/volcanic activity), then who will be the fall guy to accept the wrath of what's left of Homo Sapiens? Joel Achenbach: Most climate scientists that I spoke to are civil servants who don't "profit" from issuing warnings of climate change. They're credible scientists who are following the data. Joel Achenbach: I am way overtime here. I'm sorry I left so many questions/comments unaddressed. If you wish, you can post comments DIRECTLY to my blog, at washingtonpost.com/achenblog. Washington DC: What's your personal view of the issue? Is it all gloom and doom do you think, or is there perhaps some value to the notion that we can--and should--simply adapt to whatever changes global warming brings our way? Have your feelings about some of the direst predictions about climate change changed at all while reporting this story? Joel Achenbach: I accept the consensus view -- and the full range of possibilities therein. In general I believe that human beings can adapt to their problems if they are willing to recognize them. I also suspect that our list of serious environmental problems doesn't begin and end with global warming. 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.
Joel Achenbach fields questions and comments about global warming skeptics.
701.181818
0.909091
2.727273
high
medium
mixed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/23/DI2006052300624.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006052919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/23/DI2006052300624.html
Chatological Humor* (UPDATED 6.2.06)
2006052919
* Formerly known as "Funny? You Should Ask ." Daily Updates: 5.31.06 | 6.1.06 | 6.2.06 Gene Weingarten's controversial humor column, Below the Beltway , appears every Sunday in the Washington Post Magazine. He aspires to someday become a National Treasure, but is currently more of a National Gag Novelty Item, like rubber dog poo. He is online, at any rate, each Tuesday, to take your questions and abuse. Weingarten is the author of "The Hypochondriac's Guide to Life. And Death" and co-author of "I'm with Stupid," with feminist scholar Gina Barreca. "Below the Beltway" is now syndicated nationally by The Washington Post Writers Group . New to Chatological Humor? Read the FAQ . This will be a comparatively short intro, because Chatwoman just assassinated the lengthy, serious intro I had prepared. It was on the subject of virtual child pornography -- e.g, images created digitally, through PhotoShop, with no exploitation of children. This issue was raised in last week's chat update, when a reader asked if I felt there was anything "wrong" with it. After a lengthy consultation with my soul, taking into account issues of free speech and the sanctity of private thought, I concluded, reluctantly, that there was nothing wrong with it. Many readers disagreed. Well, last week I further researched this topic at disgusting length, including visits to some unnerving chats, and was prepared to issue a final report. I showed my report to Liz, who killed it for what I believe was the correct reason: It would have opened this chat up to a very skeevy clientele, and you all would have had to take showers immediately afterwards, and that might cause a problem, say, in the Rayburn House Office Building. To cut to the chase: In 2002, the Supreme Court actually addressed this issue, holding that the federal government could not outlaw the making and distribution of virtual child porn; that it amounted to free speech; that there is no evidence it whets the appetites of perverts for actual abuse, or encourages illegal acts. Even Clarence Thomas concurred, and Scalia in part. Nuff said. Brian Midson asks if it is too early to make fun of NPR's Cheryl Corley for un-ironically describing the New Orleans situation as a "morass." No, Brian, it is fine. Please take today's poll. It will not surprise you that I wrote this poll last week in a self-righteous froth, with no research required. You guys are showing yourselves to be waaay too lenient. This was an interesting comics week. I must direct your attention to Saturday's Curtis, which underscores one reason I have come to like this strip. Refreshingly, it breaks so many taboos: The daddy smokes. There is wenching and lusting and hating. And check out this one for mean-spiritedness and violence. The CPOW goes to Pearls Before Swine -- the other grand repository of mean-spirited humor -- in particular for this sequence: May 25 | May 26. First runner up is Zits, for its rather touching and funny treatment of the impending breakup of Jeremy and Sara, culminating perfectly today. Honorables: Monday's Mother Goose and Grimm, Saturday's Blondie, Saturday's Garfield, and Saturday's Sally Forth, for a very nice in-joke. Can ANYONE explain Sunday's FBOFW? Falls Church, Va.: You left out one of my favorite annoying phrases: "Where's the pen at?" "Where's Steve at?" What's wrong with the usage of "hopefully" washingtonpost.com: Where's your question mark at? Gene Weingarten: You've all figured out by now that Chatwoman is far funnier than I am, right? As far as hopefully, you are hopeless: "Hopefully" is an adverb. It modifies a verb. One does something "hopefully," meaning one does it with hope. "Hopefully, he applied for the job." "Hopefully, it will not rain" means absolutely nothing. It doesn't mean "I hope it will not rain." This may be the single most common misuse of English, other than the "anyone"..."their" construction. Washington, D.C.: You know what a double dactile poem is, right? Would you please write one concerning some item of current events? Please do it very quickly to impress us. 15th and L NW: He came into the office that day somewhat tired, after a long, but entertaining, Memorial Day holiday weekend crammed full of activities, including barbecues, sex, relaxing on the beach, drinking, bars and parties, and settled into his drab gray newsroom cubicle to write yet another 50,000-word feature story for either Style or the A section, and he pondered just how long to make his lead paragraph for the first three hours of that post-holiday, neo-workday, ur-zeitgeist day at the office. "Hmmm," he said over his third cup of newsroom coffee of the morning. "How do make a story about the declining interest in reading newspapers attractive to our demographic audience? Maybe I'll write this story from my point of view, as an Ivy League-educated, upper-middle-class yuppie who has never know financial hardship. That will reel our readers in!" He began his story with the two paragraphs above, figuring that the long lead and first-person point-of-view would be vastly entertaining to today's newspaper audience. Meanwhile, The Washington Post and nearly every other newspaper recently reported circulation declines and declining profits. Gene Weingarten: Verrrry good. This is in reference to question 3 a, in the poll, and it is clearly written by a pro. Lessee. I am guessing Von Drehle, but it could be Ahrens. Care to identify yourself? Seattle, Wash.: Well. Heck. I've spent my entire life in the word business, and I have never heard anybody gripe about the word "husband." And 30 percent of people find it insulting? I bet this problem never occurred to half the folks who specified it in the poll until you gave 'em that choice. Gene Weingarten: You're reading the answer wrong. Just about nobody is bothered by "husband," apparently except me and Tamar Lewin, my friend at the New York Times. At least, she was. For at least a time after her marriage she would grudgingly introduce Robert Krulwich as "my huzzzzzzzzzband." Like what?: Hi Gene, Your poll made me think of something. I am guilty of occasionally interjecting "like" into a sentence. But mostly I use it when telling a story: "I was like, '...' And he was like, '...'" I don't want to say "I said" because I don't remember my (or especially someone else's) exact wording, and I don't want my paraphrase (and embellishment to convey the tone :) of what someone said to be misconstrued as an exact quote. But at the same time, I am aware that it sounds very high school. So do you have a suggestion of a phrase that's succinct to get across the same idea as "His words coupled with his demeanor left me with the impression that he meant, '...'"? Gene Weingarten: Yes, "I was like" is appalling. And it really marks a person as being pretty young and callow. So MANY young people are saying it, however, that it may well survive into adulthood. Someday I may be sentenced by a judge who says, "I was like, omigod, I can't believe you did that." Or even better, "he said." No one presumes a direct quote. One presumes paraphrase. Gene Weingarten: There's an egregious corollary to "I was like." It is: "And then she goes ..." We're simply in hell discussing these things. Gene Weingarten: There's an egregious corollary to "I was like." It is: "And then she goes ..." We're simply in hell discussing these things. Gene Weingarten: I'd say it a third time, but you probably have gotten it by now. My Fantasies: I found last week's poll about people and their sexual thoughts to be extremely interesting, but something bothered me about it initially. I didn't put my finger on it until later Tuesday evening when I was out for dinner with some friends. As a single, straight woman in her early 20s, I found myself looking at guys in the restaurant and judging them not based on how sexually attractive they were to me, but instead whether I thought each looked like a man I could spend the rest of my life with. I mean, seriously, it seems like I can sometimes look at a man and know what we would look like walking down the street holding hands, whether that is someone I can bring home to meet my parents, what he would look like in a tuxedo at the front of a church during our wedding, and how he would look and feel after we had our first child. These are my fantasies; I don't tend to have wild sexual thoughts about men I see in restaurants or on the street. Is this normal? Any thoughts? Gene Weingarten: Well, I don't want to get pounded by women here for stereotyping, but Darwinians would argue that your attitude is predictable: As a woman, you are seeking a man not just for sex, but to be a provider and a protector and a father. You, being the biologically chosen caregiver and nurturer, seek a man who will not only impregnate you but stick around afterwards to help raise the child. Whereas men, biologically, are looking to spread their seed as indiscriminately as possible. It is that argument that tends to excuse philandering. Men like that argument, though it is obviously bogus in a sophisticated, civilized society. I will observe this: I find handholding a silly, childish, unromantic, unsatisfying thing. I much prefer to walk with my arm around my wife's shoulders, and I think she likes it when I do this -- even after I pointed out to her that her shoulder socket felt perfect in my hand or armpit, inasmuch as it almost perfectly replicates the dimensions of a Major Leage baseball. She is small. She used his false teeth as a "cookie cutter": Not funny, but straight-forward. Gene Weingarten: But there is no evidence for that! You don't see the teeth. You don't see her returning the teeth. Like, Hopefully: I am a former English major and a professional writer, and I'd like to stand up for the use of the word "hopefully." I take it as shorthand for "Speaking hopefully." It's an idiom. It does a job. What are we supposed to say, "It is to be hoped?" Yecch. Also, while "like" as a place filler is, like, annoying, it works when used to mean "sort of" or "approximately." "There were, like, 300 people in and out of the party in the first hour." Gene Weingarten: That's a pretty major elision you are requiring, no? I would think I could make almost any grammatical error seem okay by presupposing another word or two. Is Pthep around? Explicati, ON: Hi Gene -- a new poetry issue driving me nuts (ha ha). The great poem "Mending Wall" is being abused in the separation of powers debate. They keep implying that Frost was promoting the sentiment that "Good fences make good neighbors". But he states, "Something there is that doesn't like a wall". That something is FROST, i.e. the poet himself. He doesn't really think fences are so hot. So don't use the poem to promote the Good Fences doctrine, dammit! Separation of powers is great, as is the wall between church & state, but this abouse of Robert Frost really gets under my skin. Gene Weingarten: Agreed, and true. It is like idiots who wave flags when Springsteen sings Born in the USA, or conversely, when people think The Ugly American is about how bad Americans are. Alexandria, Va.: It was Leibovich who sent that in, taunting you with his fancy new job at the Times. Gene Weingarten: Was it? Can we confirm that? Gene Weingarten: Okay, the double dactyl: But not shamed by cash in Looking at the sun: I would love to see a frank and honest exchange of ideas on the following question -- cleavage. Especially from your female readers. I, a male reader, would love some guidance and enlightenment. Is it just my fervid middle-aged (approximately the same vintage as Gene) imagination, or are more women showing more cleavage than ever before? I would like an honest response -- How do women expect men to react to this display? Okay, we understand, it is not nice to stare, ever. But do they really expect us not to look at all? Do they expect us not to see or take notice? Or do they want us to look, and know, "This is as close as you're ever gonna get to these, sucka!" I suppose there might be as many responses as there are women out there who heart Gene. (By the way, I'm a guy who loves women, especially the one I'm married to, who has beautiful cleavage. She rarely shows it off in the current fashion however, so this isn't something I can ask her.) Gene Weingarten: I wrote a column, with Gina, on a corollary to this very subject: the short skirt on an escalator. Liz, can we find it? washingtonpost.com: Peek Experiences , ( Post Magazine, Aug 1, 2004 ) FBOW: "But there is no evidence for that! You don't see the teeth. You don't see her returning the teeth." There IS evidence. Look at the shape of the cut marks in the clay! Gene Weingarten: They're NOT teeth marks. British English: So, I'm as pc as the next person, and yet I hate typing things that require a his or hers line. I read once that British English was adopting using "their" in that circumstance, although it would mean a singular subject and yet plural "their." Of course I cannot come up with a single example of what I mean. Anyway, presuming you know what I mean, what do you think of that use of their instead of his or hers? Gene Weingarten: I hate it, but I am a purist. Pthep, I think, does not hate it, and she is a purist, too. So I dunno. There is a stupid movement to create a word. I think it is zir. The members of this movement can go f--- zirselfs. CPOW: How could you possible overlook Sunday's Doonesbury listing the names of American KIAs in Iraq since April 2005? Many of these names were Marines who Trudeau called "losers" in his Sunday strip two weeks ago. A laff riot! washingtonpost.com: Doonesbury , ( May 28 ) Gene Weingarten: He did not call them losers. That is a willful misreading of what he did. Liz, can we find that strip? Mr. Trudeau is not unsympathetic to the plight of service men and women. He is almost awed by their sacrifice. Poll...: What about irregardless? That's the worst! Gene Weingarten: They're ALL bad. Laurel, Md.: But at what point (PtheP there?) does a grammatical error simply become an idiom through common usage. Phrases like "I haven't the slightest" would be pretty lame-sounding if many people didn't use them. The use of "their" to avoid sexist language is another grammatical-error-turned-idiom. As is, in my opinion, "hopefully." Gene Weingarten: You know another awful one: "I could care less." Maryland: "Significant Other" is stilted, but at least it is accurate. My MIL, long divorced from my FIL, began to date a long-time friend, also divorced. The two had a long and happy relationship, eventually moving in together, but never married. I think both had enough of the instutition of marriage. I always struggled what to call MIL's signifcant other. Boyfriend? He's 70! Lover? Not a mental picture I want. Husband? Accurate in all but name, but no. Partner? Companion? Those work, but are most used for homosexual relationships. Significant other works. That's good enough for me and I can live with the awkwardness. In his obituary, they referred to my MIL as "companion", which also works. Gene Weingarten: Probably husband, in that case. I mean, who cares. Or "friend." Providence, R.I.: The thing that bothers me most in spoken language is the misue of the word "literally," when people are literally speaking figuratively, i.e. "the candidate is literally flying under the radar, or, "she literally counted her chickens before she hatched." Aargh. washingtonpost.com: Doonesbury , ( May 7 ) FBOFW: Ok, so is Lynn J. going to get Elizabeth and Anthony together after all? I thought by introducing "Mr. Wright" she was closing that door. But the latest storyline doesn't back that up. Plus, does anyone else get the feeling that Mr. Wonderful is a little bit controlling? I don't know if she wanted to make him seem romantic, but the way he talked from the beginning kind of skeeved me out. Gene Weingarten: Oh, she has tipped her hand this week, big time. Yes, Liz will find Anthony. This was kind of apparent from the start, because it doesn't make much sense, plotwise, for Liz to remain in Mtigwaki, or whatever it is. Canyousee, ME: Proof that National Geographic has a sense of humor. Click on the "photo" on the left side. Washington, D.C.: So I was thinking about when you said the other week that you once got busted when you passed a woman and turned to check her out. I think the reason you were so embarassed was not because you felt bad for checking her out, but because you felt bad for getting busted. If you felt bad for checking her out, you would never look. But all men feel that they are so skilled that they never get noticed, and so constantly look, when I suspect the opposite is true. That being said, my wife once paid me the highest compliment a husband could receive: She noted that I never check out other women when she's around. Which obviously means I am VERY skilled. Gene Weingarten: I am not that skilled. I solve this problem by not checking other women out when I am with my wife. I just don't. For one thing, I have someone else to look at; but more important, I would never risk the penalty. It's not worth it. Maryland: If I'm showing cleavage, it's because I want to show it. I know it's there and I picked a top that shows 'em off. A quick appreciative look is fine. A long look of lust is not. If you want to see some clevage pop, go to a Renn fest. Bodices naturally push everything up, but some women are so precariously perched in their bodices that I expect a sneeze would result in nipplage. Her cups runneth over. Gene Weingarten: Nipplage! A nice term. Practically a Renaissance term. Rockville, Md.: Cleavage is seen more often because it's more socially acceptable to flash cleavage. My somewhat staid college roomie asked me the other day to "give an excuse to wear a cleavage-baring tubetop." I told her cleavage is a gift to the world, and as such, should be shown as much as possible. Of course, I have a skewed view of things. I'm a stripper. washingtonpost.com: We have strippers in the audience. Gene Weingarten: I am an ecdysiast enthusiast. Okay, I am not really, but I had to say it. Adverbs don't just modify verbs: They also modify adjectives, adverbs -- and most pertinently for our discussion, entire clauses. For example, "Regrettably, the game was rained out," and "Thankfully, I made it to the airport on time." These are both perfectly correct uses of adverbs. Note that in the second, the phrase can be elided as "I am thankful that I made it to the airport on time" -- an exact analogy to your supposedly incorrect use of "hopefully." Gene Weingarten: I believe neither of those is right. I still await Pat. Certainly, "thankfully" is wrong. Salt Lake City, Utah: So, with your views on virtual child porn, pornagraphy in general, hate crimes, and any number of other issues brought up in your chat, you seem to be saying that you don't think that thinking at length about an action makes you more likely to do that action. Is this a correct take on your opinion? And if so, what do you think motivates people to do things? Gene Weingarten: I don't think the existence of porn makes a person think any more about sexual things. I think it just alters the nature of the thinking. Gramm AR: Many of the grammar points in the chat are very unique. Springfield, Va.: You said it. In your column in today's Post magazine you wrote, "Let us begin with, quote unquote, getting a job." Why is it "quote unquote, getting a job" and not "quote getting a job unquote" I have probably used the marks wrong - but you get the idea. Why is the idiom Why doesn't the spoken idiom match the places where we put the written quote marks? My husband sees challenges. I see PROBLEMS. Not surprisingly, he is the optimist in this marriage. washingtonpost.com: Below the Beltway: Bad News , ( Post Magazine, May 28 ) Gene Weingarten: Because that is the spoken idiom. That is how people say it, so that is how it is recognizable. It is wrong, but real. The advantage is that it is presented with irony. Much as "Significant Other" is presented with irony, which leads us directly to the poll analysis. Gene Weingarten: Okay, the poll. I don't have much more to say. Obviously, it was just a rant, and almost everything bothers me, equally. I am disappointed mostly in your willingness to tolerate the cliches. These things hugely offend me, all of them. I hate cliches like there's no tomorrow. I avoid them like the plague. There are only two things in the poll that don't bother me much. The first is the term "Significant Other," because I believe it can only be spoken with irony. No one really uses that term seriously - to use it is to joke about its silliness. The second is that sports imperfect subjunctive. I kind of find it charming, and distinctive, and it lacks nothing in clarity. And last, let me share with you this refrain from Dave Barry's excellent song "Proofreading Woman" I'm in love with a proofreading woman, Gonna love her 'til the day I die She got a big dictionary She never says "between you and I". Enlighten, ME: So what's the Ugly American about? I confess I am an Ignorant American. At least I'm asking a question. Gene Weingarten: It's about 450 pages. It's about Americans doing good work in foreign lands, and taking crap for it, as I recall. But it's been 40 years. Can anyone assist? Pretentious Boss : HI Gene, I just came from an eye-rolling meeting from the office of my super-pretentious boss. He should just start yelling "I have money" because everything he does/wears/says illustrates that. But I was staring around his office during the meeting and noticed his fancy grandfather clock has Roman Numerals I, II, III, and IIII. It made me smile to think he probably shelled out a ton of money for an incorrectly marked clock. Wanted to share but didn't know of anyone else who might find it amusing. Gene Weingarten: It is not incorrect! All Roman numeraled clocks use the IIII and that is so it balances the VIII on the other side. Otherwise, they would look imbalanced,with two symbols on one side and four on the other. Pat the Perfect, ME: Re the use of "hopefully" to mean "it is to be hoped that": I consider this an extremely minor sin, precisely because, as the reader noted, it is an elegant and economical way to say "it is to be hoped." Also, no one I know has any problem with, say, using "fortunately" to mean "it is fortunate that." If you say "Fortunately, the bear was killed before eating any more children," who's going to argue that it wasn't fortunate for the bear? I would NEVER edit "it is to be hoped" into someone's writing. I wouldn't mind at all if that meaning of "hopefully" were proclaimed standard English. She said hopefully. Using "their" with a singular noun is something I try very hard to avoid. There are some singular-noun/plural-verb constructions, however, that are truly impossible to write around without causing comical damage. Gene Weingarten: This is it for our relationship, Pat. I cannot BELIEVE you are a defender of hopefully. So, as the great arbiter of humor, can you tell me if that new Miller Lite commercial is funny or just offensive? (Yes, I realize those things aren't always mutually exclusive.) The ad has a bunch of men debating over the practice of sticking your finger in the opening of a beer bottle to carry it, and they all come to agreement that "if you poke it, you own it." (They actually repeat this line several times, to make sure you don't miss it.) This is declared a new "Man Law"--you poke it, you own it. Am I an utterly humorless feminist? I get that it's supposed to be funny. I think it misses. What say you? Gene Weingarten: Well, I never saw the ad, and I'm laffin'. RE: Cleavage question: I am an early-30's female. And, yes, women are, as a whole, showing more cleavage. Clothing styles are designed with lower necklines, even t-shirts for women now are generally v-necked rather than short scoop necked. For one, I find this incredibly frustrating, due to my general shape. I'm five-foot-nothing, weigh around 100-105, and have a very large bust. I mean very. I mean I probably qualify for reduction surgery for health reasons. If I wear loose-fitting clothes, because of the short span between my chest and waist, I look pregnant. If I wear more form-fitting clothes, coupled with the new trend downward in necklines, I look like a prostitute or porn star. What's a gal to do? Gene Weingarten: Hm. So the remainder of your body, excluding bazooms, weighs about 65 pounds? Rockville, Md., Stripper: Interestingly enough, I've noticed the men at my club don't seem to care too much about the size or shape of the boob, but rather the fact that there IS a boob. I doubt they look closely anyway. I think men like the public display of cleavage of all women. They probably don't care if it's big or small, as Wonderbras are the great equalizer. They just like the idea that women are showing 'em off. I say, rock on sisters! Soon to be Capitol Hill: I am about to move to Capitol Hill. Please rank the three best restaurants. More important, warn me away from the worst ones. Gene Weingarten: Capitol Hill has a plethora of restaurants, most of which range from mediocre to pretty decent. There are very, very few truly good ones. The best is Montmartre, on 7th St. Superior French food at reasonable prices in a nice atmosphere with excellent service. One slightly odd and mildly disturbing factor about Montmarte is that their outdoor tables are right next to the outdoor tables of Ben and Jerry's. So you are eating your $25 duck confit next to someone sucking on fudge sundaeas. We tend to eat inside. The Park Cafe, at the East end of Lincoln Park, is also good French-continental, but at less reasonable prices and with more frequent failures, and sometimes tectonic service. The Pacific Cafe, on Penn. Ave, is very good Vietnamese food at very modest prices. Old Siam on 8th Street is a rapidly improving, great-ambiance Thai place. Also on Eighth street: Belga Cafe, pricey but quite inventive Belgian Euro-fusion food, a little too trendy; the tables for two are too close together, which is a recurrent sin in popular restaurants; you are closer to the person next to you than to your companion across from you. Also on Eighth: Starfish, a worthy upscale seafood restaurant. And Sonoma, on Pennsylvania Ave, is a snooty wine bar restaurant with very good food but a somewhat disagreeable yupster meat-market feel. After those is a vast sea of ordinary. You plunge lower and lower through okay Turkish, tepid Chinese, yawn-inducing burgers, unimaginative Mexican, etc., all the way down to the worst restaurant in Capitol Hill, which would be the Greek Taverna on Pennsylvania Ave. Lizzie, can you link to my review of Taverna that appeared in Sietsema's column a couple years back? I wrote in. washingtonpost.com: Scroll down in Ask Tom , ( Live Online, Aug. 25, 2004 ) Gene Weingarten: (search for my name) New York, N.Y.: How does a self-winding watch work? Does the mechanism that winds the watch ever wear down? My self-winder watch has been stopping lately, and I can't seem to diagnose the problem. Gene Weingarten: It works through a rotating disc on a central shaft that winds the watch when you move your wrist. It might just need lubrication. But bring it to someone who knows what he is doing. Maybe He's Hor, NY: Here's a quote from Congressman Cliff Stearns last week, ostensibly discussing an auto repair bill: "Whether it's installing new brake pads, upgrading flash memory, or tuning our favorite pocket rocket to get that extra 50 horsepower, new vehicles require new, expensive tools and expertise..." This of course raises several questions: What's a Congressman doing with a pocket rocket? Since he referenced his "favorite," does he have more than one? And most important, can a pocket rocket really get 50 horsepower? If that's true, then men -- and the human race -- are screwed (or not screwed, as it were). Gene Weingarten: A quick Google search suggests many conflicting definitions of this term. It's a type of motor scooter. It's a kids' toy, and yeah, it's a dildo. I'm not sure I can think of another term so versatile. Washington, D.C. : My weekend too was filled with, "barbecues, sex, relaxing on the beach, drinking, bars and parties..." Can I work for the Post too? I promise to show cleavage. Gene Weingarten: A much more enticing prospect than Leibovich showing cleavage. NPR meets Tom Swift: I just heard this on the radio, in a news feature about pollution in the L.A. area: "The ships were visible only fleetingly." Gene Weingarten: Very nice. It's as good as NPR's morass. Heading for the dermatologist in Burke: I have a doctor's appointment during today's chat, and I'm obsessively distressed about this. I won't be able to participate live. You're going to talk about me while I'm gone, aren't you? Gene Weingarten: We won't be talking about you, so much as about the boils on your arse. Minneapolis, Minn.: I always seem to get to these chats later, in transcript form, browsing online as I work an overnight job that includes a fair amount of down time. Anyway, a recent chat included discussion of phrases that are fun to say, so I feel compelled to mention the phrase "edited it". Or, if you're a linguist like I am, you might be familiar with the eminent phonetician Peter Ladefoged's example, "Deadheaded Ed had edited it". Seriously, say it out loud. Gene Weingarten: There are some very short phrases that just sound nice, too. My daughter and I favor when something is "due tomorrow." Dootamara. Seattle, Wash.: So you are a student of the ritual of routine (I guess a Catholic seminarian would be a student of the routine of ritual) touching on how we dress, eat and relieve ourselves. You have explored the topic of sleep in terms of snoring and sleeping attire, or lack thereof. But you have not, so far as I recall, dealt with how we turn the mind off and get to sleep, now a multi-million dollar enterprise for the pharmaceutical industry. Those of us not relying on sleep aids (we may now be adding a Kennedy to our rolls) have to find some way to banish the cares and concerns, the frets and turmoils of our lives long enough to get to sleep. I believe for many men (non-golfers, they just replay shots they should have made) this may involve a form of mental masturbation, the construction of soft core porn fantasies involving wives, girlfriends, co-workers or all three. My belief, though, is premised on anecdote and conjecture. You have the resources to examine this subject with the same objective scientific approach you have brought to lesser topics. Gene Weingarten: Noted. But I don't really empathize. I usually am not an insomniac. I go to sleep by clearing my mind of everything, trying to enter into what is, essentially, a trance. I sometimes can do this within a minute or two. Suburbia, Va.: I can't believe that you would bring up the point "Stories that take forever to get to the point" just after your "friend" Joel Achenbach published his first serious article in the Magazine. You should be more supportive. Gene Weingarten: That wasn't your first serious article, Joel. Pajama Diaries: I would assume I am in the target market for Pajama Diaries. I am a stay-at-home mom who opted to stay home with the kids rather than continue to work as an electrical engineer. Can I say that I find this strip to be dumb? Maybe I am not the right target, since I don't assail others for continuing to work, nor do I think I am doing anything particularly noble. I stay home because it makes me happier, which is, in a way, selfish when you think about it. Baby Blues is better than this strip. Gene Weingarten: I am unimpressed so far, though I like the retro 50-ish art. Gene Weingarten: Chatwoman, can we link to today's somewhat contentious offering? Doonesbury: The chatter pointing out a discrepancy between the May 7 and May 29 D'bury's is totally off the mark. One is satire, "trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly;" the other, a touching, somber recognition of real lives sacrificed, one which makes me cry even to think about it. New York, N.Y.: When I shake my wrist, the watch emits a whirring noise then a short "crick" noise. Is the watch winding during the "whirring" part or the "cricking" part? Gene Weingarten: Clearly, your watch was made in China. Yes, the actual winding is the click. Now can we pin you down on whether you object to "Everyone has to put ___ name on the sign-in sheet to get credit for the course." Assuming 10 males and 10 females are in the class, what are acceptable missing words? Gene Weingarten: His or her. Because her or his just sounds patronizing. And everything else is wrong. Capitol Hill: You forgot Bistro Bis, on the other side of Capitol Hill. And that good Tandoori Place on Eighth Street, S.E. I think Montmartre is wildly overrated. Gene Weingarten: I am prejudiced against Indian food; can't judge the tandoori place. I don't consider Union Station to be capitol hill. Bis is excellent. Montmarte, if anything, is underrated. Pat the Perfect, ME: In FBOFW you can see the pink denture plates (but not the teeth themselves) in an earlier frame -- it's just not clear until the final frame what little Meredith was stamping the clay with. Did you notice the spelling of "modelling" clay in the last frame? Lynn Johnston insists on preserving the Canadian spelling even in American papers. Isn't that quaint? Gene Weingarten: Really? Lemme check. No, They don't look anything like dentures! Doonesbury: Tell your nitwit poster that the first strip is not Trudeau making fun of the Marines, it's an Army guy making fun of the Marines -- a time-honored tradition (as is vice versa). Gene Weingarten: No one who reads Trudeau regularly can possibly think he is being disrespectful to servicemen and women. The poster either doesn't know Doonesbury or has a major political axe to grind. Washington, D.C.: I think you've been right about a lot of things, like Bob Dylan, Abraham Lincoln, George W. Bush, and the best comic actors, but how can you say that Polk was a "near great" president? I suspect you would not consider presiding over an aggressive war as a "near-great" deed. So what's there to like? Gene Weingarten: Among historians, Polk is generally regarded to be either 9th, tenth or eleventh best president, which is pretty good company. He remains the only president in American history who entered with a clear, delineated agenda, and accomplished everything he promised. Among his promises was to serve only one term. He is universally regarded to be the greatest one-term president, with no one even a close second. The job literally killed him; he died shortly afterward, of ... diarrhea. He saved the economy, created the federal treasury as we know it, added huge amounts of territories, including, I think, Oregon. He won the Mexican War; you can argue that it was an unprincipled war, and it definitely was an expansionist war, but you'll get a lot of pushback from historians about whether it was an unjustified war. It was probably an inevitable war: Mexico wanted to retake Texas and hold onto California. Plus, Polk prosecuted it intelligently and quickly, and the treaty was hugely favorable to us. Capitol Hill Restaurants, D.C.: My problem with Starfish is it smells like you're in the sea. I know it's a seafood restaurant, but the musty watery smell in the back of the restaurant must be remedied! Now the real question is - what's the best deli? So far none have impressed and I've lived on the hill for 5 years. Please assist. Gene Weingarten: There are no good delis anywhere outside of New York. Sorry. Spare me your nominees. washingtonpost.com: Apologies, but the Pajama Diaries referenced by Gene is not available online. Or, if it is, I can't find it. Gene Weingarten: But this does remind me: Mama Lucia's pizza in downtown Bethesda: REAL BRONX PIZZA. I had a slice, went up to the kitchen and said, "The owner is from the Bronx." Washington, D.C. : So while we're on the topic...what's your opinion on falsies. Hubby, who prefers well-endowed women, insists that most men do not like implants. Of course, his motivation is to be able to touch my real ones, so I consider him biased. I have read articles that say the same thing - real, no matter how large/small, is better. But I have also read articles that boobies are boobies, and since men are mostly fascinated they don't discriminate. Can you provide insight? Gene Weingarten: Real is better, period. No qualifications. Real is better with EVERYTHING, but hooters especially. However, "Tits and Ass," from A Chorus Line, is a great song. Pat the Perfect, ME: This Bob Levey column is from September 1982, a couple of months before I started working at The Post. I was writing a monthly column for a small-newspaper trade publication. The Levey column appeared out of nowhere; I didn't know about it till I read it in the paper: "In this corner, we never drop our guard, even on national holidays. So I lace up my gloves and prepare to take on Patricia Myers, columnist for Publishers' Auxiliary, a newspaper published here by the National Newspaper Association. "Patricia rises in defense of the misuse of "hopefully." It is hoped that I can make her see the light. "Patricia doesn't argue that wrong is right. In the sentence, "Hopefully, the rain will end soon," there is a clear wrong, and Patricia admits it. The word "hopefully" modifies rain, when the speaker really wants it to describe the mood of the person gazing at the sky. Rendered more carefully, Patricia points out that the sentence should read, "I hope that the rain will end soon." "However, several cousins of "hopefully" are misused every day, and few people so much as twitch, says Patricia. Take, for example, the phrase, "Luckily, the bear was killed before he attacked the little boy." As Patricia notes, you hardly mean that the bear was lucky. "But to Patricia, the more compelling argument is this: the popularity of "misused hopefully" has earned it a place in literate circles. "We don't have another word that means the same thing," she writes. "Almost everyone uses it, it's understandable in its context and it's no more intrinsically illogical" than misuses of "fortunately," "happily" and "luckily." Therefore, open your arms and embrace it, citizenry. I don't believe a grammar book is a bible, setting forth immutable rules for all time. Words are born and die. Idioms wax and wane. Rules are forever being adjusted according to popular demand. But to condone the misuse of "hopefully" is to condone imprecision. In "Hopefully, the rain will end soon," I'm pretty sure I know what the speaker or writer is trying to say. But I'm not as sure as I would be if the sentence was: "I hope that the rain will end soon." Isn't the whole idea to communicate as clearly as we can? If a writer or speaker leaves unnecessary ambiguities, he'll soon find there's no one reading or listening. Patricia is right in one respect. We don't have another word that means the same thing as the "incorrect" usage of "hopefully." But do we have to restrict the hunt for clarity to individual words? We have any number of phrases that would get across our wish that it would stop raining. Are we in such a hurry that only single words will do? Finally, I'm unimpressed with the comparison of "hopefully" to the misuses of "fortunately," "happily" and "luckily." Reminds me of Richard Nixon's staff during Watergate. Remember how they defended the behavior of the White House "plumbers" by arguing that every administration bent or broke the rules? That didn't make it right, and it doesn't make the misuse of "hopefully" right. Y'all see the dangling participle in this fine essay with with Gene no doubt agrees in its entirety? Gene Weingarten: Oh. My. God. I... just. Don't know what to say. I will get you for this, Patricia. Io, WA: "I had a slice, went up to the kitchen and said, "The owner is from the Bronx." What kind of cheer was it? Huh?: So what DOES Ugly American mean? Gene Weingarten: It's used ironically, in the book. Washington, D.C.: I once heard of a method of going to sleep that's supposed to be 100% successful: as you lie down to go to sleep, imagine a blackboard that instantly bears a description of anything that crosses your mind (e.g., "I've got to take the dog to the vet tomorrow"). Use a fictitious, mental "eraser" to erase it. If you can keep the blackboard blank for 10 seconds, you're guaranteed to go to sleep. Works for me, when I choose to use it. Gaithersburg, Md.: As a 39-year-old woman who hearts Gene, I LOVE it when men take a peek. If you don't, then why are you putting them out there to be seen? I think the problem arises when men begin to talk to them, instead of to you. Gene Weingarten: Well, but lady: Aren't you sort of inviting that? I do not practice that. I do not condone that. But c'mon. Starfish: As a diver, I can tell you that when you see starfish, the water is polluted (or in bad shape). Great name for a seafood place. Gene Weingarten: Hahahaha. That's great. It's true? Birmingham, Ala.: I've decided to pose this question to you rather than Carolyn Hax. I am official mentor to a young intern in my office, selected because I am old enough to appear wise (about your age) and experienced. Here's my dilemma: Said intern has a college degree, but is from a tiny, rural area and uses improper grammar regularly. My opinion is that this could impend her career, and I'd like to talk about it. Should I do so, and if I do, what should I say? Based on today's poll, I know that these issues matter to you as much as they matter to me. Gene Weingarten: Since you are her mentor, I not only think you should talk to her about it, but that you are professionally and ethically obliged to talk to her about it. MEAT Market or MEET Market?: I thought it was MEAT market forever, as in, men peruse around looking for women as if they were meat? But read from the GoG's it's MEET market, as in singles going out in droves to meet others? You just used MEAT! For the same reason I thought it was MEAT? Which is it, MEAT or MEET Market? Gene Weingarten: Well, I don't know. Meat, I thought. With the other meaning implied. Perhaps it is Meet, with the other meaning implied. Powers of observati, ON: Re: Roman numerals on clocks - So I'm sitting here reading this, thinking, no way, the clock downstairs, which we have had prominently displayed in our living room for the past 20 years, which I consult multiple times per day, which I wind twice a week, uses IV, not IIII. I am absolutely positive about this; so positive that I have no need to go down and check. But in the interests of objectivity and verification, I do. Turns out, the clock has Arabic numerals. Gene Weingarten: Okay, now I am really laughing. That was excellent use of humor: We all expected one thing, and you delivered something entirely unexpected. Alexandria, Va.: So how do you feel about ending a sentence with a preposition? (You said "a cheer went up" about your Bronx pizza encounter.) I tend to think that if it can be neatly avoided, go for it, but if it sounds silly to switch it around, leave it. Gene Weingarten: I don't mind ending a sentence a preposition with. Washington, D.C.: Capitol Hill food: Thoughts about Two Quail on Massachusetts? Tom thinks it's terrible, I've never heard a good thing about it, and the outdoor patio never seems to have too many people. The person moving to the Hill must go to Market Lunch at Eastern Market, particularly for Saturday breakfast. Gene Weingarten: Two Quail is dreadful. But it is also Union Station, not really cap hill. The German place next to it is much better. Eastern Market Saturday morning is stupid: You want to wait in line for an hour for a fish sandwich? To Alabama Mentor: Have your trainee read this chat! Saves her face and you don't come off as pompous. Gene Weingarten: Nope. People who speak with bad English don't know they are doing it. Boston Mass.: I am in need of your expertise on a matter of baseball etiquette. Last night my wife and I were watching a news report about the guy who caught Barry Bond's record breaking HR. My wife's reaction was "why didn't he give the ball back to the guy who hit it?" I argued that it was part of the tradition of the sport, that for a hundred years people who have gone to a game have had the right to keep whatever the catch, whether it is a foul ball by an average player in a nondescript game, or whether it is a record breaking home run. I also pointed out that the guy who hit the home run makes a whole lot of money and if he really wanted the ball he could buy it back from the guy. My wife insisted that it was wrong and the guy who hit the ball should be entitled to keep the ball. So who, morally speaking, has the right to that ball? Regardless of whether the HR will end up with an asterisk next to it or not in the record books. Gene Weingarten: The guy who caught McGwire's 62nd gave it back to him. I remember thinking at the time: What a dork. Here's the thing: Baseball is a giant moneymaking industry, and they hype these moments hugely. There is a long custom of what happens to balls that go into the stands: They are the property of the catcher of the ball, who then negotiates a sale to the launcher of the ball, who then negotiates a sale (or gift) to the hall of fame. There's nothing wrong with that. I seem to remember that the guy who caught Maris's 61, Sal Durante, got $2,000 or something. Which in '61 wasn't bad. Yes, I remembered the name. Yes, I was a Maris geek. Silver Spring, Md.: I think I was one of the very first people to post a dog to the Web site for your book. Unfortunately, your book was just a little bit too late for her. She died in her sleep this weekend while I was away for the holiday. I found out by cell phone while sitting at the gate in LAX Monday morning. I can't say that it was unexpected, given that she was 14. But I'm just crushed that I wasn't with her. By the time I got home, all that was left for me to hold onto was the little harness she wore when we went for walks. I guess I don't really have a question or anything. I just want everyone to know that Dumpling was the best friend I could have asked for, and I loved her. washingtonpost.com: Dumpling (scroll down to fifth dog) Gene Weingarten: Awww. I am sorry. She looks like a sweetie. We are starting to contact owners this week, and Dumpling was on the list. This is a major peril of this book, and we understand that. Sage Advice Need, ED: Hi Gene, I just got dumped. And I am feeling defective and I just need some advice on how to get over a break-up. I feel like my life is over and that I am destined to spinsterhood and that I am never going to get off the rollercoaster of being hurt, sad, angry, relieved and back to hurt again. I know you are known for humor (deservedly so) but I know you have great wisdom and a special love for all women, even pathetic dumpees. So lay it on me. And I knew he wasn't right for me because he didn't get you or why I read the chat at work and he didn't get my stupid control freak joke (it was in a Hax chat so I don't want to be redundant). AND he didn't like Dave Barry. So I am better off without him, right? Gene Weingarten: I like a woman who will call herself a "pathetic dumpee." That's it, actually. I like you. Gaithersburg, Md.: Is today's Baldo about your daughter or what? washingtonpost.com: Baldo , ( May 30 ) Gene Weingarten: It is. Sadly, it is also not particularly funny. Maputo, Mozambiques: I'm temporarily living in Mozambique and have discovered a new version of poop shame: poop shame by proxy. I've been looking for an apartment so I've become familiar with the particular social customs associated with the design of floor plans. For example, there is usually a separate entrance for the kitchen since this is where "the help" would enter a house -- not the front door. The kitchens are usually closed off from the rest of the house since, theoretically, the owner of the house would spend little time in the kitchen due to the affordability of domestic help. Additionally there is always a separate maid's bathroom. Apparently the only thing more shameful than pooping is having your maid poop in the same place as you. I think this is a new frontier in poop shame. You might also be interested to know that Mozambique has excellent cashews. I've eaten my body weight in cashews since arriving one month ago. Gene Weingarten: Thank you for sharing this, but you are not describing poop shame, you are describing old fashioned, poisonous cultural elitism as relates to body contact. It's a segregated pool; it's segregated water fountain; it's a shoe store that won't let people of color try 'em on. Washington, D.C.: Gene, you gotta watch your boy in action. Joel Achenbach did the last one and he is a unique man: Blogging Heads Gene Weingarten: I am assured by Chatwoman that this is very funny. I haven't looked yet. For the mentor: Review her WRITTEN work (assuming its good). Then make a point of saying "You know, you should try to talk more like you write. You'd sound better/more experienced/more professional" Gene Weingarten: Actually, thats not bad, but you STILL might need to be specific. "Pocket Rocket": A "pocket rocket" also refers to small cars with high performance (like a VW GTI or a souped-up Honda Civic). This should not be confused with the term "crotch rocket," which refers to motorcycles designed for speed/ego inflation. Also, Just to let you know, the Pentagon recently issued a directive prohibiting the use of the term "jarheads" to refer to Marines. This term has been deemed inappropriate, since one can keep things in jars. (an Army vet -- can't wait to see how the devil dogs respond!) Indianapolis, Ind.: My Fantasies: When I see a man I think is attractive, I think about sex. With him. I don't care how he would look in a tux. However, these men always strongly resemble my husband. Does that make me still a predictable, Darwinian, typical woman looking for a care-taker? Bowie, Md.: RE: Kunkel's verbal gaffe -- I can match it! True story, saw and heard with my own eyes while working for the group that sponsored a debate about between then House Maj. Ldr. Dick Armey and then Rep. Billy Tauzin in Tauzin's hometown of Baton Rouge in 1997. In part of his intro schtick, Tauzin meant to say, "I'm so glad to be up here tonight playing around with my FRIEND Dick..." What he said was this sentence but without the word "friend." On live Louisiana public TV. In front of an audience of about 250 people, including wife, inlaws, donors and other L.A. and D.C. muckety-mucks. The pin-dropping silence gave way to embarassed tittering (great word) then outright guffawing and disbelief in the audience ("Holy sh--! Did he just say what I think he said?!"). Tauzin looked like he was about to die. Armey looked like he about to die laughing and Tauzin's main aide immediately set off to get a hold of the videotape. I believe that tape did make it back to DC (maybe even played at a closed-door Rep caucus meeting) but I'm sure it's been destroyed by now. This story alone made working for our idiotic employer worth it! Felt really bad for Tauzin though, how embarassing. To his credit, he continued on with the debate without too much fluster. Word geek question: Online dictionary, or the old-fashioned variety? I find that I use the computer for many things, but I cannot break the habit of reaching for my hardcover American Heritage when I need it. And which dictionary do you like? My loyalty to American Heritage was fixed from the moment, as a child, I discovered it was full of naughty words. Gene Weingarten: I don't have a preference for dictionaries, and I find that online dics have improved so dramatically in the last couple of years, they do the job. However, when you are talking Thesauruses, there is a gargantuan difference. Online Thesauri are weak, largely because they are organized like dictionaries. Many book Thesauruses do this, too. They are completely useless; a tool for idiots or children. The only Thesauri worth using are Roget's, with indexes. I feel about the dictionary types the way I feel about automatic transmissions. Let's grow up. College Park, Md.: You're poll has highlighted one of the many reasons that my English degree (I just graduated from UMd, go me!) has doomed me to a dismal existence. People don't know how to use language. However, I find the cliche "burst into tears" to be the most horrifying. Everytime I read it I picture people's faces exploding. Unfortunately, I double majored in history, so I also know the horrible, demeaning etymology of many of our words. In Hebrew, the word for husband is "ba'al," which means master. As in the head of the Babylonian pantheon, Ba'al. Talk about male ego. washingtonpost.com: English degree, you say? Gene Weingarten: One of the more annoying cliches is "burst out laughing," because there is almost no other way of saying it. I've tried. Pat the Perfect, ME: "Up" in "a cheer went up" is not a preposition anyway. It's an adverb, and even the pedants who are bothered by phrases ending in prepositions would not object to that phrase. Gene Weingarten: Well, I don't object. I am typing this at 12:55. Think it will get into the chat? Gene Weingarten: You just made it! Because you had so much to say. Thank you all. A good chat. I'll be updating at whatnot. Re: Falsies: I'm against falsies and implants as a matter of principle, as well as a matter of preference. Implants are like Mount Rushmore, a work of human craftsmanship, while real ones are like the Grand Tetons, works of natural majesty. Humans can imitate nature but never duplicate it. Gene Weingarten: Yeah, I particularly hate breasts with faces carved on them. Sunday, Page A2: Is this funny: The Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled that police use of laxatives to recover swallowed baggies of drugs does not violate the person's constitutional rights. I laughed when I read it, but upon looking up "constitutional", found that it has a more general definition that I thought. Gene Weingarten: But did it violate their constipational rights? Gotahigh, IQ: SAT scores -- don't they only come in round numbers like -- oh, let's say, just for an example -- 790 English and 770 math? At least they seemed to in '70s. How did you get a 1468? Were the tests that much more precise once? Or did you get a few extra points for creativity? Also, note that according to the folks who put together the SAT, pre-1996 scores should be adjusted upward to match today's standards. (Like here) Which means there are a lot of us walking around who can now claim to have gotten perfect 800/800 scores, adjusted for inflation. And you know we're just nerdy enough to do it, too. Gene Weingarten: Yes, I've seen this conversion chart before, but forgot about it. This is just a little shout-out to my good friend Rachel Manteuffel, a recent graduate of William and Mary. After I disclosed my score last week (yes, back in the Pleistocene Era, points were not rounded up or down) Rachel e-mailed me to politely GLOAT that she had gotten a 1500. For point of easy reference, my specific grades were 744 math and 724 English. Do the math, babe. Assuming you know how. Visions of Johan, NA: Hey Gene, Just thought I'd give one of my favorite Bob Dylan verses from the Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll, a local song for us D.C. and Marylanders. I love how he rhymes table with table three times, then with level, followed by two and a half lines with great internal rhymes. Did you know that William Zanzinger (really Zantzinger) went to Sidwell Friends? "Hattie Carroll was a maid of the kitchen.She was fifty-one years old and gave birth to ten childrenWho carried the dishes and took out the garbageAnd never sat once at the head of the tableAnd didn't even talk to the people at the tableWho just cleaned up all the food from the tableAnd emptied the ashtrays on a whole other level,Got killed by a blow, lay slain by a caneThat sailed through the air and came down through the room,Doomed and determined to destroy all the gentle.And she never done nothing to William Zanzinger." The Chat's resident 25 y/o Dylan expert, Gene Weingarten: Hey, Ali. Yes, this song is sheer poetry, and the story of William Zantzinger was told absolutely brilliantly by my friend and colleague Peter Carlson in THIS STORY he wrote several years ago. It is fascinating that this song, while clearly a masterpiece, is also a web of little imprecisions. Hattie was not "slain by a cane," really. Zantzinger -- a major piece of work and thoroughly revolting individual, as you will see -- did hit her in the shoulder with a toy cane. But Hattie, who had hardening of the arteries, died the next day of a stroke, probably induced by the stress of having been treated so terribly. She had no mark of a cane on her body. Connecting her death to her mistreatment at the hands of Zantzinger was not unreasonable, but also no slam dunk. When you consider this fact, a six-month sentence doesn't seem quite as outrageously lenient as Dylan snarled and sneered. Another friend of mine, David Simon, once wrote a piece for the Balmer Sun in which he found a local law enforcement officer who had been telephoned by Dylan AFTER THE SONG WAS ALREADY A HIT, attempting to get details of the case, to confirm what he had writ. Apparently young Bobby Z. had not been much of a reporter in his fact-gathering for this song. He wasn't so fabulous with "Hurricane" either, as I recall. Charlotte, N.C.: Did you catch the woman shooting her car in Sunday's Opus at Mauldin Gas? How many baby boomers would get that reference? I read my dad's copies of Bill Mauldin's books and loved them. Gene Weingarten: Not that many. I have this in a book of Mauldin's, but had totally forgotten about this. Good for Berkeley. A great inside joke for the 31 old coots who remembered, and also read Opus. New York, N.Y.: Re: Sunday's BTB So, essentially, you got paid twice for one article. Nice gig, if you can get it. Gene Weingarten: You apparently think colleges pay for their commencement speakers. Well, I guess SOME colleges pay. The University of Pennsylvania probably paid Desmond Tutu the year Molly graduated. Well do I remember it. Desmond and Molly, together. HAHAHAHAHAHA. Desmond and Molly! Listen folks, I am a professional. Don't be upset that you can't perform this sort of humor magic. I should have been paid, gosh darn it. Gene Weingarten: Thanks to Amy H. for reminding me of something. In this Sunday's New York Times crossword puzzle, there was a clue that made me laugh out loud. At one point I arrived at the following: Fifty-eight down was a three-letter word beginning with "C." And the clue was: "Ejaculate." Eventually, I figured out the answer: "Cry." Washington, D.C.: I do not like Anthony from FBOFW. I had to say it. Am I alone here? I think it would be a huge mistake to put Liz and Anthony together. What a dweeb. Sigh. Gene Weingarten: Anthony is a schlep. A loser. A doormat. Possibly some woman will say I am wrong here, but I don't believe a hot, interesting, energetic, intelligent, engaged young woman like Elizabeth is ever going to want to spend a life with him. Women often make mistakes, but it is usually in going for the guy with the cigarette pack in his t-shirt sleeve, and the one light out on his Camaro. No? Washington, D.C.: Eastern Market person again: On Saturdays I make sure I'm there for my pancakes or french toast by 8:30. I'm stuck in line only when others come along who don't want to get there that early. Yep, strategic planning just for pancakes. Gene Weingarten: Yeah, I sort of inadvertently slandered the Eastern Market breakfast. They serve a terrific breakfast there -- great grits, sausage, fried fish in humongous portions -- dispensed by some of the toughest take-no-crap ladies you will ever meet. I do it from time to time, but only on a weekday morning. On Saturdays, as you point out, people start lining up at 8:30, and by 9 the line winds halfway around the block. It's insane to wait for that. Con grammer: Most sentences end in parole. I simply have to repeat the greatest lead from a newspaper story, ever. It appeared in the Chicago Daily News some sixty years ago after Richard Loeb, the intellectual Leopold-Loeb murderer, died. Loeb was knifed to death in the prison showers after he unwisely made a sexual advance at another inmate. The story was written by Ed Lahey: "Richard Loeb, despite his erudition, today ended his sentence with a proposition." My 'girlfriend' (yeah, we're 'grownups', but still...) and I were best friends before we started dating two years ago, and therefore had already gone through some of the more annoying parts of courtship involving openness and honesty. However, our 'between the sheets' time has been limited to about twice a month (it's always been like this) due to an assault she suffered when she was a tween. She's tried counselling and talking with friends, and when we CAN do 'the deed', it's very lovely and satisfying. The problem I have is this: I have found myself thinking about other women. Not celebrities, which I think every guy daydreams about, but rather friends of mine or hers, which are much more tangible in everyday life. I would never cheat on my girlfriend. I love her very much and would like to marry her one day. However, should I tell her about my fantasies about others? We tell each other everything! She'd be jealous and even more insecure if I told her about this, right? Though I'd never act on these impulses (unless a long conversation occurred where both my gf AND this other girl could be there... and they were both 'into it'... at which point... well, sweet.), I feel guilty even thinking them. What should I do? Gene Weingarten: You should not tell your girlfriend. What good would it do, other than vastly increase her anxiety. Plus, it would feel like extortion. Do you MEAN it as extortion? If not, why would you even think of telling her? I'm sorry, that was not fair, but I am not following your logic; it is not openness to gratuitously hurt someone you love. These fantasies are your business; they are guilt inducing; good. Maybe you will slow up on em. You know, there is nothing wrong with fantasizing about one's own wife or girlfriend, in her absence. It's kinda sweet and reassuring. New York, N.Y.: I was surprised to see this joke in the New York Times, in an article from their dining section, of all things. Why don't Southern girls like group sex?Too many thank-you notes. Would this joke make it past the censors at The Post? Gene Weingarten: No, probably not. But it might make it past the fearless editrix of washingtonpost.com. washingtonpost.com: Who am I to censor this important example of the difference between The Post and our competitor to the north? Gene Weingarten: I'm still getting a few questions on the difference between spoken and written humor, as related to my Sunday column. There is one other difference I neglected to mention: You can get away with more when you are not delivering something in The Washington Post. Case in point: My line in this column about Anderson Cooper originally did not end with "Can't we put HIM in jail?" In the version I delivered, it ended with "Screw him." Couldn't say this in The Post. CAN say this in washingtonpost.com. I actually wanted to drop the F-bomb in the speech, but Dean Kunkel asked me not to. Bowie, Md.: Obviously, the most overused word in the English language is "obviously." Gene Weingarten: Virtually everyone contends that, but they are wrong. Old Dogs and Sandwiches: So you can citicize Dean Young for plugging his sandwich shops in Dagwood while shamelessly promoting your Sweet Old Doggies picture book here in your chat? Will you at least refrain from also using your weekly syndicated column for for free advertising? Gene Weingarten: Ouch. Not a terrible point, but I think there is a fundamental difference. Now listen carefully here, because if my logic fails, I have committed an ethical blunder. And I take the ethics of my profession pretty seriously. Dean Young is trying to drive business to his sandwich shops, by using his strip as free advertising. So his mission is compromised -- he is no longer just trying to entertain people, he is also, subtly, subversively, trying to increase clientele to a commercial enterprise. By using my chat to get you guys to submit doggie pix, I am not making any money; we've been paid for the book. We will fill the book with dogs, whether we find 'em at the Web site or not. In short, I am using the chat journalistically, to help do research. Plus, it is a service to all of you with dogs who might get 'em immortalized. I don't see a parallel. Am I wrong? Brisbane, OZ: This morning two (hot) colleagues arrived wearing knee-lengths and calf boots. As a result my productivity dropped to, in round figures, zero, and the busting threat level was dramatically elevated. Damn you, sir, damn you and your chat to the depths of hell. Anyway, I'm not sure if place names can be aptonyms, but in case they are I direct your attention to the Philippines Open golf tournament, currently under way at the Wack Wack Golf and Country Club near Manila. Gene Weingarten: You needed ME to INFORM you how hot that look is? What kind of a man are you? Meanwhile, I suspect Wack Wack is not an aptonym. Aptonyms must be inadvertent. I mean, you would not call a mini golf course named Putt Putt to be an aptonym, would you? Fanta, SY: I've long been under the impression that indulging in fantasizing about one's fantasies reinforces those fantasies. Not so? And too, one very seldom does things that fall outside of societal norms without first fantasizing to excess first. None of this is to say that I think you're absolutely wrong to suppose that pedophiliac porn might keep pedos from indulging outside of fantasy. But isn't this the whole arguement about Doom vs. Columbine? I'm 34, three kids, a gamer, not hardcore, and not even oldschool, but middleschool for sure, and I would be hardcore if I didn't have a wife who patiently drags me away from the computer every few days. I don't think the violent video games I play will result in me shooting up the computer store I work in. But I wonder. Is there anything you can add to my ongoing question to understand how fantasizing affects me? Gene Weingarten: It is the old issue of Doom v. Columbine, and I think that has been pretty well discredited. My kids love Grand Theft Auto, which is a savage bloodbath. One of these kids is Molly, who is a vegan bunny hugger. So, please. My son, of course, is a serial killer. But that doesn't prove anything. Headca, SE: I am faced with a very serious dilemma. I recently purchased 40 pillowcases in various colors. Now I have to return them. There is nothing wrong with the pillowcases, there was just a change in plans and they are no longer needed. That said, I am a little apprehensive about what I'm going to say when asked for "reason for return". I mean, what kind of nut job purchases 40 pillowcases and then returns them? I see an opportunity for humor, but as I'm too close to the situation I'm not thinking clearly. Any help? Gene Weingarten: "I'd been planning to use them to store body parts in the freezer, but something came up and I changed my plans." They won't ask any questions. 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.
Post columnist Gene Weingarten answers your questions about his column, "Below the Beltway," and more. Funny? You should ask.
584.576923
0.961538
3.038462
high
high
mixed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/28/AR2006052800887.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006052919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/28/AR2006052800887.html
Helicopter Force Takes Measure Of Two Wars
2006052919
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan -- Military helicopter crews over Afghanistan and Iraq know better than most what the wars in those countries have in common: There's more below than meets the eye. They also have an unmatched view of what makes the conflicts different. A Black Hawk helicopter crew in Afghanistan skims along above the desert as the crew watches for signs of the enemy below. For miles, the land is empty. Then someone spots a mud compound with a dozen men around it but not a single sheep or goat in sight. Is it a farm or an insurgent hideout? In Iraq, the field of battle is often a densely packed neighborhood, where a crew on a sweep might see nothing but rooftops and alleyways. But then, out of nowhere, "someone can shoot at you from any direction, blend in and be gone," said Sgt. Rodney Kitchen, 27, a crew chief from Baltimore. "Here, there are few people in the open desert. They're not going to take potshots at you because they know four choppers will be chasing them." Pilots and crew members of Task Force Knighthawk, a U.S.-led helicopter unit based in Kandahar, know the combat environment in Afghanistan intimately. Many of its members have also served in Iraq, and they say there are great disparities between the two combat theaters. Lessons learned in one don't necessarily carry over to the other. Afghanistan is rugged, poor and sparsely populated. The Iraq combat theater is for the most part flat, comparatively developed and urban. In Afghanistan, "our biggest threat is not Taliban or al-Qaeda shooting at us. It's the weather and the terrain," said Army Lt. Col. Mark Patterson, who commands Task Force Knighthawk. "It's a rugged, unpredictable environment that an agile, adaptable enemy can exploit." Patterson's fleet of Chinook and Black Hawk helicopters, with their teams of 55 pilots and crew members, perform the heavy lifting of the Afghan war -- ferrying the troops, evacuating the wounded, conducting reconnaissance missions and supporting ground assaults across southern Afghanistan. The region, which includes Kandahar and three neighboring provinces, has been swept by violence in recent weeks, with a death toll since mid-May that could exceed 300. Anti-government insurgents have assaulted civilian and military targets in a dozen locations, and U.S. airstrikes have reportedly killed more than 100 Taliban fighters and at least 15 civilians. There is danger in both theaters, the team members said, but it comes in distinct forms, degrees and disguises. Iraq's developed infrastructure includes power lines that can block low flight paths for helicopters, apartment complexes that can hide snipers, and long, paved highways that can be booby-trapped with remote-control explosives. "Here we are always flying, looking down and scanning the ground. In Iraq, I went in my first road convoy, and suddenly there I was in a truck with my rifle pointing out, wondering what to do if we got hit," said Sgt. Richard Staggs, 25, a Black Hawk crew chief from Las Vegas. Staggs said a close friend was killed in another convoy in Iraq when three anti-tank mines exploded under his vehicle. Afghanistan's trackless deserts and hillside villages mean troops and supplies must often be delivered to forward bases in Taliban territory by helicopter, exposing crews to rocket attacks as well as mercurial flying conditions. But it is easier to spot insurgent hideouts in the open desert, team members said, and the enemy's weapons here tend to be older, less powerful and far less accurate than those wielded by Iraqi insurgents.
World news headlines from the Washington Post, including international news and opinion from Africa, North/South America, Asia, Europe and Middle East. Features include world weather, news in Spanish, interactive maps, daily Yomiuri and Iraq coverage.
15.391304
0.391304
0.434783
low
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/28/AR2006052801080.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006052919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/28/AR2006052801080.html
Choose Your Battle
2006052919
One minute Stacy Bannerman is stuffing envelopes to promote an upcoming peace workshop. The next her husband, Lorin, unexpectedly appears in her office. "I got the call," he says. Does she have to ask? Don't they both know their life is poised to turn completely strange at any moment? Possibly even tragic? As his mouth says the words, his eyes watch her closely. She dodges his attempt to hug. She doesn't want him to touch her yet, as if touching will make this news real. Yes, yes, yes: Lorin's National Guard unit just got called up. And in a deep part of him that he doesn't reveal to her this instant, he's kind of looking forward to it. Stacy, on the other hand, is a professional peace and justice activist. Her emotions are much closer to the surface, and she's freaking out. It's the fall of 2003, seven months after the war began, outside Seattle where they live. They are the warrior and the antiwarrior, and their years of living dangerously are about to begin. She watches him drive away in his new white Kia Sorento. The planet-hugger in her never approved of his buying that SUV. Now, as her man prepares for mobilization to the land of oil and blood, she sees the manufacturer's name and thinks: "Killed in action."
One minute Stacy Bannerman is stuffing envelopes to promote an upcoming peace workshop. The next her husband, Lorin, unexpectedly appears in her office. The names of dead soldiers are being read aloud over a field of empty black boots on a section of the Mall one recent Saturday. A sad... Did the...
4.711864
0.677966
12.576271
low
low
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/28/AR2006052800652.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006052919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/28/AR2006052800652.html
Bush's Talk And Results On AIDS
2006052919
The Bush administration's critics should give credit where it's due. And when it comes to the global AIDS crisis, it is due -- big-time. Five years ago, the U.S. government's total contribution to fighting HIV-AIDS abroad stood at $840 million. The Bush team was rightly pilloried for trade policies that impeded poor countries' efforts to buy cheap generic AIDS drugs. But at the start of 2003, the administration had a hallelujah moment. In that year's State of the Union address, President Bush promised $15 billion over five years to fight the pandemic. It was the biggest commitment to a global health challenge announced by any government, ever. Naturally, there were skeptics. The administration's envoys endured boos and yells at international AIDS conferences; they will probably face more at this week's United Nations AIDS summit. But three years after Bush's $15 billion pledge, the skepticism has proved mostly unfounded. One doubt was that the administration wouldn't back its rhetoric with money. Well, since the president's pledge, spending on global AIDS programs has risen steadily: to $2.3 billion in 2004, $2.7 billion in 2005 and to $3.3 billion this year. The administration's budget for 2007 requests $4 billion from Congress, more than quadruple the level in 2001. So the Bush team is on target to exceed the $15 billion promise. A second doubt was that the administration would waste money by purchasing branded AIDS drugs. Generics are not only cheaper than patented medicines; by combining two or three drugs into a single pill, they also make it simpler for patients to take their meds as they're supposed to. But the Bush administration began by refusing to buy pharmaceuticals that lacked approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, effectively closing the door to non-branded AIDS therapies. Starting in 2004, the administration fixed this problem. It directed the FDA to license generics for use in U.S. global AIDS programs, even when those generics could not be sold in the United States because they infringed U.S. patents. The skeptics continued to insist that obstacles lurked in the FDA's complex rules. But generic after generic was soon licensed, and in some countries around two-thirds of U.S. spending on AIDS drugs now goes to non-branded medicines. Given how often foreign aid is tied to exports from donor countries, it's remarkable that the Bush team stiffed Big Pharma in favor of cost-effective help for AIDS patients. A third doubt about the administration's AIDS promise concerned sexual abstinence. When it agreed to back Bush's AIDS initiative, Congress laid down that a third of the prevention budget should be used to advocate abstinence and faithfulness. The scientific literature suggests that combining abstinence messages with teaching about condoms can delay sexual debut and save lives but that abstinence-only messages are ineffective. So the congressional earmark, to which the administration acquiesced, seemed like a classic Republican mistake: a triumph of social-conservative ideology over science. This complaint is right -- but should not be exaggerated. Most of the U.S. AIDS budget goes toward treating people and caring for the dying and orphans. Abstinence and faithfulness teaching consumes only 7 percent of the total, and an unknown fraction of that is constructively combined with teaching about condoms. The critics cite a few wacko preachers who have received U.S. money even though they proclaim that condoms don't work, and the Government Accountability Office has described how the abstinence earmark complicates the work of front-line AIDS groups. But it's wrong to paint the entire Bush AIDS program as a Christian-conservative plot when the abstinence-only stuff is relatively limited. The most serious criticisms of the Bush AIDS program are that it involves too little collaboration with local governments and fellow donors and that pouring millions into AIDS sucks health workers away from other vital diseases. But even these criticisms can go too far. When the Bush program was set up, the noncollaborative approach was a way to get results quickly; now, by some accounts, collaboration is improving. In the early stages, equally, pouring money into AIDS programs was bound to siphon health workers away from other things. But there's talk that the administration may correct this problem, maybe by launching a program to train community health workers in poor countries. It's not that the Bush program is perfect, and it's not that the administration is the lone hero of the AIDS crisis. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which was set up just four years ago, has channeled $5 billion toward those diseases; the Bush team should acknowledge its contribution less grudgingly, especially since the United States provides 30 percent of the fund's resources. Yet the bottom line is that the administration has faced up to a killer that's taken 25 million lives in the 25 years since its discovery. There's much more to be done -- 5 million more people get infected every year. But if you want to denounce rich countries for their negligence, the United States is the wrong target.
The Bush administration's critics should give credit where it's due. And when it comes to the global AIDS crisis, it is due -- big-time.
31.451613
1
31
medium
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/29/AR2006052900284.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006052919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/29/AR2006052900284.html
Accident Sparks Riot in Afghan Capital
2006052919
KABUL, Afghanistan, May 29 -- The Afghan capital erupted Monday in the worst street violence since the fall of the Taliban in 2001, following a fatal traffic accident involving a U.S. military truck. Mobs of men and boys, many of them shouting slogans against the government and United States, set fires, attacked buildings and clashed with police for about seven hours. Hotel windows were raked with gunfire, a foreign aid agency was torched and looted, and numerous police posts were destroyed. Some rioters brandished AK-47 assault rifles; gunfire sounded throughout the city and clouds of black smoke wafted in the air. Dozens of vehicles were smashed and burned. The violence was fed by rumors that U.S. troops had shot and killed civilians, which U.S. military spokesmen denied. On Monday night, authorities imposed the first curfew in four years as the violence tailed off. President Hamid Karzai went on national television to condemn the rioters as "enemies of Afghanistan." Various news and official reports put the death toll as high as 20. The riots exposed the bitter resentment that many Afghans harbor toward the U.S.-led military forces that have been stationed here since the Taliban was driven from power. It also reflected the deep ambivalence many Afghan Muslims feel toward the growing Western influence here that includes high fashion and fast-food shops, sprawling aid compounds and even rap music. The public mood has also been tense since a U.S. airstrike killed at least 16 civilians last week in a village in southern Afghanistan, the scene of heightened fighting this spring. Afghan and U.S. officials blamed Taliban insurgents who had taken shelter in village compounds and then fired at U.S.-led forces. More fighting was reported in the south on Monday. Afghan and foreign military officials said about 50 Taliban guerrillas were killed in a U.S.-led air attack in Helmand province, the Reuters news service reported. Afghan officials said the strike targeted a mosque where the men had gathered; a Canadian spokesman characterized the site as a compound and said it was hit by two 500-pound bombs. The violence in Kabul disheartened many Afghans. "Today has set us back 10 years," said a distraught Afghan man who works for the International Security Assistance Force, the NATO-led contingent that patrols the capital. "We have been working so hard to build something here. Now the foreigners will all go away and take their money with them." The accident that precipitated the rioting occurred about 8 a.m. as a U.S. military convoy was entering the capital on a steep downhill boulevard toward the Khair Khona district, a U.S. military spokesman said. He said the brakes of a large cargo truck failed and it crashed into 12 civilian vehicles, killing one person and injuring at least six. The spokesman, Maj. Matt Hackathorn, said that an angry crowd converged on the scene and threw stones, and that Afghan police tried to push the crowd back to allow U.S. military personnel to leave. He said U.S. forces fired into the air "as a show of force" but no shots were fired into the crowd. As word of the accident spread across the city, people shouted that U.S. soldiers had shot and killed many civilians. That helped draw hundreds of men and boys into the roaming mobs. On the evening news, two TV stations showed crowds of people ducking and running while U.S. military vehicles drove by amid the sound of gunfire. Witnesses said clusters of 200 to 300 men and boys roamed the streets all morning carrying heavy sticks. Some of the leaders carried banners saying "God is Great." Others carried posters of Ahmed Shah Massoud, the anti-Soviet guerrilla leader who was assassinated in 2001. Shouts of "Down with Karzai" and "Down with Bush" were heard.
World news headlines from the Washington Post, including international news and opinion from Africa, North/South America, Asia, Europe and Middle East. Features include world weather, news in Spanish, interactive maps, daily Yomiuri and Iraq coverage.
15.673913
0.456522
0.5
medium
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/28/AR2006052800995.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006052919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/28/AR2006052800995.html
Iran's Leader Renews Doubt Of Holocaust
2006052919
BERLIN, May 28 -- President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran said that Germans should no longer allow themselves to be held prisoner by a sense of guilt over the Holocaust and reiterated doubts that the Holocaust ever happened. In an interview with Germany's Der Spiegel magazine, Ahmadinejad said he doubted that Germans were allowed to write "the truth" about the Holocaust and that he was still considering traveling to Germany for the World Cup soccer tournament. "I believe the German people are prisoners of the Holocaust. More than 60 million were killed in World War II. . . . The question is: Why is it that only Jews are at the center of attention?" he said in the interview published Sunday. In the rare interview with a Western news organization, Ahmadinejad said that if the Holocaust really happened then Jews should be moved from Israel back to Europe. "We say if the Holocaust happened, then the Europeans must accept the consequences and the price should not be paid by Palestine. If it did not happen, then the Jews must return to where they came from." German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other politicians have said his previous remarks questioning the Holocaust were "unacceptable." Holocaust denial is a crime in Germany punishable with a prison term of up to five years. Ahmadinejad said he was still considering going to Germanyto support Iran in the World Cup despite protests stirred by what he called a "worldwide network of Zionists." Iran's first World Cup match is against Mexico in Nuremberg on June 11, and German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble has said Iran's president would be welcome to come because Germany wants to be a good host. The invitation sparked protests from other political leaders and groups who said Ahmadinejad's anti-Israeli comments were unacceptable. Ahmadinejad's latest comments were condemned by the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. Rabbi Marvin Hier, a founder and dean, called on Merkel to keep him out of Germany. "On a day when the pope is in Auschwitz to remind the world of the horrors of the Holocaust, Ahmadinejad questions it again," Hier said. "For him to be at the World Cup and sit in a VIP seat would be a desecration of the memory of the Holocaust."
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.
9.456522
0.478261
0.478261
low
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/28/AR2006052800528.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006052919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/28/AR2006052800528.html
Blair Bowed to U.S. Pressure in Speech, Paper Says
2006052919
LONDON, May 29 -- Prime Minister Tony Blair caved in to White House pressure by sharpening language on Iran and softening it on global warming in a speech he delivered Friday at Georgetown University, according to a British press report Sunday that Blair's office immediately denied. According to the Sunday Telegraph, Blair made "significant" last-minute changes to his major foreign policy address and "objections by President George W. Bush's inner circle played a key role in the alterations." An official at Blair's 10 Downing Street office, speaking on condition of anonymity as is standard practice here, said it was "categorically untrue that any White House objective played any part" in the speech. Blair is frequently criticized in Britain for his close relationship with Bush, who is extremely unpopular among Britons. The prime minister is particularly faulted for his alliance with Bush in the Iraq war. Critics have complained that Blair seems too eager to please Bush in what many here view as a lopsided relationship that has benefited Bush far more than Britain. The newspaper, citing anonymous British sources, said aides to Blair told journalists three hours before the speech that Blair intended to say that "change should not be imposed" on Iran in the current dispute over its nuclear ambitions. The newspaper said the line reflected "the British view that bombing or invading Iran is not a realistic option." Blair eventually used more subtle phrasing: "I emphasize I am not saying we should impose change" -- which the newspaper said was altered to reflect the White House's desire to keep the military option "on the table" to exert maximum negotiating pressure on Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The newspaper also reported that Blair backed away from a plan that called for the United States and Europe to consider giving up their traditional arrangement of having an American head the World Bank and a European run the International Monetary Fund. Instead, Blair simply said there was a "powerful case for reform" in the international financial institutions. Blair had also planned to "take a tough line" on global warming and the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, which he supports and Bush opposes, the paper reported. In the end, Blair said only that "we must act on climate change," and international negotiations provide "a way forward, building on Kyoto, which can involve America, China and India." The paper reported that during the climate change section of the speech, a cellphone rang in the audience and Blair quipped, "I hope that isn't the White House telling me they don't agree with that. They act very quickly, these guys."
Find Washington Post science, politics and opinion coverage of the growing threat from global warming.
30
0.470588
0.705882
medium
low
abstractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/28/AR2006052800738.html%20
https://web.archive.org/web/2006052919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/28/AR2006052800738.html
Enron Case A Grueling Trial for Its Lawyers
2006052919
HOUSTON, May 28 -- The unyielding preparation, the sleepless nights spent in a dingy room far from his wife and four children, whom he visited only twice in six months, all came down to this: a few hours of questions in the case of a lifetime. Assistant U.S. Attorney John C. Hueston strode briskly into the courtroom with his eyes on a man he had pursued with unusual intensity for more than two years, former Enron Corp. chairman Kenneth L. Lay. The Southern California prosecutor, who has a compact build and a gleam in his eye, squared his shoulders and steeled himself for a fight. In the hour that followed, including a court break in which he maintained his focus by doing push-ups in his office, Hueston, 42, accused Lay of contacting witnesses during the four-month trial in an effort to "get your story straight." Hueston's chilly persistence left the once-genial corporate chieftain, who had been expected to flash his charm like a get-out-of-jail card, stammering and angry, drawn for the jury in a few quick strokes as a micromanager who thought he could talk his way out of trouble with a handful of well-placed phone calls. Jurors said that "controlling" attitude stuck in their minds as they found Lay guilty of a half-dozen conspiracy and fraud charges Thursday. A smiling Hueston appeared before camera crews at an outdoor news conference after jurors handed up their resounding decision, saying that Lay and former chief executive Jeffrey K. Skilling, who was also found guilty, had sealed their fates with lie after lie. The following day, Hueston flew home to California and took his children go-karting, leaving behind the sign in his temporary Houston office that urged him: "Play like a champion today" -- a University of Notre Dame invocation. The trial, the capstone of the government's efforts to hold corporate executives accountable for fraud that occurred while they were in charge, required both sides to be at the top of their games. In a case that featured no smoking-gun documents or "gotcha" moments, the skill of the advocates on both sides took on special importance, said experts who followed the trial. The single-minded pursuit of Lay and Skilling ended in success for the Justice Department's Enron Task Force. But the four-year drive was not without conflicts over strategy and personal style for lawyers on both sides of the monumental effort, one of the most complicated corporate cases in history. The government team stayed on course largely under the guidance of task force director and Chicago prosecutor Sean M. Berkowitz, a marathon runner who turned 39 two days after the verdict. Colleagues call Berkowitz unflappable, and he behaved true to form, even when government projection specialists stumbled and failed to find documents quickly as he cross-examined Skilling. Berkowitz parceled out key witnesses to members of his team without considering his own ego. He was the man who also made peace among squabbling colleagues and delivered the final -- and, according to jurors, the convincing -- rebuttal argument in a smooth baritone, snapping his fingers for emphasis. Paraphrasing a line from the Jack Nicholson character in the film "A Few Good Men," Berkowitz told the jury that Lay and Skilling resorted to falsehoods because "Enron couldn't handle the truth." Berkowitz, who pokes fun at his bald spot and rides motorcycles in his spare time, overrode the occasional interpersonal conflicts over resources and speaking roles among the team of nine lawyers, 15 agents, five paralegals and six others. He pushed -- despite opposing views -- to strike a plea deal only weeks before the trial with former Enron accounting chief Richard A. Causey. That helped slash more than a half-dozen witnesses from the case and also deprived Skilling and Lay of a scapegoat to blame if things started to go sour. The government victory was by no means a sure bet. Skilling's lead defender, Daniel M. Petrocelli, an entertainment lawyer from Century City, Calif., appearing in his first criminal trial, outtalked everyone else on his side of the courtroom, including highly touted and far more experienced advocates hired by Lay, according to lawyers who watched the trial. Petrocelli, 52, emerged as a clear leader of Skilling's defense as he marshaled help from more than a dozen junior lawyers, three law partners and a team of paralegals and support staff, including Skilling's wife Rebecca Carter, his younger brother Mark and his longtime assistant Sherri Sera. A separate unit of three document specialists set up an aluminum table bearing laptop computers directly outside the courtroom and often raced in with papers and opposition research to help the lawyers in the middle of the action. Surprisingly to Houston's legal community and trial watchers who had mostly underestimated him, Petrocelli's command of the facts equaled his theatrical style, as he rattled off arcane measurements of financial risk and accounting rules without glancing at notes. He left the eight-women, four-men jury smiling -- and left a series of government witnesses withering under his strong-armed attack. Juror Doug Baggett said that during much of the case, he felt like a "Ping-Pong ball," as his opinions vacillated back and forth after incisive questions by the defense team. A man who keeps his salt-and-pepper hair and his fingernails as carefully manicured as some of his movie-star clients', Petrocelli won praise from hard-bitten U.S. District Judge Simeon T. Lake III, who is not known for being a fan of defense lawyers. Government witness Ben F. Glisan Jr., Enron's former treasurer, acknowledged Petrocelli's talent even as the defense lawyer sought to rip apart his testimony. Even jurors who ultimately convicted Skilling on 19 of 28 criminal charges against him praised Petrocelli, who walked out of the courthouse looking ashen and shell-shocked after the verdict. Inside the building, however, elementary school principal Freddy Delgado told reporters that if he ever ran afoul of the law, he would hire Petrocelli, "if I had the money." His fellow jurors erupted with laughter. Petrocelli's law firm, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, received a $23 million retainer from Skilling, but the defense lawyer said the defense spent many millions of dollars more, though he would not say how much. He received crucial support from partner M. Randall Oppenheimer, 53, whose most visible courtroom role involved questioning accountants and technical experts but who performed important strategic work behind the scenes. Oppenheimer, a gray-bearded private pilot and the son of a film director who once visited the trial, combined razor-sharp intellect with a mild-mannered, dignified delivery. His understated manner won him respect from the government team and greater leeway from the judge, who coined "the Oppenheimer rule," which allowed lawyers in the long trial to get in "just one more question" after their opponents' objections. Perhaps the O'Melveny team's greatest accomplishment was keeping in check the mercurial temper of its client. Skilling, 52, followed his lawyers' advice and generally remained cool over eight days on the witness stand, in the face of expectations that his emotions might detonate and come back to hurt him with the jury. As they maintained control of Skilling, his defense lawyers also successfully cultivated an important alliance with Lay's team, which resisted the temptation to blame Skilling for Enron's misfortunes. That O'Melveny picked up the tab for experts and other pricey legal bills likely helped preserve goodwill between the defense teams. But it also took no small amount of Petrocelli's persuasion. If Skilling's legal team rose above expectations, Lay's failed to live up to them. Lead lawyer Michael W. Ramsey, 66, armed with a string of victories in murder and public-corruption cases in his four-decade career, sat on the bench for nearly the entire defense case after doctors implanted stents to open his clogged arteries. But Ramsey, who received $2 million from Lay, had run into trouble even before his health deteriorated. In his opening statement Jan. 31, Ramsey twice called on securities lawyer and fellow Lay defense lawyer Bruce Collins to confirm facts in the case. The judge took Ramsey to task for asking the government's first witness irrelevant questions, prompting Lay to pull him aside during a courtroom break. And in his cross-examination of former chief financial officer Andrew S. Fastow, Ramsey shouted when Fastow, who has a hearing problem, said he could not understand the lawyer's inquiries. Jurors and spectators flinched at the spectacle. Ramsey later told reporters that he was worried he had had a heart attack during the Fastow episode. With Ramsey out of the game, the Lay defense was in chaos and eventually settled on appellate lawyer George "Mac" Secrest to lead the questioning of Lay. That decision was made only a few days before Lay's turn on the witness stand, the most important turning point in the trial. Lay, who kept firm control of his legal team, balked when Secrest asked him to talk about his personal finances and other issues, once asking his own lawyer, "Where are we going with this, Mr. Secrest?" After news reports criticized the performance, Lay's daughter, Elizabeth Vittor, a lawyer who sat next to him every day and helped coordinate his defense, told reporters Secrest had done a "fabulous" job. Vittor did not question any witnesses in the trial and instead appeared to serve as a behind-the-scenes advocate for her father, who had amassed $100 million in debt in 2001, the year Enron filed for bankruptcy, and who spent less on his legal defense than Skilling. It remains unclear whether Ramsey's presence would have helped Lay. During cross-examination, prosecutors used some of Ramsey's negative comments from earlier in the trial about government witnesses against Lay. And there is little doubt that Lay's strong emotions about Hueston, whom he has accused of leading a vendetta against him, would have boiled over when the two men faced off anyway. During closing arguments, Chip B. Lewis, a young, goateed defense lawyer for Lay who could fill a doorway with his solid frame, stood over Hueston and bellowed, "Don't come to Houston, Texas, and lie to us." In the end, in a contest of will between prosecutors and defendants Skilling and Lay, the jury found the government more believable. As Berkowitz confronted Skilling with evidence that one of his investments violated Enron's ethics code, Skilling shot back: "What does this have to do with fraud at Enron?" The prosecutor was ready with a potent answer: "When we started this testimony, we agreed, that the one thing, the most important thing the jury had to rely upon here was your word."
HOUSTON, May 28 -- The unyielding preparation, the sleepless nights spent in a dingy room far from his wife and four children, whom he visited only twice in six months, all came down to this: a few hours of questions in the case of a lifetime.
40.134615
1
52
high
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/28/AR2006052801129.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006052919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/28/AR2006052801129.html
Elizabeth Vargas, Exiting Stage Center
2006052919
Elizabeth Vargas says she's at peace with her decision to walk away from one of the highest-profile jobs in America. But not everyone is so thrilled about it, especially some women. Vargas, 43, stepped down as the co-anchor of ABC's "World News Tonight" on Friday, three days after ABC announced that she would leave the broadcast and be replaced by "Good Morning America" co-host Charles Gibson starting today. ABC and Vargas said her unexpected departure was a result of the demands of the job -- and the demands of being the mother of a 3-year-old, with another child due this summer. "For now, for this year, I need to be a good mother," she said in an interview on Friday, a few hours before anchoring her last newscast. But the announcement has been met with a mixture of disappointment and skepticism in some quarters. Some observers found the news curious, given that Vargas will return to another demanding, but less visible, job -- co-anchor of the weekly newsmagazine "20/20" -- after she gives birth to her second child. What's more, critics question whether Vargas's departure after less than six months as an anchor was entirely voluntary, given declines in "World News Tonight's" ratings and considering that Vargas already had experienced the challenges of balancing work and family years before she became pregnant a second time. "It seems unlikely to me, having survived and thrived through her first pregnancy, that she would logically give up the top job in TV a few months out, anticipating she couldn't handle it," said Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women. "It just doesn't strike me as a logical explanation. I don't think there are too many men who would be happy to be removed from the anchor chair." Gandy added that ABC, which is owned by the Walt Disney Co., "doesn't look like a very woman-friendly or family-friendly workplace." An ABC News spokesman defended the network, saying it has accommodated several mothers of young children, including anchors Cynthia McFadden of "Nightline," Kate Snow of the weekend edition of "Good Morning America" and Vargas herself. NOW has joined with two other prominent women's organizations to protest Vargas's departure. In a letter that will be sent today to ABC News President David Westin and Disney-ABC Television Group President Anne Sweeney, the organizations call Vargas's status "a clear demotion" and characterize it as "a dispiriting return to the days of discrimination against women that we thought were behind us." In addition to Gandy, the letter is signed by Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, and Susan Scanlan, chairwoman of the National Council of Women's Organizations, an umbrella group that represents organizations with about 10 million members. The letter suggests Vargas's job change is parallel to ABC's cancellation of "Commander in Chief," a fictional program featuring Geena Davis as the first female president. The network has "now managed to eliminate two of the country's most visible women role models and high achievers from your television lineup," the letter says. It urges ABC to create work arrangements that would enable Vargas to continue as the network's "World News Tonight" anchor and as a mother, perhaps by pairing her in a job-sharing or co-anchoring role with Diane Sawyer. Sawyer, the co-host of "Good Morning America," reportedly was passed over for the "World News Tonight" anchor job last year. "This seems like a big march backward" for women in the workplace, said Kathy Bonk, an adviser to the women's groups. "Something has to give here. There are job-sharing options, there are many ways to accommodate women. This workforce has to change." Vargas said she appreciates the work of the women's groups in general, but that her situation was unusual and complicated -- and not only because she's the first person to become pregnant while serving as a network's lead anchor. Her circumstances changed dramatically in January when her co-anchor, Bob Woodruff, was severely injured during a reporting trip to Iraq. (Woodruff hasn't returned to work and will also be replaced by Gibson.) This forced Vargas to shoulder all of the anchor duties. Her pregnancy, she said, was another unexpected event. Vargas said her first child was delivered after an emergency Caesarean section three years ago; she'll undergo a scheduled C-section for her second ("I know -- too much information!"). That will mean at least six to eight weeks of maternity leave, which Vargas said creates a long period of discontinuity for viewers and for "World News Tonight's" staff. As a practical matter, anchoring the news five days a week demands more time and more unscheduled travel than co-anchoring the weekly "20/20," which has a more predictable pace, she said. Asked if her situation is comparable to Katie Couric's, Vargas said no because Couric's children are older, 11 and 13 years old. "It's a very different set of circumstances," Vargas said. Couric, who will take over as anchor of "CBS Evening News" in September, continued to co-anchor NBC's "Today" show after her husband's 1998 death left her a single mother. Vargas acknowledged that it's "a struggle" for working mothers to balance work and family obligations, but added, "I don't think there are a lot of lessons to be drawn from my example because this is a unique job. You can't leave the audience wondering who's in charge for weeks or months, and you can't not give 150 percent to a staff and a team who are so enormously dedicated." But that still leaves NOW's Gandy unsatisfied. "If she can't have it all," she said, "who among us could?"
Elizabeth Vargas says she's at peace with her decision to walk away from one of the highest-profile jobs in America. But not everyone is so thrilled about it, especially some women.
31.756757
1
37
medium
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/28/AR2006052801117.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006052919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/28/AR2006052801117.html
In Cannes, A Golden Palm For British 'Barley'
2006052919
CANNES, France, May 28 -- Put the pretty playboys back in their parents' penthouses and gangway for the helicopter pads -- you know the Cannes Film Festival is over when the price for French tap water plummets back to $8 a bottle at the better seaside hotels. Fini! And the awards go to . . . The biggie, the Palme d'Or, went Sunday night to seasoned British director Ken Loach for "The Wind That Shakes the Barley," a return to the Irish freedom fighters and their 1920s rebellion against their dreaded overlords of repression, the British. Said Loach at the podium: "Our film is about a little step, a very little step, in the British confronting their imperialist history. Maybe if we tell the truth about the past, maybe we tell the truth about the present." A big round of applause for that in the only two-thirds-full Palais auditorium. Loach offered exactly the kind of vaguely political yet strangely apolitical statement that filmmakers have been making throughout Cannes. Like, was he talking about Iraq, Bush, Iran, Blair, or the Raj in India? He did not say. What does it matter? The critical acclaim of the prize does not assure boffo box office, although it certainly helped the brazenly political Michael Moore, who won the Palme d'Or in 2004. Among the other winners: the six female leads (including Penelope Cruz) for best actress(es) for their roles in Spanish director Pedro Almodovar's "Volver," a story of sisterhood, extended eyeliner, family, breasts, patricide, memory and your mother returning as a live-in ghost. Almodovar also won for best screenplay. He sweetly included in his thanks his personal assistants, who do not always see him, he confessed, in such good humor as he had tonight. You go, you personal assistants! For best actor(s), surprise, another ensemble award for the lead male cast (5) of "Indigenes," about the 130,000 "natives" (director's description, not ours) from the French colonies who fought in World War II, more rebels overlooked by history (durn Western hegemony!). Best director went to Mexican Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu for "Babel," which the Associated Press nicely sums up as "a multicultural tale spanning three continents and five languages." Starring Cate Blanchett and Brad Pitt, who did not attend Cannes this year because he and, ummm, anyone, anyone? Right! Angelina Jolie. They were in Namibia, having a baby girl. Pitt did, however, send an e-mail. Mother and child Shiloh Nouvel Jolie-Pitt are doing well. Shut out among the 20 films in competition were the Americans. Sofia Coppola's "Marie Antoinette," zip, and so too Richard Linklater's "Fast Food Nation," and Richard Kelly's "Southland Tales." Coppola's candy-colored take on the Austrian princess who just wanted to have fun was booed at the press screening and has gotten mixed reviews (love it, hate it). Alas, Sofia was a no-show at the awards show. Perhaps now is as good a time as any to remind readers that the Cannes competition awards are selected from among only 20 movies, picked by the French who run the festival, which endeavors to represent a sampling of the wonderfulness of world cinema, meaning it is kind of like a French version of the United Nations of film, and all that implies, good and bad. (Films "out of competition," like "The Da Vinci Code," which opened the festival, are not up for prizes -- and good for Ron Howard and Tom Hanks, because based on the critical response they would not have emerged victorious.) So, this is not the Academy Awards, but the show itself is a trip and really should be broadcast in its glorious entirety back in the United States.
CANNES, France, May 28 -- The big prize at Cannes, the Palme d'Or, went to British director Ken Loach for "The Wind That Shakes the Barley"; Penelope Cruz and the other female leads in "Volver" also were honored.
15.958333
0.958333
5.208333
medium
high
mixed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/28/AR2006052801136.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006052919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/28/AR2006052801136.html
In Northeast, an Annual (and Perennial) Oasis
2006052919
Mid-morning, and already two hookers across the street are giving eyefuls to New York Avenue commuters. The Travelodge on the next block is flashing enticements: "Free Hot Breakfast" and "Great Beds with Pillow Top Mattress." And at Teresa's Garden Center, the suits of armor are for sale, but the red-white-and-blue Statue of Liberty is not. The dusty miller will bloom yellow in the fall, the banana plants come in two colors, the junipers are aged and sculpted, the fiery tropicana roses are climbing, and the cherry trees have started to bear fruit. "As long as they're watered and get the right type of light," begins Linda Davis, giving a tour of the place while car horns honk behind her and a semi growls into higher gear, "you can grow anything." By anything, she means anything . Here at the intersection of New York, Montana and West Virginia avenues NE -- along a scruffy stretch of warehouses and train tracks, a liquor store and a Salvation Army drug treatment center -- Davis and her co-workers are running an urban oasis. And just as this holiday weekend marks the unofficial start of summer, so do the bright flowers and greenery that migrate back to Teresa's. All winter, the center sort of desperately hangs on: It sells firewood and Christmas trees in December; Valentine's bows, roses and plastic-wrapped teddy bears in February; and cut-flower baskets in April. The displays are sparse and sometimes as scraggly and uninviting as the barren end of winter. But come spring and early summer, florid profusions of plants, flowers and big leafy trees transform the lot from asphalt gray to lush, inviting green. Soon garden statues, including Elmer Fudd and Scooby Doo, appear alongside porcelain macaws. Fireworks are advertised. The place is about the size of an average gas station, and it's crammed with flowers, trees and shrubs. There's barely room to park; on busy weekends, Davis hires someone to direct traffic. But at the end of the workweek, as was the case right before Memorial Day, the cars are on their own: At one point Friday, a black Mercedes SUV, a Nissan Altima, a Ford truck, a Mitsubishi Montero and a Lincoln Town Car are haphazardly squeezing themselves onto the lot. Unfolding himself from the Town Car, a man in a tie and pinstriped trousers checks his PDA and leans over the flowerbeds along New York Avenue. He lives in Silver Spring. He runs a limousine service. His name is Edward Yeboah. "I just bought a house," he says. "So I'm trying . . ." He sweeps his arm across the colors. The woman in the Nissan is Tami Upchurch. She lives in Hyattsville and works on Capitol Hill. She stopped in three years ago and has been returning "at least twice a year" ever since.
Mid-morning, and already two hookers across the street are giving eyefuls to New York Avenue commuters.
28.85
1
20
medium
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006052919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305.html
The Tempest
2006052919
As evidence mounts that humans are causing dangerous changes in Earth's climate, a handful of skeptics are providing some serious blowback IT SHOULD BE GLORIOUS TO BE BILL GRAY, professor emeritus. He is often called the World's Most Famous Hurricane Expert. He's the guy who, every year, predicts the number of hurricanes that will form during the coming tropical storm season. He works on a country road leading into the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains, in the atmospheric science department of Colorado State University. He's mentored dozens of scientists. By rights, Bill Gray should be in deep clover, enjoying retirement, pausing only to collect the occasional lifetime achievement award. He's a towering figure in his profession and in person. He's 6 feet 5 inches tall, handsome, with blue eyes and white hair combed straight back. He's still lanky, like the baseball player he used to be back at Woodrow Wilson High School in Washington in the 1940s. When he wears a suit, a dark shirt and tinted sunglasses, you can imagine him as a casino owner or a Hollywood mogul. In a room jammed with scientists, you'd probably notice him first. He's loud. His laugh is gale force. His personality threatens to spill into the hallway and onto the chaparral. He can be very charming. But he's also angry. He's outraged. He recently had a public shouting match with one of his former students. It went on for 45 minutes. He was supposed to debate another scientist at a weather conference, but the organizer found him to be too obstreperous, and disinvited him. Much of his government funding has dried up. He has had to put his own money, more than $100,000, into keeping his research going. He feels intellectually abandoned. If none of his colleagues comes to his funeral, he says, that'll be evidence that he had the courage to say what they were afraid to admit. Which is this: Global warming is a hoax. "I am of the opinion that this is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people," he says when I visit him in his office on a sunny spring afternoon. He has testified about this to the United States Senate. He has written magazine articles, given speeches, done everything he could to get the message out. His scientific position relies heavily on what is known as the Argument From Authority. He's the authority. "I've been in meteorology over 50 years. I've worked damn hard, and I've been around. My feeling is some of us older guys who've been around have not been asked about this. It's sort of a baby boomer, yuppie thing."
As evidence mounts that humans are causing dangerous changes in Earth's climate, a handful of skeptics are providing some serious blowback HUMAN BEINGS ARE PUMPING GREENHOUSE GASES INTO THE ATMOSPHERE, warming the planet in the process. AL GORE IS ABOUT TO COME ON THE BIG SCREEN. Fred...
10.132075
0.716981
10.377358
low
low
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/26/DI2006052600645.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006052919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/26/DI2006052600645.html
What's Cooking
2006052919
Calling all foodies! Join us for another edition of What's Cooking , our live online culinary hour with Kim O'Donnel . A graduate of the Institute of Culinary Education (formerly known as Peter Kump's New York Cooking School), Kim spends much of her time in front of the stove or with her nose in a cookbook. Catch up on previous transcripts with the What's Cooking archive page . Kim O'Donnel: After luxuriating in the pace of a long holiday weekend, I've got a bit of calendar amnesia. It's really Tuesday? Hope you enjoyed some leisure time and had a chance to play outdoors with such cooperative weather. If you haven't had a chance, check the new blog, Savoring Summer (link to the right on this page), and let me know your thoughts. It's a work in progress and I welcome the feedback. I've had a chance to taste everything from newly arrived Copper River salmon to pork ribs this weekend. By the way, Food section tomorrow features a bunch of grilling stories, including an update from Walter Nicholls on current exploding price of wild salmon. Check it out. I know it's hot out, probably too soon, but I just love it. Tell me what you've been up to. Oakton, Va.: The Harris Teeter grocery chain spent a lot of money in building a fancy two-story store in Fairfax to anchor a small shopping center a couple of years ago. At that time, anyone, even those lacking advanced nuclear science degrees, had to question the soundness of putting a major store in a bad traffic location, much less a two story grocery?with limited parking?? This decision was further questionable in light of the bad experience of A and P's attempted entry into the metro area grocery competition, opening and closing several stores including a nice, big store just down the road from where Harris Teeter chose to build. (now a successful Super H oriental store) Yesterday I went to this Harris Teeter store to shop ... I like their handicapped parking arrangements ... and was greeted by a hand-written sign indicating that the store would close May 30, 2006. At the same time, I am reading of planned new stores to be opened in D.C., Maryland and Virginia. Who is running this zoo? Lousy management, I guess ... somebody must have deep pockets ... In Fairfax,they have Harris Teeter brick entrances and fancy brick walls, H-T logos all over the place, plus a bunch of maybe too successfull strip mall restaurants and shops that maybe consumed all of the planned parking, like the "aren't they ever going to leave?" Starbucks! Kim O'Donnel: Wow. That would mean today is the last day for the HT Fairfax location. Anyone else hear tidbits on this news? This is worth following up on... Vienna, Va.: I have leftover grilled shrimp from the weekend. What can I do with it besides tossing it in a salad. Thanks! Kim O'Donnel: You could tuck into a baguette with some lettuces or spinach, a swipe of Dijon mustard and have yourself a dandy sandwich. You could chop up and toss into an omelette. You could mix with some avocado. You could eat with mango or pineapple chunks... I recently received 2 pineapples direct from Hawaii and now find myself with a bit of a problem: I'm going out of town at the end of the week and can't possibly eat them both before then. I'm hoping you or the foodies can help -- can pineapple be frozen? Any good recipes to use up this bounty? Thanks! Kim O'Donnel: Hi Madison, do keep up posted on farmer's market activity out there, ok? As for your pineapples, you sure can freeze one, so long as you cut it up into chunks and put in airtight container or bag. It will last for a while if stored prooperly. Frozen, it's great as part of a smoothie, by the way. Also great on pizza. Thaw in fridge when you're ready to use. Bethesda, Md. : Hi Kim! I bought some fantastic spinach and purple asparagus at the farmers market yesterday. I had the asparagus last night and the night before. Tonight, I'll have the spinach. How can I go about making wilted spinach, instead of steamed or just plain raw? I've had things served with wilted spinach in restaurants & loved it. I also have a shallot -- how can I use that to give a little extra zip to the spinach? In a related question, what type of extra virgin olive oil is the best for use with veggies? Kim O'Donnel: Wilted spinach is just another name for sauteed spinach. You can do this in a hot skillet, with a bit of olive oil (since it cooks so quickly) and some garlic, if you like, but be careful on it burning. Add some pinenuts and plumped up raisins and you've got a dish like something off the menu at Jaleo. A shallot would be great alternative to garlic or an addition. Shallots are great partners in the skillet w/veggies. Other things to consider: after washing spinach, which you should do a few times to rid of silt and dirt, drain really well. Water in the skillet will cause spinach to steam. Don't cover the skillet -- those beautiful green leaves will turn army brown. Salt at end. Washington, D.C.: Hi Kim! Help me cobble together these ingredients? I have chicken breasts, a nice assortment of fancy mushrooms (including shiitakes, chanterelles, etc.), some thyme, shallots. Plus some other basic kitchen staples. Am a little stumped on how to make an entree of them. Ideas? Thanks! Kim O'Donnel: Shallots and thyme can season a bunch of shrooms in a skillet, lined with a mix of olive oil and butter. Let shrooms cook til brown. Don't crowd pan, as they'll steam. You want them cook for longer than you'd think. Chicken -- is it boned or boneless? I'm thinking some rice would tie everything together... You weren't kidding about the exploding price of copper river salmon. I saw sockeye salmon in Whole Foods for 33.00 a pound! First they banish soft shells, now this! Fortunately, I was able to get it cheaper at another fish market near Bethesda! Kim O'Donnel: Yeah, when I saw it last week, it was $33 on one day, then $29 on another. I don't want to scoop Walter's story, but the good news is that prices won't be insane for too much longer -- at least that's my understanding. Promise to keep you up to date on that front. Washington, D.C.: Do you know anything about grilling at Rock Creek Park? Are there bbq's available?Thanks! Looking forward to trying some new rubs! Kim O'Donnel: Great question. Wonder if this is something the Going Out Gurus (Thursday at 1) know about...I'll ask around. Washington, D.C.: Hi Kim.I just ran over to the DOT farmer's market and picked up some things, including baby red onions. They looked too good not to buy them. Now what do I do with them? I also got some fresh peas. (And strawberries, naturally.) Kim O'Donnel: Do they have green shoot attached? If so, that can be eaten as well. Baby onions are mild and easier to digest. Great raw without a tummy ache. They'd be great with those peas, actually. Do a quick blanch (30 seconds in boiling salted water, remove to ice bath to stop cooking), then a quickie saute in butter w/the onion too. That would be lovely. Glad you wrote in about DOT market, proof pudding that there are midday markets alive and well. Clifton, Va.: What killed Harris Teeeter in Fairfax wasn't the parking but Wegman's opening down the road literally 10 minutes away. Lower prices, better selection and the best cusotmer service in town. All the Giant's and their fellow shopping center tenants in a 10 mile radius of the Fairfax Wegman's have seen double digit declines in their business over the last 12 mos. Blame Wegman's not the shopping center. Kim O'Donnel: But should we really blame Wegman's if it's a better alternative? I know what you mean, though. I know Whole Foods closed Annandale location, timed with opening of Old Town store. I guess it's part of the biz. Dullsville: Kim, my kitchen knives have gotten dull from shameful lack of upkeep, to the point where I'm more smushing parsley than I am chopping it. Will a sharpening steel help, or do I need to grind a new edge? If grinding is the only answer, is there somewhere in Arlington where I can have someone put on a new edge, or do I need to sack up and by myself a knife sharpener? Kim O'Donnel: Both. First get a new edge on your baby. Then go out and buy a steel, to be used every single darn time you cook. That's right. The steel helps to maintain the edge. It's kind of like flossing, and the new edge is like going to the dentist. You certainly can take to get done -- try Sur La Table in Pentagon Row, La Cuisine in Alexandria and maybe ask at an Arlington hardware store if they offer service. Boston, Mass.: Need a light, quick detox meal after this weekend's eating binge. Suggestions? Kim O'Donnel: Fruit is on the menu for me today. Some pineapple, leftover blueberries and strawberries from the weekend and a little yogurt. Tonight I've got some pea shoots and local lettuce with my name on it, a lemony vinaigrette perhaps, and maybe some chickpeas, drained, with garlic, lemon zest, parsley, olive oil. I know what you mean, feeling a little heavy myself. Manassas, Va.: Bought my first-ever grill this weekend. Any quick recipes for grilled meat, poultry, seafood, or veggies would be greatly appreciated. Kim O'Donnel: Do check my new blog: In the Friday edition of Savoring Summer , I'll be covering a different piece of the grilling world. Last week was about burgers and steaks, and readers offered their takes on the subject as well. Harris Teeter in Fairfax: Word on the street (and in the store) is that the Harris Teeter is being turned into a Walgreens and the H.T. will relocate somewhere nearby. That shopping center has always been awkward to get to what with the weird traffic configuration surrounding it. Kim O'Donnel: Walgreens? Interesting. I had no idea they were in this area. If parking is the issue, I hope the Whole Foods people are thinking about the rat maze of a parking lot at Clarnendon store. What a deterrent. Washington, D.C.: Hi Kim! How do I cook baby or Japanese eggplants so they still retain their beautiful purple skins? I've tried replicating lots of different Thai curry dishes, but the skins always turn brown by the time the eggplants have cooked? What's the secret? Kim O'Donnel: Braising the eggplants might be a way to retain color of skin but I don't know if that's foolproof. Grilling definitely will kick pigment to the curb. Interesting question, one I never thought about. Last week I asked for suggestions for cooking with saffron and you suggested paella. Can you share a recipe? Kim O'Donnel: Have a look at the seafood paella video/recipe I did a few years ago. I learned this recipe from Jose Andres, exec chef for Jaleo, Cafe Atlantico, etc. It's a goodie. Fort Meade, Md.: I remember reading from previous chats about various rubs for grilling. Here's mine, taken from a Web site. 1beef brisket (10-12 lbs.), 1/4cup kosher salt, 1/4cup sugar, 1/4cup brown sugar, 1/4cup cumin, 1/4cup chili powder, 1/4 cup freshly cracked black pepper , 2 Tbsp. cayenne pepper, 1/2cup paprika In a large bowl, combine the salt, sugar, brown sugar, cumin, chili powder, black pepper, cayenne pepper and paprika and mix well. Rub brisket thoroughly with this mixture and set aside. Build a fire in one half of a large grill. For best results, use an aromatic wood such as mesquite. When fire is ready, place brisket on grill, making sure that it is not above any part of the fire. Close grill cover and open vent about 1/2-inch. Feeding the fire periodically, cook for 8 to 10 hours or until the internal temperature is 165C/ 170Ú!nd the meat is very tender. The exterior of the meat should be very black. Remove from the fire, trim off excess fat and carve against the grain into very thin slices. Note: I trim the excess fat off before applying the rub. This recipe, minus the salt, also works for bbq-ing chicken. Kim O'Donnel: That's one mighty big steak you got, Fort Meade. For smaller cuts of meat, you could try the flank or the flat iron, particularly if you don't have all that time to devote to the big brisket. Thanks for sharing. Milwaukee, Wisc.: Can you offer some fun ideas for non-salad uses of homegrown flowers and veggies? As part of my oh-so-wonderfully-indulgent gardening spree this weekend, I planted some nasturtium, and am eager for the growth to begin. I know the leaves are a nice peppery accent in a salad (I do not use fertilizer on any plants I plan to eat -- don't want to test that theory that the fruit seeds I've swallowed will grow in my stomach!). What else can we do with lovelies such as these, pansies, etc. ... as well as the baby lettuces, carrots, etc. that are cropping up (pardon the pun)? Kim O'Donnel: Once I stuffed gladiolas with a salmon mousse for a party and it was to die for. So exquisite on the tongue, so glamorous to look at. Flowers are great as garnish -- on top of soups, muffins, cakes, in hors d'oeuvres type stuff. Anyone with other ideas for edible flowers? Grilling newbie: Check out Weber's Big Book of Grilling. Some plain and some fancy recipes, all are delicious and easy! With explanations on cuts of meat, methods of grilling, and very simple rubs and marinades. Kim O'Donnel: Great. Other good ones to check are the many titles from Steven Raichlen, Peace Love & Barbecue, the Karen Adler books. Keep the titles coming, folks. Washington, D.C.: I hope I'm not too late. What exactly is a spice rub? Are you supposed to actually rub the meat with the spice mixture, or just spread it on or what? Thanks. Kim O'Donnel: Spice rub is a mix of ground spices (and often herbs). Usually it's dry, but in some recipes you'll see moistened it a bit to become a paste. Yes, it's something you rub into the meat as a marinade, infusing it with deep flavor. As I learned this weekend, you can do dry rub on ribs, cook slow in oven, then finish on grill with wet sauce. It's a tantalizing combination. Boston, Mass.: Aren't there some Mexican-type recipes that stuff squash flowers and fry them? Violets can be candied, I know, and rose was once the flavor of choice for puddings and cakes (before chocolate and vanilla made their ways over from the new world). Kim O'Donnel: Squash flowers absolutely can be stuffed and fried (or steamed), but they're not flowers on their own, like nasturtium but definitely the flowering part of fruits and veg. Yes to candied violets but I guess we need to get a primer on how to make that happen... Washington, D.C.: Just a little reminder -- read those labels and leave the brands with corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup off your shopping lists (they are really prevalent in juices and ice creams) along with the hydrogenated fats and enjoy all of the summer fruits and vegetables. Kim O'Donnel: A great tip. That HFCS is a killer, and if you're interested in the topic, take a look at "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan, plus the new title by Marion Nestle. Washington, D.C.: Hi Kim, I've just been introduced to these chats and am just starting to learn to cook in my sadly electric kitchen. I did want to share one little hint, learned in all places grad school. For those that love collard greens and other low country delicacies cooked in pork fat, there is a relatively simple change that could cut cholesterol. Sweet potato greens! Usually these are thrown out, but, they've been shown to be just as tasty, cooked in the traditional ways. And, they are cholesterol binding. A study about 10-15 years ago in the carolinas demonstrated that inspite of the high fat cooking method, using these instead of traditional greens reduced cholesterol levels compared to the other greens. Kim O'Donnel: Interesting. I would love to know more. Got any references I can explore? Kim O'Donnel: Time's out, but the fun lasts all week, now I've got the blog. Join me weekddays for daily reports from the kitchen, market and the road: blog.washingtonpost.com/savoringsummer In the meantime, have a delicious week and type to you in June. All best. 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.
Calling all foodies! Join us Tuesdays at noon for What's Cooking, our Live Online culinary hour with Kim O'Donnel.
152.73913
0.913043
9
high
medium
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/26/DI2006052601628.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006052919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/26/DI2006052601628.html
Lean Plate Club (Updated 6.02.06)
2006052919
Daily Updates: 5.31.06 | 6.02.06 Welcome to The Lean Plate Club, hosted by Washington Post health and nutrition writer Sally Squires. Share your tips on healthy recipes, meal plans, sugar alternatives and resisting overeating with other readers. Now that the school bell is ringing for many kids, there's a morning time crunch at home that often leaves little time for breakfast. How do you entice your kids to the table -- and make sure that they eat the food that will help boost their performance in school? And what can you eat in the morning to feel sharper on the job? During today's discussion, Sally will share tips to keep your family well nourished as school starts and life goes from the lazy days of summer to the fast pace of fall. On Tuesdays at 1 p.m. ET, Sally, who has a master's degree in nutrition from Columbia University, leads a lively discussion for readers looking for new ways to eat smarter and move around more throughout the day. The Lean Plate Club is dedicated to healthy living -- whether you're trying to whittle your waistline or simply maintain it. We want to hear your tips, strategies, meal plans, successes, setbacks and more. Of course Sally will be happy to answer questions and turn others over to the Club. None of this, however, is a substitute for medical advice. Squires is a veteran health reporter for The Washington Post. She is co-author of "The Stoplight Diet for Children" and author of "Secrets of the Lean Plate Club" (St. Martin's Press; 2006). Sign up for the free Lean Plate Club e-mail newsletter . The Lean Plate Club column appears weekly in the Washington Post Health section and is nationally syndicated by the Washington Post Writers Group . Sally Squires: Welcome to the Lean Plate Club and the unofficial start of summer. Look for a special edition LPC email newsletter later this week. Today's email newsletter should be in your electronic inboxes now. There's a recipe for cold black bean soup by Jacques Pepins, the perfect antidote for a hot, steamy summer day. And producer Katie McLeod is kindly typing for me while I'm on my way back from Atlanta. I think we've got lots to talk about so let's get onto the chat -- we'll just dive right in! Columbia, S.C.: I have been reading about raw foods diets and am experimenting a little bit with eating more vegetables, nuts, cheeses etc. in their raw state. Is there any research that supports this way of eating? Sally Squires: There's nothing wrong with vegetables in their raw state, but you need to be careful with milk products because they're unpasteurized. Pasteurization involves heating milk products and there's some risk if you don't eat pasteurized products. There have been E.coli outbreaks from unpasteurized fruit juices, so it's wise to keep eating pasteurized dairy products. Thanks! Washington, D.C.: Sally, help! Quick food question. I bought one of those larger containers of yogurt last week, thinking I would eat it all. But I haven't! How long is that stuff good for once it's opened? Any suggestions on how to use it up? Sally Squires: Follow the expiration date is the best bet. Keep it well refrigerated and try using it in a smoothie. You can make one using 1 cup of yogurt and 1 banana, 1 cup of berries, a dash of vanilla and 1 cup of ice. Blend and enjoy. Another option, make tandoori chicken. Take a chicken breast, chicken thighs, skin them. You can also use Cornish hens, sprinkle with a little paprika and a little chili powder if you want, take about 1 cup of yogurt, blend with a couple of cloves of garlic and a slice of ginger if you want. Pour the yogurt over the chicken, marinate in the refrigerator for up to an hour or so, then bake in a 350 degree oven, serve with whole wheat couscous, chutney, a little lime and a salad. And you've got a meal. Other suggestions for that yogurt, LPCers? Enjoy! Thanks. Watertown, Mass.: Fascinating column today, Sally! What do you suppose is really going on? Is it too much (conflicting) information? Is it bad reporting (present company excepted, of course!)? I'm an old pro at this (Weight Watchers Lifetime Member and Leader), and even I feel confused every now and again. Sally Squires: Hey Watertown! Just one more reason why we all need to keep burning more to eat smart and stay active. In the survey, people knew what to do, but they didn't always proactive their knowledge. Just another reason to keep helping each other out on the Lean Plate Club. Thanks. Fort Washington, Md.: Okay, if weight is 160. I need to eat 1600 calories to lose weight? I do plan to include the elliptical trainer, walk, and weight lifting as part of this program. Sally Squires: If you weigh 160 pounds, you likely need 1600 calories just for basics, like breathing. If you're getting active with that elliptical trainer, walking and weight lifting, you likely need at least 20-40 percent more calories. If you're trying to lose weight, one easy way to do it, is to cut back on 250 calories each day and burn 250 calories each day. You could probably do that with 30-40 minutes on the elliptical trainer depending on the intensity. You probably burn about 150 calories per mile walked. That total 500 calorie deficit will help you lose about 1 pound a week. Hope that helps. Let us know how you do. Thanks. Boston, Mass.: Hi. I have a question about online weight loss programs. Do you know how successful the programs inspired by the TV show the Biggest Loser are? there are two of them - one with each trainer featured on the show. Sally Squires: Hey Boston, I've seen those programs online, but to my knowledge, there aren't any published results, so it's hard to know how successful they are. Just remember every weight loss program works for someone. No weight loss program works for everyone, so whether you try The Biggest Loser programs or something else, use your common sense and judgment about what works best for you. Good luck. Thanks. Mix that yogurt with some curry powder, garam masala, or Indian tandoori spice (the local Indian markets have some wonderful spice mixes), and use to marinate chicken, lamb or beef. About a teaspoon or so would work for a cup of yogurt, if I remember correctly. You can also add in a bit of olive oil. Yogurt also makes a nice dip/topping for roasted meats. Sally Squires: Sounds like great tips, Gaithersburg. Thanks very much! New York, N.Y.: Hi, Sally. I've been feeling "enlightened" lately after reading two excellent books about food and nutrition: Michael Pollan's "Omnivore's Dilemma" and Marion Nestle's "What to Eat." Pollan is more philosophical, and Nestle focuses on the political battles behind food labeling, etc. I'm interested to know if you're aware of/have read these books and if you recommend them to Lean Platers? They've been a wake-up call to me and made me much more conscious about what I buy at the market and what I put in my mouth. Sally Squires: I have Marion Nestle's book and have used her as a source on many occasions, but I haven't yet read the book. From what I've seen it looks great. I haven't yet seen Pollan's book, but I'd love to know what any of you think of it. And I'd also like to know if any of you out there have found "Secrets of the Lean Plate Club," my recently published book on nutrition, to be helpful. Email me at leanplateclub@washpost.com. Philadelphia, Pa.: Hi Sally, I love the column. I have a quick and random question about tea. I have read that if you add milk to green or black tea it decreases the benefits of the antioxidants. Then I heard that this may not be true. Do you have any ideas on this subject? Thanks! Sally Squires: Hey Philadelphia, thanks for your message. My understanding from reporting is that antioxidants in tea are highest right after brewing. With time, they start to decline. That seems more important than the milk you put in your tea. Hope that helps. Plus remember that milk has some calcium, which is a good thing. Frederick, Md.: Here's my yogurt question. I see yogurt in salad bars at grocery stores and I have to wonder how long the yogurt can sit in the salad bar without going south. I know the salad bars are refrigerated, but how long can yogurt keep in this condition? Sally Squires: As long as the yogurt is refrigerated, it should be fine. For more information on food safety check www.usda.gov or www.fda.gov. Frederick, Md.: Leftover yogurt: Instead of using sour cream, use plain yogurt for dry dip mixes. Almost the same texture and a bit healthier. I'm not sure that I would serve it at parties but it can our healthy little secret! Sally Squires: Yes, that's a great option. My favorite yogurt is Total nonfat and I have no connection with the company:-) Sometimes you can add a curry. Sometimes curry will mask the slightly sour taste of yogurt. It does have a slightly different taste than nonfat sour cream, and you can also mix the two -- nonfat sour cream and yogurt, and with different flavorings. Another good easy dip for summer is to take nonfat sour cream and add Chile paste that you find in the Asian food sections of grocery stores. Warning: It's spicy, but delicious. Chattanooga, Tenn.: Hi Sally. The question about raw foods led me to wonder about the canned vegetables I eat. I have a toddler, so it's very easy for me to just open up a can of green beans, carrots, or peas, and we share it for lunch or dinner (along with some protein and grains). I try to buy the unsalted versions. But I notice that the "greens" are never as green as the fresh stuff. Am I losing nutritive value by eating the canned stuff? It still counts as a vegetable serving, right? Sally Squires: Absolutely, Chattanooga. In fact, the latest U.S. dietary guidelines make no distinction between the nutritional value of fresh, frozen, canned or dried fruit and vegetables. But you're right, if you buy canned vegetables, try to get the low sodium variety. You can also stretch your food dollars by buying frozen fruit or vegetables, which are often on sale during the summer. Look for packages that don't have added sugar or sauces, which are often high in sodium and may have added fat. Thanks! Unused yogurt: I used to make a good veggie dip with powdered ranch dressing, yogurt and cottage cheese all thrown into the blender. It starts out kind of watery but as it chills it gets to the dip consistency. Sally Squires: Sounds great, thanks! New York, N.Y.: Re: my opinion of Marion Nestle's book: Her aisle-by-aisle approach is very easy to read, and she untangles a lot of the misleading/confusing labels about organic, natural, etc. In my opinion, she focuses a little too much on political battles between FDA, USDA, lobby groups, etc, but that seems to be her specialty. BTW - I would love to read LPC book but I haven't seen it in book stores in NYC. You have fans here too! Sally Squires: Thanks for the feedback on Nestle's book and if you can't find Secrets of the Lean Plate Club at your local book store, Amazon has it at a reduced rate. And I know we have thousands of LPC members in NY. We're delighted that they're part of the club. Thank you. Columbia, Md.: I'm feeling very frustrated with the weight problem I've been struggling with most of my life. I've been thinking of spending some of my vacation time on a program like the Duke weight loss program to try to get some better habits. What do you think of these programs? I can see they are expensive. Are they helpful enough to justify the cost? Or would talking to a nutritionist/personal coach do the same thing? Thanks Sally Squires: Sorry to hear about your weight struggles, Columbia, but you're not alone. The Duke program is one of many that has helped people lose weight. Before you shell out a lot of money for these programs at Duke or anywhere else, ask yourself 1. How does it fit with your budget?, 2. Would your health insurance pick up any of the costs, 3. Ask your doctor about what you're thinking of doing, 4. Ask yourself if you think the jump start will work for you, or if you could take off some time and do the same thing for yourself at home with that extra supervision. You might also consider exploring a support group -- anything from joining Weight Watchers to Food Addicts Anonymous. To find a registered dietician near you, go to www.eatright.org, the home page of the American Dietetics Association. You might also consider teaming with a friend to do a week long home spa where you get in healthy food, set out specific times to exercise and maybe treat yourself to a massage or a manicure when you've achieved your goals for the week. In other words, there are a lot of ways to start what you want to do. Good luck and let us know how it goes -- we're rooting for you. Washington, D.C.: Hi Sally. I am a frequent reader but this is my first post. My question: do you have any ideas about low sugar, somewhat healthy desserts? My husband and I eat a very balanced, very healthy diet and are very active. But we love dessert--usually cookies--and always eat too many. We always have fruit in addition to the cookies, but we still eat too many. Any ideas/strategies to satisfy our sweet craving but lowering our sugar intake? Thanks! Sally Squires: Hey D.C., thanks for posting! Graham crackers, Ginger Snaps and Animal Crackers are just three lower sugar, lower fat cookies. You might also try biscotti, fruit-filled cookies like Fig Newtons and another great treat can be shortbread cookies -- just watch the fat content. Snackwells makes a lower calorie cookie. The trick with any of these cookies is to not eat the whole box at one sitting:-) Sally Squires: Does anybody else have any healthy cookie suggestions? Yogurt cheese: Take the yogurt and put into a strainer lined with coffee filters or cheese cloth. It will drain and create a "cheese" in about 4-5 hours. My Lebanese mother in law eats this every morning with a little olive oil and toast. It's a good substitute for cream cheese. Sally Squires: That's an excellent idea. And just be sure to do that in the refrigerator, but it's a great idea, thanks. Sally Squires: Another option, add sliced cucumbers, onions and garlic, to make tzatziki, a Greek dish. You could also use that yogurt to make a cold soup. Framingham, Mass. on Yogurt: Back when Oprah was working with Rosie as her personal chef, Rosie has a recipe for "fried chicken" which used yogurt for a base on the skinless chicken, then seasoned breadcrumbs, baked at 350 for 40 minutes and it is like "fried" chicken. My husband will not eat yogurt...or so he thinks. He has had this recipe many times and really enjoys it. One last idea: Yogurt with a little honey mixed in, and a few crushed almonds is a very nutritious snack. Sally Squires: Great idea -- thanks for passing along, Framingham. Adams Morgan: One nice thing to do with non-fat yogurt is to make labneh - drain the water out of the yogurt overnight in the fridge using a coffee filter setup - then you have a thicker spread/dip, not unlike the consistency of soft cream cheese. You can then stir in curry, garlic, chopped up sundried tomatoes, whatever, (try the Middle Eastern markets for good spice combinations to stir in) and use it as a spread on bagels or toast. A little olive oil may make it easier to spread. Low calorie, lots of calcium, it's great! This is not a way to preserve the yogurt, of course, but is a good thing to do with it. Sally Squires: Sounds like we have some experienced yogurt users out there, LPCers. Thanks very much! South Florida: Not a question so much as a rant. I just went into our office kitchen to heat up my low-fat minestrone soup to be followed by an apple and one hershey kiss for desert and on the table were oatmeal choc-chip cookies, brownies, doritoes, and a slice of boston cream pie. I have been watching what I eat and exercising for the last 7 months, lost 34 lbs and feel so much better (with extensive help from the LPC) but I have observed the office is the hardest place for me to maintain good eating habits and often people don't respect the changes, leaving a huge chocolate muffin on my desk when I am not there, etc. I had a v. active weekend with canoeing and walking and am hungrier than usual and just want to eat all the cookies. Still, I am back at my desk having my soup, glad I brought an extra snack and looking forward to yoga tonight. Sally Squires: Congratulations on trimming those 34 lbs, Florida. Co-workers can have the best of intentions, but sometimes are misguided. But it sounds like you have your habits well in place to counteract the temptations. Keep up the great work! Thanks. Athens, Ga.: Hi, Sally, just wanted to say thanks for the great recipes every week. We've been enjoying them! Also, I've started using a heart rate monitor to keep track of my exercising. I enter the info into a spreadsheet afterwards, then add up my total every week. It helps me stay focused on keeping up exercise intensity and satisfies my inner geek! Sally Squires: That's a great example, Athens, of tracking your progress and finding something that really motivates you. It reminds me that if anyone's interested, I have free electronic spreadsheets for counting Weight Watchers points in Excel. I also have free electronic tools in Word for counting calories and activity. Since we're almost out of time, send me an email if you want either of these tools that were supplied by other Lean Plate Club members and I'll email them to you when I return to the office. Just drop me an email to leanplateclub@washpost.com. Please put which spreadsheet you'd like in the subject line for faster return. Thanks. Sally Squires: Thanks to all for a great chat. Enjoy the rest of the week. I'll do updates weekdays, so look for those. In the meantime, eat smart and move more. Have a great week! Washington, D.C.: Hi Sally, My boyfriend and I prepared colorful chicken and veggie shish kabobs this weekend only to find our grill not working. We improvised by removing everything (the chicken, portabella mushrooms, yellow squash, zucchini, and red peppers) from the skewers and stir-frying it all with the salt-free Mrs. Dash Mesquite marinade we bought for the chicken. The dish was great and we paired it with baked sweet potatoes in the microwave. Grill or no-grill, we still were able to enjoy our rainbow meal of veggies and chicken! Sally Squires: What a great example of being flexible--and committed to your goals not matter what. Thanks for providing the inspiration. Apex, N.C.: Thanks for posting the MapMyRun site. It looks similar to www.gmap-pedometer.com but seems to have a nice look to it. I use this kind of tool when coming up with new bike routes to try. Sally Squires: It seems to be a wonderful site. I learned about it while giving a brown bag speech at the Ft. Worth YMCA in April. Thanks to them for the tip. If any of you use this site--or know of others -- I'd love to hear what you think about them. Framingham, on Cookies: Trader Joes sells Caramel Cashew Cookies-3 cookies weigh in at 140 calories, 60 fat calories, and 4 gr sugar...not all is lost, 1g of fiber as well. They are excellent, are not too sweet, and are very satisfying. A tub of 14 oz. sells for 3.99...and I am not associated with Trader Joes, but found these a pleasant surprise. Sally Squires: Sounds like another healthy cookie option to add to that growing list, which includes ginger snaps, graham crackers, Snackwells and Fig Newtons. We could also add meringues. If others have cookie possibilities, zip them to me at leanplateclub@washpost.com. Bowie, Md.: I would like to know of a resource for alternate recipe ingredients. I do not use alcohol or sugars. Someone once told me that I could add a certain juices in place of wine or sherry, but I do not remember which. One of today's recipes mentions pomegranate molasses. What might be a sub for molasses? I will probably try a no-sugar jam with water (or?) to thin it a little bit. Sally Squires: You can use fruit juice or some fruit based pastes that are available in grocery stores in place of more processed sugar. Most of these are made from prune paste. This University of Hawaii Web site offers help on your question as do these sites. As long as we're talking substitutes, I also found a home-made substitute for baking powder: And while we're at it...Here are home-made substitutes for cleaning supplies: washingtonpost.com: Check right back here on Friday for another update to this week's Lean Plate Club discussion with Sally Squires. Port Townsend, Washington: Would eating just one low calorie frozen dinner be a good way to lose weight or would two be good at approximately 250-300 each like Stauffer's? One a lunch and one at dinner? Sally Squires: It's certainly a great way to control calories and portions. Doing so, however, may give you a bit more sodium than you may need, Port Townsend. But if you feel satisfied, this fits with your budget and your sodium requirements, it could be quite helpful and could help you retrain your idea of portions. Dayton, Ohio: It has been my observation that people are actually becoming more ignorant with more information, and this includes so-called experts! Why are nutritionists still in the dark about all the new findings on vitamin D, a prehormone that we should make with exposure to the sun? If you read www.vitamindcouncil.com you will see the newest findings, including the actual prevention of cancer with sufficient D. There is a D deficiency epidemic that is harming all of us, especially people of color yet few doctors, nutritionists, etc even know about this and most still recommend avoiding the sun and wearing sunscreen. All bad advice and yet it is conventional wisdom. Sally Squires: You have a point, Dayton. But the final chapter on the vitamin D story has not yet been written. washingtonpost.com: A Deficiency of D (Post, April 5, 2005) There is an on-going debate about what level of vitamin D may be best and look for that topic to be something that may soon be taken up by the National Academy of Sciences. So watch this space. In the meantime, stay within the current vitamin D guideines, since it is possible to get toxic levels of this key vitamin. Upper limit is 2,000 IU. Toxic effects have been reported at 10,000 IU daily. Hope that helps. Washington, D.C.: Aligning taste, price, and nutrition, which can pull in different directions like contrary horses yoked to the same carriage, can be quite difficult, but I am glad that awareness of what is involved in trying to do so has improved tremendously in the last decade or two, though one wouldn't always think so from the results of the survey. Sally Squires: Those are all important factors in choosing food, although market research consistently shows that taste is what matters most to consumers. So if a food doesn't taste good, you might eat it sometimes, but you likely won't buy it all the time. And price is another important decision factor. And then nutrition seems to come in third. But just as we have made changes in other things in society--where people can smoke, wearing seat belts, etc. Perhaps the Lean Plate Club can slowly start a movement towards factoring in taste, price and nutrition to food choices. Now that would be something! Durham, N.C: To the couple having problems with cookies after dinner, try any of the single-serving packages that are now readily available - most come in at 100 cals per serving. nabisco also packages oreos in 2 cookie servings. i know these kinds of convenience items are much more expensive than buying a bulk package, but I've found they keep my from overeating and so are well worth the added cost. Sally Squires: Great idea, Durham. They're made by Kraft/Nabisco and include Oreos and Chips Ahoy--although they are the standard size cookie. Another option: get larger sizes of your favorite snacks and put them in individual portions--presumably when your willpower is at a high level and you will unlikely to "sample" what you put into those single serving size bags. Thanks. washingtonpost.com: Sally Squires will be online again on Tuesday, June 6, at 1 p.m. ET to answer your questions live. 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.
Post health and nutrition writer Sally Squires talked about how to eat healthier.
371.071429
0.928571
4.214286
high
medium
mixed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/26/DI2006052601427.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006052919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/26/DI2006052601427.html
Gun Safety in Homes
2006052919
Matthew Miller, associate director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center and co-author of a new study on gun safety in Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, was online Tuesday, May 30, at 2 p.m. ET to discuss gun safety in families' homes. He also fielded questions and comments about the study. Miller, a physician with training in internal medicine, medical oncology and medical ethics, has been the Associate Director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center since the year 2000. Miller has conducted extensive empirical research in injury and violence prevention and is the author of more than 35 articles and book chapters on fatal and non-fatal violent injuries, including homicide, suicide, and other topics. Recent projects include analyses of the relationship between physical illness and suicide among elderly Americans, the connection between recent changes in rates of homicide and suicide among African American youth, the relative risk of suicide and suicidal behavior among users of different classes of antidepressants, the effects of firearm legislation on rates of suicide and homicide, factors influencing public opinion about the inevitability of suicide, and the association between rates of household firearm ownership and rates of violent death. In Harm's Way: Guns and Kids (Post, May 30) Child Access Prevention Laws By State This is Matt Miller from the Harvard School of Public Health. I'm glad for your interest in this important issue and will try to answer as many questions as I can. Arlington, Va.: I thought Ms. Boodman's article was both excellent and disturbing. My father grew up in Texas, is a retired Army colonel and a staunch Republican-basically the perfect stereotype of a gun-owner. I also know that he owns at least three guns. However, in 25 years, I have never seen any of his weapons, don't know where they are kept and don't know if he has any ammunition for them. I am shocked that parents who spend hundreds or thousands of dollars baby-proofing their homes wouldn't simply lock up their guns. This is a 100% preventable tragedy and I hope that gun-owning adults (whether they have children of their own or not) will take these warnings to heart. Thanks for being here to discuss an incredibly important topic. Matthew Miller: Thanks for your comment. Your father did a great job keeping his firearms hidden from you -- but as the study that Frances Baxley and I conducted shows, most children, even those as young as five years old, know where their parents household guns are stored and half of the boys in our study had handled a gun in their home. Of greater concern is our finding that of the parents who reported that their child had never handled a gun in their home, one in five were contradicted by their child's report. Other studies have also found a disconnect between what parents believe their children will do when they find a gun and what their children actually do when they find a gun. In one study, boys aged 9-15 were strongly warned not to touch guns. However, when left alone with a gun, about a quarter touched and played with it. Almost all then denied doing so when they were asked. None of the boys touched any other forbidden item after being warned against doing so. "The results of the current study indicate that guns hold a unique allure and cast further doubt on the ability of gun admonitions to keep children safe around guns" (Hardy 2003, 352). washingtonpost.com: In Harm's Way: Guns and Kids (Post, May 30) Rockville, Md.: Do you have any references to the studies supporting the notion that teaching kids about safety does not work? I find it hard to believe that teaching safety does not have some positive impact. Matthew Miller: A great reference -- and a sobering one -- is Hardy behavior oriented approaches to reducing youth gun violence. It can be found at www.futureofchilden.org Here are a few examples: Currently, some 10 percent of elementary school teachers provide some firearm safety education. The most popular curriculum is the National Rifle Association's Eddie Eagle program (Price et al., 2005). Unfortunately, recent evaluations find that while the Eddie Eagle program may teach children aged 4-7 to verbalize safety messages, these messages do not lead to actual behavior change (Howard 2004; Himle et al 2004; Gatheridge et al 2004). In one study, boys aged 9-15 were strongly warned not to touch guns. However, when left alone with a gun, about a quarter touched and played with it. Almost all then denied doing so when they were asked. None of the boys touched any other forbidden item after being warned against doing so. "The results of the current study indicate that guns hold a unique allure and cast further doubt on the ability of gun admonitions to keep children safe around guns" (Hardy 2003, 352). Baltimore, Md.: Have you compiled statistics on how many times a gun has actually been used to protect/defend family members in their homes in recent years? Thank you. Matthew Miller: I highly recommend David Hemenway's book "PRIVATE GUNS PUBLIC HEALTH" as a one-stop shopping source for clear and unbiased information about the costs and benefits of firearms in the U.S. Here are a few of the statistics Dr. Hemenway notes in his recent book: Numbers of Uses: The National Research Council (2005) examined the scientific literature on self-defense gun use. They concluded that: "self-defense is an ambiguous term" (p.106), that whether one is a defender or a perpetrator may depend on perspective, and that "we do not know accurately how often armed self-defense occurs or even how precisely to define self-defense" (p. 13). The claim that there are 2.5 million self-defense gun uses each year received no support. A teenager from Arizona, working with his father, provided a reality check on the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses. They examined all Phoenix area newspaper reports, supplemented by police and court records. Unsubstantiated findings from a Kleck-Gertz study would predict that the police should have known about 98 civilian defensive gun use killings, and 236 defensive gun use firings at criminals during the period studied. Although a homeowner successfully defending his family against a home invasion would provide a juicy news story, a careful investigation by the father-son team could find only two actual cases of self-defense gun use involving a killing or a firing at an assailant. These two incidents appeared to be escalating altercations, with innocent bystanders exposed to the gunfire (Denton & Fabricius 2004). Is More Better? While there are undoubtedly virtuous incidents of self-defense gun use, there are too many stories of self-defense gone awry. "A five year old girl in Houston is dead after being mistaken for a burglar by her stepfather He shot when someone tried to open the door of the bedroom where he and his wife were sleeping" (NBC56.com, 8/16/04). "A teenager, who celebrated his 16th birthday by playing pranks in his neighborhood, was fatally shot by a neighbor who mistook him for a burglar (the teen) and an unidentified friend were ringing doorbells or knocking on doors and then running away" (St. Petersburg Times, 10/27/03). "A small girl [aged 2] remained in the hospital in critical condition Sunday from a gunshot wound inflicted by a man who had confronted a group of teenagers after one sent a football crashing through the window of his southwest Houston apartment (The man) rushed out, demanding to know who broke the window He took his hand out of his pocket and he had a gun. That's when everybody started running. Police said (the man) raised the pistol toward two of the fleeing juveniles and fired" (Houston Chronicle, 7/24/05). Claims about the high frequency of self-defense gun use are also contradicted by the data. For example, for sexual assaults, only 1 victim in 1,119 total incidents reported attacking or threatening with a gun (15 used a non-gun weapon; 38 called the police or a guard; 120 attacked without a weapon; 161 ran away; 219 yelled; 343 struggled). In robberies, 1.2% of victims used a gun, whereas 3.8% called the police or guard, 12.7% ran away, 20.5% struggled. In confrontational burglaries, 2.7% of victims used a gun, 3.3% some other weapon, 6.3% ran away or hid, 10.9% struggled, 20.4% yelled or turned out the lights, and 20.1% called the police. In all confrontational crimes, 0.9% of victims reported using a gun, 1.7% a non-gun weapon, 7.2% called the police, 10.1% ran away, 13.8% struggled, and 29.3% did nothing (Hemenway 2005). The NCVS data show that: (1) gun use in self-defense is very rare; (2) it is not clear whether resistance will or will not reduce the likelihood of injury; and (3) two of the most common forms of "resistance" also appear to be the most successful in terms of reducing the likelihood of injury-calling the police or running away (Hemenway 2005). Washington, D.C.: Are you familiar with any studies showing the effectiveness of education or training on children or adolescents using firearms? The reason I ask is that my grandfather got his own rifle when he was under 10 years old and gave me and my brother instruction when we were that age. No one in my family has ever had any safety problem with firearms. Matthew Miller: The irony is that existing education and training programs appear not to work and may even have the perverse effect of increasing the risk to children by creating a false sense of security that education and training quell a child's natural curiosity. In addition, some studies have found that parents who receive firearm training tend to store their guns less safely than those who have not received training. The bottom line is that it is a parent's responsibility, not a child's, to provide a safe environment. Children are impulsive and curious by nature. As hardy points out in the article I've already cited,"passive prevention efforts require no effort at all on the part of individuals (for example, choosing not to own a firearm). Some active efforts require a one-time behavior (such as placing and keeping a trigger lock on a gun); others require a moderate amount of effort (such as locking up a gun after each use); and still others require constant effort (such as supervising children). Researchers agree that the more effort a prevention strategy requires, the more difficult it is to implement." Langley Park, Md.: As a public health official, I am not surprised when statistics shatter our hopes that through education, we can prevent the handling of guns (NRA Eddie Eagle program). But other than outlawing guns, or passing legislation that requires locking up firearms and ammunition separately, WHAT DOES WORK? I would like a prohibition on guns, but prohibition doesn't work! Dr. C Matthew Miller: Your question is sobering. Studies in the past two years show that many firearms in American households continue to be stored unsafely (Johnson et al 2004; Connor 2005; Coyne-Beasley et al 2005; Okoro et al 2005). Studies have also shown that unsafe storage is associated with firearm injury and death. One study used data from the 1993 National Mortality Followback Survey, and found that, among individuals with a firearm in the home, keeping the firearms unloaded or locked substantially reduced the likelihood of firearm suicide. The effect of safe storage was largest among those who had a relatively low intention to die, suggesting that such suicides are often the most spontaneous, and that safe storage can help protect against impulsive self-destructive acts (Shenessa et al 2004). In another case-control study, the cases were youth (under age 20) from areas in Washington, Oregon and Missouri who had attempted suicide with a gun, or had unintentionally shot themselves or someone else. All control households contained a firearm. Good storage practices (e.g. gun unloaded, or locked) substantially reduced the likelihood of a gun suicide attempt (or death), or an accidental gun shooting (Grossman et al 2005). A third study compared unintentional firearm fatalities across the fifty states. After controlling for urbanization, poverty, and levels of household firearm ownership (states with more guns had more unintentional gun deaths) a disproportionately large share of unintentional firearm fatalities occurred in states where gun owners were more likely to store their firearm loaded, and the greatest risk occurred in states where more firearms were stored both loaded and unlocked (Miller et al 2005a). Unfortunately, improving storage practices is not always straightforward. But that doesn't mean concerned adults should give up on incremental improvements and cultural shifts in what is considered responsible parental behavior. No parent wants her/his child to be injured from gunfire, least of all with a gun from the child's home. If parents take the message of our paper seriously, they should reconsider the costs and benefits of having a gun in their home and, if they decide on balance they want to keep guns in their home, they should get a gun safe, keep the guns in the locked safe separate from locked away ammunition, and keep the ONLY key to the safe on their person at all times. Trust your children to be children -- and protect them by assuming full responsibility for their welfare. Children should not be asked to betray their nature when we are talking about the difference between life and death. Washington, D.C.: This topic is a sensitive one for me: When my brother was 8 years old, in the early 80s, he accidentally shot himself with a police revolver my father had borrowed from a friend. The gun was kept in the top of our hall closet, in plain view and with no locking mechanism whatsoever. My brother had taken the gun out because he and his best friend had decided, with the sense of reality of the typical 8 year old, to rob the bank in town so they could buy toy cars. He was trying to load the already loaded gun when it went off. The only reasons he is alive today are that the bullets were composed of bird shot (my father was using them to scare the crows away from some trees), that my mother immediately drove him to the hospital instead of waiting for the ambulance (about a 15-minute drive to our town), and that the shot missed several main arteries in his leg by a few centimeters. My question has to do with culpability in such "accidental" shootings. Are the parents in cases where a child accesses a gun often charged? I've often thought that my father should have faced some penalty (he, of course, blamed my mother for leaving my brother alone for 10 minutes while she was in another room). But in our rural locale, guns were everywhere and such accidents commonplace. (Each year when I was in high school, I lost at least one classmate who was drunk and playing Russian roulette with his daddy's gun. This in a school of 1300.)Do you feel the penalties for negligent firearms control satisfactory? Would making it mandatory that a negligent parent would see jail help deal with the problem? Matthew Miller: Parents in cases where a child accesses a gun are rarely charged, but I do not personally think that making it mandatory that a negligent parent would see jail is the best way to reduce accidents and suicide among our children. My belief is that far too many parents have not yet properly considered the true costs -- in children's lives lost or in non-fatal injuries, like that of your brother. And, thanks to disingenuous propaganda by pro-gun advocates and flawed tendentious research, greatly exaggerate the benefits of household firearm ownership (with respect to the myth of the added protection afforded). One myth is that where guns are more prevalent killings are less likely -- the exact opposite is the case. What is needed is a clearer understanding of the costs and benefits of gun ownership and how safe storage can mitigate some but not all the risk. We also need a cultural shift in what is seen as responsible parenting. As a parent I should feel it is my duty to ask my neighbor if they have a gun in their home and how it is stored before letting my son go on a play date. Physicians should also be playing a more active role in educating parents about the medical risks involved in firearm ownership and the risk of various storage practices. Chicago, Ill.: What is the one message people need to hear more often about gun violence prevention? Matthew Miller: Thank you for your interest in our paper. The main finding from our study was that many parents, particularly mothers, who assumed that their child had never handled a household gun, were contradicted by their child's report. Parents who discussed gun safety with their children were no less likely to be contradicted. Our study suggests that parents should take every effort to prevent their children from gaining access to guns in the home and never assume that counseling children about gun safety is the only precaution necessary to keep them safe. Our study's findings support recommendations from the American Pediatrics Association that, because of children's natural impulsiveness, curiosity and inability to always know the difference between what is a toy and a dangerous firearm, the best way to keep children safe from guns is to not store guns in the home. If parents must keep guns in the home it is incumbent upon them to make sure that all household firearms are securely locked away, preferably in a gun safe that absolutely cannot be accessed by anyone other than the parents themselves. The day our paper came out a NYC police officer's 9-year-old son accidentally shot himself in his family's Long Island home and remains in critical condition on life support. These tragedies occur every two to three days among our nation's children -- and are preventable, but only if parents recognize that they must make absolutely sure that their child cannot gain access to household firearms. Matthew Miller: Thank you for all your questions and for your interest in this important topic. I'm signing off. 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.
Matthew Miller, associate director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center and co-author of a new study on gun safety in Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, discussed gun safety in families' homes.
92.897436
1
25.512821
high
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/26/DI2006052601636.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006052919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/26/DI2006052601636.html
Major League Baseball
2006052919
Washington Post staff writer Jorge Arangure Jr., who covers the Baltimore Orioles, was online Tuesday, May 30, at 2 p.m. ET to discuss the team and latest major league baseball news. Jorge Arangure Jr.: Welcome everyone to another episode of your favorite chat. you're lucky to even get this chat. i almost didn't get on the plane when i was in SoCal. I thought about it for a few minutes. Today's chat soundtrack provided by Belle and Sebastian's album "The Life Pursuit." B & S are seriously underrated. Their past two albums have been terrific. Now i guess i have to answer questions. Silver Spring, Md.: Barry, I am such a long-time Orioles fan that I actually saw Brooks's debut with the team in late 1954. Too bad I didn't keep my ticket and scoresheet from that game! Needless to say, he had a much better career than I have had to date. So, anyway, I've lived through thick and thin, though never so thin for so long as the current slump. What is going on? I was sorry to see Davy Johnson leave, and was never too enthused about Ray Miller as manager because his earlier stint with the Twins convinced me he should stick to pitching, at which he clearly excels (any chance his health could let him return to Baltimore?) I was thrilled when we got bona fide MLB success Mike Hargrove, but they never gave him anything to work with, except Albert Belle. I liked Lee Mazzilli, too, and didn't think he got a far shot since, among other things, he wasn't allowed to have a single coach of his own choosing. Now, with Sam Perlozzo, whom most people seem to think should have been chosen over Mazzilli, things are even worse, despite what looks to be a pretty good offensive lineup and a lot of what used to be considered promising pitchers. What the heck is going on here? Is Perlozzso too nice? Are the pitchers ignoring Mazzone? Help! I'm reaching the point where I'll be retiring out of the area and would like to see at least one more playoff season before I do that. Thanks for your time. Jorge Arangure Jr.: You're kidding right? You seriously didn't just call me Barry. I am imagining this. Because that would be an awful way to start a chat. Washington, D.C.: Okay, this might be a fantasy land question but here it goes: is it possible that Peter Angelos might, this season, finaly understand how he has destroyed the Orioles? I say this because in previous years Angelos could point to attendence and say "things can't be that bad, we're still getting 35,000 or so a night". This year though, with attendance regularly in the 15,000-18,000 range, might Angelos really see reality? Jorge Arangure Jr.: The only reality Angelos might see is that he just got a sweet deal from MLB for allowing the Nats to move into town. And he also gets some revenue sharing. I have no reason to think that Angelos will change the way he runs the team. Rockville, Md.: Is Roch as funny in person? His blog is great. Jorge Arangure Jr.: Roch's life would make for an interesting movie. Perhaps on the lifetime channel. Yudley, Va.: Do you do the lowercase "i" and haphazard punctuation thing as a tribute to Tom Boswell, or it just a coincidence? Jorge Arangure Jr.: mostly out of pure laziness. but if boz does it then it can't be that bad. Bethesda, Md.: In observing Bedard and Cabrera, do you think they're ever going to live up to their hype? I don't want to sound impatient, but when you see guys like Justin Verlander and Scott Kazmir tearing up the league so quickly, you have to wonder if the O's prospects are really on that same level. Chris Ray has worked out beautifully and Hayden Penn looks very promising, but how much longer can a guy like Bedard be termed a top prospect? Jorge Arangure Jr.: Yeah this weekend was a dishearting thing to watch for Orioles fans as Angels prospects like Jared Weaver and Kendry Morales showed tremendous promise while Bedard got pummeled and Nick Markakis' average continues to plummet. I'm not quite sure what to make of Bedard and Cabrera. At this point you'd expect a little more consistency from Bedard, who is 27. At 24, you'd expect some growing pains from Cabrera. Tigers Fan: Do you think that Roger Clemens would consider pitching for the Detroit Tigers since they are in contention this year? Jorge Arangure Jr.: I only see Clemens coming back to pitch for the Astros. But that's just a guess. North Island, Calif.: Big Boss Man, Are the starters getting tired of hearing Mazzone grumble about them in the press? And who do you think Millar was talking about in his rant on mlb.com? He mentioned that some guys were more interested in their suits than baseball. Seems to me like most of the guys play hard, with the exception of maybe Matos and Bedard. Jorge Arangure Jr.: Interesting comments from Millar, but i really have no idea who he is talking about. Perhaps he took a cue from Perlozzo, who lashed out at the team last week when he didn't think they had put up a good effort against Seattle. I won't single out any particular players because that would be pure speculation on my part and also because i might get pounded next time i'm in the clubhouse. But i'm sure you guys have an idea of who he might be talking about. Silver Spring, Md.: What's the over/under on tonight's attendance in Baltimore? I say under 12,000 unless they have fireworks or free beer. Jorge Arangure Jr.: All i can say is thankfully i won't be one of those in attendance. I say 12,000 for the over under is a good mark. I'd take the under. Gettysburg, Pa.: Jorge - how soon should we EXPECT to see positive results from a coach like Mazzone, particularly if (as he said recently) his pitchers aren't buying into his "fastballs down and away" philosophy? And if we don't see results this season, is his hiring going to be another great idea abandoned due to organizational impatience, like, say, all of the previous Orioles "rebuilding" efforts the last decade? Jorge Arangure Jr.: There's no question the job has been more difficult than Mazzone imagined. He spoke last week out of frustration with some of the veteran guys on the staff. I think he expected some growing pains with some of the younger pitchers. I'd say that you'll notice some improvement with the pitching staff in the second half of the season. There's no reason to think that guys with good track records, like Rodrigo Lopez, won't put it together sometime soon. If i were Bruce Chen though, i'd hurry up and figure it out fast since Penn and Loewen are right there ready to take the rotation spot. Germantown, Md.: Just thought I'd add a comment to the Nationals madness that I was at the game on Sunday and the food was pathetic. They were out of hotdogs in the 4th inning and the SOFT pretzels were cold and rock hard. I welcome any changes that Kasten and company are ready to make. Other than that, bring on Nats baseball!! Jorge Arangure Jr.: The Nats have bigger problems than hard "soft" pretzels. Padre Island, Fla.: As a San Diego guy, can you explain why the Pads traded an all-star caliber second baseman, Loretta, for a backup catcher, Mirabelli, then gave him back when asked, for what appears to be not much? Seems like they had the Sox over a barrel but didn't use their leverage. Jorge Arangure Jr.: From what i've heard GM Kevin Towers thought Loretta was pretty much finished. Obviously he isn't just yet. Basically the two deals saved the Padres some cash and allowed them to bring up Josh Barfield, which injected the team with some youth. I don't think it was such a bad move. Radio silence: Hey Jorge... what do you think of the Giants' radio announcers' mike going dead during his call of Bonds' 715th? As far as I'm concerned, the baseball gods have spoken. Jorge Arangure Jr.: Too bad that doesn't happen with Jim Hunter. Just kidding. We all love Jimmyville. Stevensville, Md.: What is Jim Beattie doing these days? Am I the only one who thinks the O's kept the wrong part of "Beattian" around? Jorge Arangure Jr.: As far as i know Jim Beattie doesn't have a job right now. He had been a candidate for the Boston and Cinci jobs and since he hasn't been heard from. I haven't talked to him in a couple months now. I'm sure he'll end up with a job somewhere. Beattie is a smart baseball man and a good person. I had no problems with Jim Beattie. Barryville, Washington, D.C.: I wonder if you've heard anything more about Rafael Palmeiro since last year's steroid debacle. I still have trouble believing that he knowingly used a potent steroid, yet I have just as much trouble believing him when he says he suspects the B12 injections that Tejada gave him. Are we ever going to know what really happened there? Jorge Arangure Jr.: According to Palmeiro, we do know the whole truth. I'm not sure what to make of that situation. When i spoke to him just prior to Congress releasing a report on his investigation, Palmeiro was pretty convincing. I'm not sure we'll know any more that what has already been released. Homeland, Md.: To what do you attribute the Orioles dismal attendance? Would you consider the Tampa Bay series to be 'The Battle for the Basement'? Jorge Arangure Jr.: Who wants to go watch a team under .500 who hasn't had a winning season since 1997? This Devil rays series is certainly a battle for the basement. I can pretend to be from San Diego: Hi Jorge, What's Angelos waiting for? We've heard for years that he's wanted to sell the O's. We've heard that he wanted to wait until it was at its peak value, and when it was he just sat on it. What's his new "conditions for selling?" Will Angelos ever sell the O's and finally rid Baltimore of the misery of a senile man running the club? Is it too late to check out if the Lerner family would be willing to pull a Baltimore Colts/St. Louis Rams swap with Angelos? Jorge Arangure Jr.: If you're from San Diego why are you asking about Angelos? Fairfax, Va.: Do you think it's possible that Lopez and Chen's struggles will be long term? Both of their starts last week were encouraging, and I still believe its too early to bail on this team. What do you think the chances are of the pitching staff coming around in the second half and the team posting its first winning season since 97? Jorge Arangure Jr.: I'd be surprised if Bruce Chen was still in the rotation in the second half of the year. Most liklely the Orioles will be out of contention and they'll prefer to see Hayden Penn take that spot. It will be interesting to see what happens with Lopez if Baltimore decides to go with Loewen and Penn in next year's rotation. Obviously Benson would be the veteran presence and maybe Baltimore decides they don't need either CHen or Lopez. Bethesda, Md.: Gut feeling...is Soriano staying or going? Jorge Arangure Jr.: So gone. Silver Spring, Md.: Sir, "The Nats have bigger probelms than 'hard' soft pretzels." They were 8 of 11 wins until yesterday's debacle in Philly. Their pitching is soft and in desperate need. Not the pretzels. Jorge Arangure Jr.: OK you're right. The Nats a great team. They'll win the division. They have no problems except pitching. Sir, i think you may be eating too many of those hard "soft" pretzels. Com, MA: sometimes, i think ee cummings is running this chat... on the other hand barry doesn't know how to spell "whoa." (woah?!) Jorge Arangure Jr.: i cover.. Washington, D.C.: Does a team at less than .500 prsent more or less stories for you? Jorge Arangure Jr.: Great question. Here's my theory on this. A really good team will obviously give you a bunch of good stories. A really bad team will give you great stories too. Because if a team is historically bad, for example the Royals, then that becomes interesting too. But it becomes difficult to write about a team in the middle like the Orioles. Frederick, Md.: Your opinion Jorge: Are the 2006 Tigers this years version of the 2005 Orioles? Are they just another team off to a fast start and will soon fade? Jorge Arangure Jr.: I'd say the Tigers have more staying power since they have better starting pitching than the Orioles did last year. They have a veteran at the top (Kenny Rogers) and a stud rookie at the bottom (Verlander). Bonderman and Maroth are great too. The Orioles were never as good as the tigers are now. Right Field: "I had no problems with Jim Beattie" So who did you have problems with, or which member of the Orioles had problems with you? Jorge Arangure Jr.: None really. I'd say i get along pretty well with the entire front office. I just singled Beattie out because someone asked about him specifically. Washington, D.C.: The Nats might be a mediocre team with tendencies to the bad, but the Orioles are a terrible team in an armpit of a city. Jorge Arangure Jr.: Some of you don't quite understand how i'm not from Baltimore and i really don't care if you bash the city. I'm from San Diego and i'd like to try to find one person who would bash that paradise. Baltimore, Md.: Why don't players today, except for a few, exhibit the same class as guys from the past, be it Ripken, or Palmer, or Robinson? Do you reporters call some of these guys out when they act as though they are playing on a school yard, or a rap video? Do you see the difference, or are you one fo the new age reporters who love the crassness, and Bobby Bonds's of the game? Jorge Arangure Jr.: examples please Arlington, Va.: My roommate (and best friend) is a Washington native and a lifelong Orioles fan. He constantly chides me for my bizarre fan loyalties supporting alternatively the Pad's (I grew up in San Diego) the O's (for lack of anything else)the Red Sox (I was in college, we all make mistakes, it was a youthful indiscretion) and now finally settling on the Nationals. Due to terrible teams, Angelos, and a closer stadium and a better atmosphere at RFK he is gradually becoming a Nat's fan (even wearing a Nat's hat around town and to games). What is the proper way to chide him for his own shifting loyalties? (other than writing in to a national internet audience to announce it?) Jorge Arangure Jr.: There is nothing wrong with shifting loyalties. It happens. How could you not fall in love with anything involving SoCal? It happens. I understand. Like the other day at the park, one of my reporter friends had noticed a beautiful blonde girl in the stands in anaheim. He said he felt lame for admiring the typical california blonde. I told him not to be ashamed. Blondes are one of california's trademark. I told him that you go to Cali for blondes, the beach and the sun just like you'd go to a fine steakhouse for a filet mignon. I can't quite explain your whole red sox thing. It's better if we just forget about it. Re: tonight at Camden Yards: Jorge, All things considered would you rather be in Philadelphia? Jorge Arangure Jr.: I'd never prefer to be in philadelphia. San Diego, Calif.: Oh speaking of Jim Hunter. I listen to WBAL all the time on MLB.com, like your chat, my connection to the Os. It's cool that they usually cut out all the commercials, unlike other mlb.com brodacasts. We hear some "off the air" exchanges and nonsensical warmups when the broadcasters forget the mlb.com mikes are still on. Anyway---Hunter. He needs to watch the fielders on fly balls and take his cue from them on where the ball may go. He calls way too many "almost" home runs. I learned--finally--to do that at OPCY when they gave us season's tickets under the underhang, and I HAD to watch the fielders. Jorge Arangure Jr.: Everybody Up!! Burke, Va.: I used to think Matos was the future every-day center fielder for the O's. Over the last two seasons, I am beginning to see why he was never mentioned in a trade deadline swap rumor, because he is below average at best. His attitude isn't helping him much either. I can understand some fuming when you work to get back into an at-bat only to pop out to the shortstop, but to slam your bat down every time you can't get a hit is pretty ridiculous. Can the Orioles find a decent suitor for Matos who would be willing to part with a prospect, or are the O's stuck with this guy and only pathetic, but fast, Corey Patterson to take center field? Jorge Arangure Jr.: I don't see teams really lining up for Matos right now. And really he doesn't hurt the Orioles in any way since he's not one of their primary outfielders anyway. Matos is certainly a better fourth outfielder than Luis Terrero so there is no use dumping him unless Baltimore gets some value. Severna Park, Md.: To the Washington, D.C. poster: You have a team here for 2 years and have dwindling attendance, a drunk for a GM, a team that is 10 under .500 and in the cellar if not for the hapless Marlins. DC is what it is, a means to an end for hundreds of thousands of commuters to go to work, nothing more. Enjoy the Nats and your cold, hard, -soft- pretzels, I'll enjoy the O's, fine cuisine and beverage at Camden Yards. Jorge Arangure Jr.: Yeah you are the rest of the 5,000 people that will be in attendance for the Os v Rays game. Enough cuisine and beverages for all at Camden!! Baltimore, Md.: examples? Bonds and Griffey - opposites of their fathers! Manny Ramirez, Pedro Martinez, Dontrelle Willis, Milton Bradley! Jorge Arangure Jr.: Ok this is silly. I'll stop it once and for all. How could you possibly lump Manny, Pedro Martinez and Dontrelle Willis with Milton Bradley? Bradley is the only one who has had any blow ups. Pedro is one of the more respected pitchers in the game. Perhaps some people considered him a headhunter early in his career, but didn't they think the same of Bob Gibson? I haven't heard anyone say one bad word about Dontrelle. Manny is a character but nobody accuses him of being a bad person. Alexandria, Va.: Why is there such hatred in this region. Other markets that have two baseball teams (San Fran/Oakland, Chicago, New York) don't have fans that HATE the other team. I know there the problem with Angelos and TV, but I didn't see Mets fans hating on the Yankees when they started YES. Nats fans who HATE the Orioles are just trypical Washington DC bandwagon fans, and perhaps should examine what a sports "FAN" really is!!! You can hate Angelos and Comcast all you want (or just buy tickets to the game since plenty remain), but stop hating the O's!!! Jorge Arangure Jr.: Yeah right. Ask LaTroy Hawkins and Corey Patterson if there isn't any hate in Chicago. I think you'd find there is more hatred there than here. Washington, D.C.: Curious about a gauge for baseball enthusiasm around here. From your observations doingthese chats, has the number of chat questions on the Os declined this year vs. last year? How about the questions for the other baseball writers? Jorge Arangure Jr.: I can't say there has been much of a difference in terms of the number of questions. If anything, i'd say i get more questions than i did last year. Re: San Diego: The home of Duke Cunningham. Jorge Arangure Jr.: Oh yeah washington has never had a crooked politician. Loyola Marymount University: No San Diego team beat us in any sport when I was at LMU from '87 - '90. San Diego is not that great -- except maybe the martinis at the Coronado Jorge Arangure Jr.: Dude stop reliving the "good old days." Don't hate on san diego just because you didn't have as much fun in college as you would have if you went to San Diego State. Washington, D.C.: I read Millar's comments regarding the O's lack of focus. It seemed to scream "I want to be back on the Red Sox and I want it now!" I've never felt that he was happy in Baltimore. If that's so, I don't think he's able to improve club house relationships. Is there even a slight chance he can make it back to his beloved Boston? (I think he should give up playing all together and be an announcer - he'd be great!) Jorge Arangure Jr.: I think you're right on this one. Millar really has never gotten over being away from Boston. I enjoy speaking with Millar a bunch, but he does mention Boston a lot. He never wanted to leave. Washington, D.C.: San Diego is on the West Coast. 'Nough said. It's not even as "caool" as LA and that place reminds me of Houston. Jorge Arangure Jr.: Let me just put it this way. Never would San Diego have a 94 degree day with unbearable humidity. Gaithersburg, Md.: Where do we go from here? This was supposed to be the season that saw the light at the end of the tunnel for the O's. A dramatically improved offense. A strong defensive infield. The pitching coach of all pitching coaches, and a "players manager." All of this, and the Orioles still can't even stay near .500. I know Flanny hasn't made the best moves to get to this point, but on paper, this team should be at least 1-2 games over at this point of the season, and improving. Instead, the team appears to be making one small step forward and two giant steps back each week. They can't trade any prospects, because many are just ready to make their move up to the majors, and they have a lot of money invested in the existing roster. Should the O's adopt a Cleveland/Minnesota/Oakland philosophy, and just blow up the team to bring up guys from the minors, or can they actually make something of this team? I'd hate to say it, but could a Tejada and/or Mora trade be on the horizon? Jorge Arangure Jr.: The problem with the Orioles roster is that they have an unbalanced mix of veterans and rookies on the team. They have a bunch of veterans in "win now" mode while at the same time they have young players in important roles who still need to develop. Washington, D.C.: In your opinion, who's the worst manager in baseball? Jorge Arangure Jr.: Interesting question, but unless you watch a manager everyday it's difficult to answer it. Now that MLB is testing players for amphetamines, have you noticed or heard talk of its impact? Amphetamines have been more pervasive for a longer time than steriods, but I have not seen much in the press about the effects of testing on players or the game in general. Jorge Arangure Jr.: Very good point. I can't say i've seen much of a difference in baseball with amphetamines testing. But again this is not somethign that players will openly talk about, but i can't see a change in the play on the field. Tide Point, Md.: Instant prediction time: By the end of the season, which O's starter will lead the staff in wins? In ERA? In other words, who will be the staff ace, as far as stats are concerned? Jorge Arangure Jr.: I'd say Benson will end up with the most wins. He's been the most consistent pitcher on the staff, save a couple bad outings. I'd have to say BEnson is a better pitcher than i thought. Jorge Arangure Jr.: Allright everyone. I'm outta here. Everyone have fun staying inside your air conditioned homes or offices. Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
Washington Post staff writer Jorge Arangure Jr., who covers the Baltimore Orioles, discussed the team and the latest major league baseball news.
202.04
0.96
9.68
high
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/25/DI2006052500977.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006052919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/25/DI2006052500977.html
Personal Tech
2006052919
The Washington Post's Rob Pegoraro was online to answer your personal tech quesitons and discuss recent reviews, including Microsoft's new Windows Media Player 11 and the HD DVD format . Want to know what upcoming topics are being covered? Sign up for the Fast Forward e-letter -- get updated information on personal technology news and product demos. Past editions of Rob's e-letter are online here . Rob Pegoraro: I-95 NORTH, NEAR FAYETTEVILLE, N.C.--Greetings from everybody's favorite highway. We're on our way home from a Memorial Day weekend out of town, so I'm conducting this chat from the passenger seat, using a Treo 700p as a Bluetooth wireless modem for the MacBook laptop I'm tying this on. (Yes, I'll be reviewing both of these things over the next couple of weeks.) There may be a few glitches with this setup, so if I take a long time between answers I'm either thinking slower than usual or we ran into a gap in Sprint's coverage. Bear with me... Norman, OK: If I'm in the market for a DVR, is a dual-tuner Tivo a good idea? If I'm in the market for a DVD player, would it be better for me to wait on a Blu-Ray DVD? washingtonpost.com: Two Movie Formats, Heading for a High-Def Collision Rob Pegoraro: The TiVo to wait for is the "Series 3" unit that, IIRC, has three tuners--two digital, one analog, plus a CableCard slot. That's going to be a lot more useful over time. I haven't had a chance to try out any Blu-Ray hardware yet, but I'm not optimistic, since that technology has the same basic flaw as HD DVD: that whole ugly format war. Mt Airy, MD: Hi, Rob -- We really like the Panasonic plasmas, and were about ready to buy, when we saw signs of the new models. As you've described, the 500U is a feature-richer version of the 50U, and it has things we want, like card slot. Panasonic has come out with the 60U, and sure enough, the 600U is due out any time. When we first asked the salesman at a specialty vid store about it, he said it probably makes sense to wait for the 600U. We stopped back the other day, and he now claims the 600U will be cheaper because they'll cut corners to get the price down. Panasonic claims the new generation (60U and 600U) is next generation and better display. Is the salesman just getting desperate because the 600U is delayed? Rob Pegoraro: I don't know the specifics of Panasonic's release schedule, but in general I'd be really skeptical when it comes to things you hear on the floor of any mass-market consumer-electronics retailer. Lots of people "hear that" such and such a thing will happen, but these stories rarely pan out. Burke, VA: I read through your HDDVD review over the weekend, and thought it was on the mark, except you weren't quite critical enough on the stupidity of the movie studios who are signing exclusive agreements, and are investing their catalogs on this ridiculous format war. You had mentioned "upconverting" players. How exactly do those players work? Is there any chance some third party manufacturer can come up with a player that can play both BluRay and HDDVD, or are the formats protected by patents? Rob Pegoraro: Upconverting video basically involves (and here I'm going to monstrously oversimplify things) looking at any two pixels, then inserting another one between them that will blend them together. I.e., if you've got a black dot next to a white dot, the upconversion process with put a gray dot between them. There's no engineering obstacle to building a dual-format HD DVD/Blu-Ray player, but these two "standards" use substantially different optics, so you'd basically have to put in two different lasers. Fairfax, VA: Not to sound like a crazed Apple fan, but....MacBook!!!MacBook!!!!!MacBook!!!! How is it so far? Rob Pegoraro: Black. (Naturally, Apple sent me the high-end model). Sleek. Warm. Kinda heavy. My own initial reaction: "It's Batman's laptop." I-95 : Breaker...Channel One-Nine... Rubber Dukcy ... you got a smokey in a plain brown wrapper... Rob Pegoraro: 10-4, good buddy! Rockville, MD: Rob, one of my top grievances with Windows is the ridiculous need for most programs to require a complete system restart when installing or updating. Is there any hope that in Vista this is reduced? The only program OTOH that doesn't do this is Firefox, which only needs a program restart, which makes infinitely more sense. Rob Pegoraro: Microsoft has said that fixing that restart-required annoyance was a major goal in Vista. We'll see... I love your chats--never miss 'em. Makes everyone else think I'm smart. I have an airport base station producing a wireless signal for my laptop. If I buy a desktop unit, is there a way to have it hardwired into the base station and still transmit the wireless signal? Or, will having two computers using the signal dilute its strength? Rob Pegoraro: Nope, no dilution to worry about (well, unless both computers download the same massive file and saturate your Internet connection's bandwidth). Your AirPort--assuming its the UFO-shaped AirPort Extreme, not the smaller AirPort Express--has a spare Ethernet port for exactly this kind of setup. Bowie, MD: At the bottom of a "spam" e-mail there is often a paragraph of gooblygook sentences. Usually the sentences look like someone is practicing English or copying text from a book. Sometimes the type is very small and looks like it was pasted in. Any idea what the purpose of it is? Also, is it possible to go to properties and decipher where the mail came from? Rob Pegoraro: My guess--actually, might've read this somewhere--is that the nonsense text is supposed to confuse spam filters. I don't think it's working; the filters in Mail for OS X and Thunderbird, now that I've trained them on enough junk mail, are catching almost all of the spam. Yes, selecting your mail client's "show headers" or "full headers" command will reveal the message's path. (In OE, you'd select "properties.") BTW , so far I've had to reconnect three or four times, but the laptop has logged right back in within a few seconds. So I'd say I'm reasonably impressed with this experiement in wireless Internet access so far. Arlington, VA: Have you heard anything about recent innovations in sound quality technology, such as Creative's Sound Blaster X-Fi Xtreme Fidelity processor? I have all my music in iTunes-I don't listen to CDs anymore-but I've noticed that when I compare a CD to a song played from iPod, both through the same stereo, the CD is much fuller and richer. Is the problem the source (mp3 or mp4) or is the problem the iPod itself? In other words, if I buy some of the sound-improving technology, will the same mp3 sound better than on my current (and pretty good) speakers? Rob Pegoraro: You'll hear much more of a difference based on what kind of source you're playing--MP3 and other music file formats throw away some of the details of a song to get it down to a compact size. They're supposed to discard only the parts that you wouldn't notice, but this isn't a perfect process by any means--a lot of audiophiles find any sort of "lossy" compressed file to be unlistenable. Try ripping a CD to your computer in the Apple Lossless format (select the Edit menu in iTunes, choose Preferences, then click the Advanced tab to change the rip format). Severna Park, MD: You're not driving are you? If so, I hate people like you. Rob Pegoraro: Driving and eating a cheeseburger while guzzling a Slurpee--and talking on my cell phone :) No, of course I'm not driving! My wife's at the wheel and I am riding shotgun. BTW, if anybody has any dining suggestions (we just passed exit 81 in N.C.) please share them. We all had a late brunch, but we're starting to get a little hungry. Atlanta, GA: Is it my imagination, or is Google's GMAIL still in "beta"? Isn't that stretching the meaning of beta beyond all useful meaning? Rob Pegoraro: Yes and yes, For a while, I thought I'd have to save a column comparing the major Web-mail sites until Gmail exited beta, but now I think I"m only going to wait until Yahoo and Hotmail release their new interfaces (although Yahoo's beta test is itself approaching a Gmail-esque duration). Arlington, VA: When I recently bought Webroot's Spysweeper program, I also got its Desktop Firewall as part of a bundled package. I've been using the Windows firewall, and I know we are not supposed to have more than one firewall program working at a time. Do you know whether the Webroot firewall is better than the Windows? Do you recommend turning off the Windows firewall and installing the Webroot firewall in its place? Thanks. Rob Pegoraro: All of the third-party Windows firewalls these days, last I checked, offer to take over firewall duties from the one built into Windows at the end of their installation procedure. I think the Windows firewall is a LOT simpler to use than any of the aftermarket options. The one thing it can't do is tell you if a strange program is sending out data to some Internet site (it only monitors for when programs try to open their own separate ports, a more overt, less common form of communication). But if you already have spyware sending out data, you don't need a better firewall--you need a good anti-spyware program to eradicate the infection. (Which, BTW, SpySweeper is supposed to be.) John in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Hi, Rob. I've been enjoying your columns for at least a year -- thanks for the great content. I'm looking for advice on buying a hand-held computer. I'd like something in the more-than-a-palmpilot, less-than-a-notebook category. I want something I can use on the bus, but with an attached keyboard I could use to take notes in a meeting. Something I could use to watch video or listen to MP3s, take notes, with a PDA-like calendar and perhaps a voice-record function. Wireless would be a nice bonus. I don't need anything as powerful as the OQO portable, but I would like a device with both a touchscreen and keyboard. Any advice, or am I out of luck for the foreseeable future? Thanks in advance, John. washingtonpost.com: Fast Forward Column Archive Rob Pegoraro: I think you're out of luck--unless one of the companies building "Utra-Mobile PCs" decides to add a keyboard. All the ultralight laptops that I've seen lack touchscreens and probably cost too much to boot... although they'd meet most of your other criteria. Wait, how about getting a Windows Mobile smartphone? Something like Sprint's 6700 might do the trick--it has a keyboard and touchscreen, it can play music and videos and it has WiFi on board. The screen is just a lot smaller than what you might want. Desperate in DC: Rob-I need your help! I want to buy a family computer for iTunes (with about 100GB of music); word processing; internet research; light on-line viewing of streaming video. I have two kids, ages 6 and 5, and we don't have lots of money. We want to buy a Mac, but with all the recent changes, I just don't know if it's a good idea to get one or which is the best bet for a family unit. Rob Pegoraro: The recently revised Mac mini ought to do those jobs pretty well. Just make sure the streaming-video sites you have in mind work on a Mac (most do, but a few--for instance, AOL's In2TV--don't, on account of their use of a so-far-Mac-incompatible version of Microsoft's Windows Media format.) Can you give us approximate Date when HDTV with have perfected ASTC, Does Blu ray/HDTV, & have HDMI 2.0 interface needed for proper computing input to display HDTV in High Definition. Will it be year or 5 or when can consumer see hundreds of well integrated HDTV models capable of accepting (from external & internal sources) & displaying HDTV correctly marketed here in U.S.A.? Rob Pegoraro: "Perfected"? Don't even think about that. You'll only drive yourself bonkers looking for perfection in an electronic device. How about "good value for the money"? I'd say we're there now. Not that the TVs won't be cheaper yet in another year, with more features--but we are well past the early-adopter stage, where you just now you're paying a tax to be one of the first people on the block with an HDTV. Washington: Please -- share a sneak peak at the 700p! Rob Pegoraro: Looks almost exactly like the Treo 650, but it supports the faster Ev-DO broadband service of Sprint and Verizon. (I'm using Sprint's slower 1x RTT service--50-70 kbps instead of Ev-DO's 500-600 kbps--because that's all that seems to be available out here in wilds of Carolina.) The 700p also has a better camera, Web browser and mail program. The buttons are laid out differently, which will probably confound anybody used to a Treo 650; for instance, the red End button occupies the spot formerly taken by the menu key. I have finally gotten DSL so I can enjoy public radio stations from around the country, thanks to streaming audio. I'm writing to you for advice on what product I should get so I can listen to streaming audio via the stereo in my living room (my computer is in the adjacent room). Is my best bet a wireless router (vs. a long cable or something else), and if so could you please recommend a brand/specific product that isn't terribly expensive? Thanks so much. Rob Pegoraro: You don't need a wireless router--you need a wireless network, plus a wireless media receiver to plug into the stereo. If you haven't bought anything from the iTunes Music Store and don't plan on it, take a look at SlimDevices' Squeezebox and Roku Labs' SoundBridge. (Only Apple's AirPort Express can play iTunes purchased downloads.) Tampa, FL: How do I download streaming media? Legally, of course. Last year the BBC offered all 9 Beethoven symphonies for free download (performed by the BBC's own symphony, so there had no copyright issues). I missed it, as I missed the Ring In A Day (Wagner's entire Ring cycle of 4 operas), but the BBC will offer something similar again. So what do I need? I use Mac OS 10.4 (PPC) and have the free versions of Quicktime, Real Player, Windows Media Player, and a couple of other lesser-know ones (MPlayer for Mac, VLC for Mac). Should I upgrade to Quicktime Pro? Rob Pegoraro: Heck no - iTunes and a Web browser are all you need. That is, for a freebie like the BBC offer (I missed it too, much to my own annoyance), you'd download the files in your browser, then manage and play them in iTunes. Silver Spring, MD: I have a shiny new fancy HDTV but no cable/satellite as yet. Is there some way I can record stuff over the air onto a DVD recorder without using TIVO or something - I don't need to time stuff, just record the same thing I am watching. Rob Pegoraro: There are a couple of HDTV off-air receivers that include digital video recorders--I think LG has sold one for a while. Your selection should improve a lot as we get closer to next March--the FCC-mandated deadline for manufacturers to add digital TV tuners to VCRs, DVD recorders, DVRs and all TVs bigger than 13 inches. Ft Belvoir: I liked your review of Windows Media Player 11 but I was wondering one thing. Will this player always try to prompt users to buy from Microsoft's music store or is there a way to get around that? washingtonpost.com: New Media Player: Nice Features, but It's No ITunes Rob Pegoraro: WMP 11 actually promotes MTV's music store--Microsoft's own MSN Music gets far less billing in the interface. But you can still shop at that or any other Windows Media-compatible store if you want; it just may be awfully awkward. Maryland: Do you know of a good way to get music FROM and iPod ONTO a computer? Rob Pegoraro: Use a third-party program--Apple doesn't support that in iTunes. Here's the Help File item i wrote about this earlier: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34405-2004Dec4.html Rockville: "No, of course I'm not driving! My wife's at the wheel and I am riding shotgun. BTW, if anybody has any dining suggestions (we just passed exit 81 in N.C.) please share them. We all had a late brunch, but we're starting to get a little hungry." Rob, isn't there some "restaurants by interstate exit" website you should be testing? Rob Pegoraro: I plan on hitting roadfood.com right after this chat! Silver Spring MD again: How come I need to wait for something with a tuner? There is a tuner in the TV, and all I want to do is record what that tuner is giving me right at that moment. Rob Pegoraro: That's just one of the wonderful mysteries of the consumer-electronics biz... Fairlington, VA: Just bought a new Panasonic 32-inch LCD HDTV. So far, am very pleased. I'm still just using normal hook-ups, which I logically know don't help the signal, but my DVDs look better than ever. Still, I want to use the TVs HDTV qualities (I get basic cable, and honestly don't watch enough TV to warrant buying HDTV digital cable service). So do I buy HDMI cables, component cables? Which are better? Also, is it worth upgrading my DVD player to one that upconverts? Not sure what difference it makes at 32 inches. Rob Pegoraro: At 32 inches, you probably won't see any real benefit from an upconverting player--unless you sit close up, the extra pixels of an HD image will blend together in your vision. If your DVD player offers progressive-scan output (as do most sold in the last few years, even el cheapo models), get some component-video cables and you should see an upgrade in picture quality. Reston, VA: Is the Treo 700p worth the extra $150-$200 it costs over the Treo 650? What does it have that would make it worth the extra money? I'm looking to get a PDA/Smart phone and the 650 looks like the best deal to me . . . unless the Motorola Q is worth waiting for? Rob Pegoraro: Funny enough, I also have a Q on hand--but it's not involved in the production of this chat. I'll have answers for your questions soon enough in my column... From Daniel Greenberg: Question about Creative's X-Fi sound card: The answer about encoding losslessly was right on the money. But for all those highly compressed, low-bitrate MP3s that people already have, the X-Fi actually can make them sound better than they sound using conventional PC audio. The main question seems to be dollars vs. time. Would you rather spring for the relatively pricey X-Fi to get better sound out of existing MP3s, or save money by re-ripping your CD collection to a high bitrate or lossless format? Washington, DC: Rob, Do you know if Verizon will officially allow the type of connectivity you are using between the Treo 700P and the MacBook, or will they want to charge separately for a data connection as if you had a PC card EVDO card? Rob Pegoraro: Verizon is departing from past practice by officially supporting dial-up networking over Bluetooth. It comes with a $15/month surcharge; I can only assume that Verizon has ways of knowing if you use your phone as a Bluetooth modem without paying for that option. Washington, D.C.: I have two computers with blown motherboards - I need to get the info off the hard drive - Best Buy will charge me $90 per computer - any other options? Also, once I get the info from the hard drive, what can I do with the computers (I feel guilty throwing them away!) One, is a Dell laptop that I bought 4 years ago and only worked for 14 months (just outside of the warrenty) and would have cost $900 back then to fix. Any hopes of reviving it now? I am a computer idiot - please help!! Rob Pegoraro: If the dead PC's hard drive still functions, you can connect it to a new computer to get the data off it. You'll need to set a jumper switch on the old drive (instead of being the primary, or "master" drive," it would be the secondary, or "slave" device. Great terminology, eh?) and connect it to available data and power cables inside a new desktop PC. If that sounds intimidating, then paying $90 or so to Best Buy or any local computer shop seems a reasonable price. Update on the reliability of this Bluetooth thing: The 700p has been dropping the signal every few minutes, but reconnecting on the first try almost every time. Really not bad for 70-plus MPH Internet access Baltimore, MD: Hey Rob, have you heard of the new law being considered in congress (COBO, I think)? It basically allows internet providers to apply a "toll" to websites who want to travel on a speedier lane. The result would be the only fast websites are the ones that want to sell us something. Since we're already paying for internet access, this is a travesty. Rob Pegoraro: Balto. is talking about the "net neutrality" issue. But it's not a new law that would allow this--a toll lane on the Internet is legal now. The laws under consideration would ban that kind of preferential treatment. This may be a silly question, but I've just now decided I want to get an ipod. However I just realized my computer only has usb 1.1 ports. Will synching just be slower, or do you have to have usb 2.0? Rob Pegoraro: It'll be slower. MUCH slower. I wouldn't get any iPod bigger than a nano--you'll be waiting forever to load your music if you get a 40 GB iPod. I believe you once wrote about installing a copy of Firefox on a flash drive and using it on computers other than your own for security and other purposes. If you did, could you post a link to the article? Thanks Rob Pegoraro: The Help File item I wrote only mentioned that option in passing. Here's more detailed info: http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/browsers/portable_firefox The last home video game system that launched above $400 was the Panasonic 3DO. Trip Hawkins swore up and down that it wasn't just a video game machine -- it also played CDs, CD+G's, and could use an MPEG1 decoder to play video. Basically, the 1994 version of the PS3. Just how stupid is it to release a video game system at $600? Rob Pegoraro: I guess we'll find out when the PlayStation 3 ships at that price! Props to Louisville for remembering the 3DO console... haven't heard that name in a long time. Ft Belvoir - Media Player 11: My initial question about the player was poorly worded. I don't buy any music on-line. I just wanted to know if every time Media Player 11 starts, I will get bombarded with some sort of ad telling me what a great service MTV music, or whatever else Microsoft is shilling, or can that be turned off. Rob Pegoraro: No - you can run it strictly as a music organizer. I think that's its default setting, in fact. Gaithersburg, again: new ipod girl again. I realize that the original loading of the ipod would take a long time with a USB1.1 connection. But once it is loaded, would it still take forever (or at least something marginally bearable)? What's the best way to tell what kind of USB connection I have on my work machine? Rob Pegoraro: See the second question in this Help File item: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/15/AR2005101500176.html Ubuntu 6.06: How 'bout a review timed with the release? I hear it will hit the streets in a couple of weeks. Is Ubuntu the tipping point for desktop Linux? Rob Pegoraro: I heard June 1 for the release date. I am planning on reviewing this update--Ubuntu is already one of the friendliest Linux distributions that I've tried. I'm planning on getting a review into print before long. And with that, it's time to sign off. We're all starving, so it's time to find some sort of just-off-the-exit cuisine. Thanks for taking part in this little experiment. 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.
The Washington Post's Rob Pegoraro was online to answer your personal tech quesitons and discuss recent reviews, including Microsoft's new Windows Media Player 11 and the HD DVD format.
157.030303
1
33
high
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/25/DI2006052501565.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006052919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/05/25/DI2006052501565.html
Outlook: Fluid Borders Pose Security Challenge
2006052919
Moises Naim , editor of Foreign Policy magazine and author of " Illicit: How Smugglers, Traffickers and Copycats are Hijacking the Global Economy ," was online Tuesday, May 30, at 2 p.m. ET to discuss his Sunday Outlook article on how today's fluid and non-traditional borders pose unique security challenges. Naim says that in the 1990s "political unions, economic reforms and breakthroughs in technology and business came together to revolutionize the world's borders." Globalization and increasing technology changed how business transactions, legal and otherwise, take place and have altered long-held concepts of sovereignty. Read the article: BORDERLINE:It's Not About Maps , ( Post, May 28, 2006 ) Washington, D.C.: Does anyone seriously think the world can return to an era with controlled borders? Does anyone want that Berlin-Wall-style life? A friend is a factory manager in China and complained that they had to raise salaries 20% in the last year because their employees complained to their cousins via cell phone NOT to go work for his company. So recruiting in the villages dropped to zero. If CHINA can't control it's people, then what country can or should? Moises Naim: In fact, the idea that borders can be substantially sealed through a combination of physical obstacles, electronic surveillance, and military checkpoints is alive and well. This for example is the position of a significant number of U.S. lawmakers and commentators in the current debate about immigration. While there is no doubt that a nation state has to do what it can to ensure control of its borders and that there is much that the United States can do better in its border control, there is equally no doubt that a policy that just relies on the assumption that sealing the borders is the solution maybe a dangerous illusion. It creates the illusion of security while distracting the government and the public from addressing some of the deep rooted causes of the problem. Harrisburg, Pa.: Smuggling has existed for a long time. Is it any more a significant impact on our economy today than in the past? Moises Naim: As so many other aspects of international trade, illicit commerce has also been transformed by the revolutionary changes in technology and politics that occurred in the 1990s. It is now more varied, more global, and has more severe political consequences. In the past, governments did not have to worry about the smuggling of human organs for example, or illegally copied music or software. These are new industries that have grown immensely in recent years. Smuggling also tended to be regional, and it normally took place among nations that shared borders. Today's new technologies allow smuggling to be far more global in scope. Moreover, international smuggling networks have acquired an unprecedented political potency and a defining political influence in the politics and economics of many countries. This is in fact the central thesis of my book, "ILLICIT: How Smugglers, Traffickers and Copycats Are Hijacking the Global Economy." Lyme, Conn.: How easy is it to smuggle something in by ship? My understanding is that inspections are so few that a major smuggler can well risk having a small portion of shipments caught just by playing the odds that most will get through. Is this correct? Shouldn't we be doing more to check shipments of goods into America? Moises Naim: Yes, smuggling by ships continues to be a relatively low risk undertaking. While after 9/11 especially in the United States stricter controls and safeguards were implemented, the reality is that the explosive growth in international trade makes it very hard for authorities to provide a failsafe system of monitoring and inspecting all cargo containers coming into the U.S. ports. While more needs to be done and new methods and technologies will soon be available to make smuggling weapons of mass destruction, for example, more difficult, no system will be perfect. There will always be a tension between ensuring the smooth and efficient operation of the international trading system that brings so many benefits to the United States and the need for this country to safeguard its citizens' security. Washington, D.C.: To play 'Develi's Advocate' a bit, one argument I've heard is that a lot of pirated products are simply unaffordable to people who buy them in third world countries in their original format. A $50 PS2 game or $20 DVD might be a double digit percentage of $150 a months income but a $1 or $2 pirate version is affordable. Thus, companies aren't losing money since these products would never even be bought legitimately. Note this is not in reference to governments of these poor countries or pirated products circulating in the US (who both SHOULD be buying legit products) but rather at the individual consumer level in these poorer nations. Moises Naim: It is true that cheap counterfeits are providing access to otherwise unaffordable products to millions of people-- and not only in developing countries. Walk the streets of any major city of a wealthy country and you will see people purchasing fake bags, glasses, watches or DVDs. The same is true of course in poor countries. While there is no doubt that in some industries the counterfeits have eroded the revenues of the legitimate owners of these products (for example in music or film) it is still true that these companies are still in business and have found ways of compensating for their losses. Nonetheless, it is important to keep in mind that granting and protecting property rights of legitimate owners is a very important tenet of a market economy. Furthermore, what is being counterfeited today is not just "lifestyle" branded products like running shoes or fancy handbags. Medicines that instead of curing, kill, or faulty machinery components that lead to fatal accidents are also part of the booming trade in counterfeits. While governments are being asked to do much to protect intellectual property, there is no doubt in my mind that in the future we will see a far more active role for technologies that protect products from being copied and a lesser role for the laws that grant this protection-- and therefore for governments in charge of enforcing these laws. Arlington, Va.: Haven't borders always been hard to define in a strict geographic sense? Tribal, ethnic and national groups have often transcended boundaries. It seems that now technology and communication have only added to an ages old problem. Moises Naim: You are right. In the general conversation there is a nostalgia for a past that never existed. Everywhere borders have been fluid, porous, and often ill-defined. As you say, the difference today is that technology has changed the nature of borders, adding complexity to the definition and making their strict enforcement a far more difficult challenge for governments. It is no longer just individuals illegally crossing geographic borders, it is also electronic "cybersmuggling" that crosses virtual national borders. Alexandria, Va.: How do weak borders elsewhere affect us when it comes to trade? For example if something is shipped via one nation but originates somewhere else, does it have domino effect? Moises Naim: Yes. One of the realities of the new global economy is that products no longer have one origin and one final destination. It is now common for products to travel through several trans-shipment locations in different countries and move about before reaching its final consumer. Washington, D.C.: What can countries do to improve border security? Is electronic surveillance a significant component of border monitoring, especially in nations (such as ours) with very long borders? Moises Naim: Better monitoring and surveillance using new technologies is certainly a very promising avenue for future improvements in border control in the United States. But the most powerful tools are selectivity and intelligence. Selectivity in what, where and how will the government try to enhance border security. A government that is mandated to control an increasing number of cross-border activities, on all borders--real, virtual, electronic, financial, health-related and so on--will inevitably face an impossible task. In addition to selectivity, relying more on intelligence and the smart screening of borders, and those crossing them will allow governments to deploy their efforts (human, technological, institutional, military) in a more selective and therefore more efficient way. Moises Naim: Many thanks for your interesting questions and have a nice day. 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.
Moises Naim, editor of Foreign Policy magazine and author of "Illicit: How Smugglers, Traffickers, and Copycats are Hijacking the Global Economy," discusses his Sunday Outlook article on how today's fluid and non-traditional borders pose security challenges.
35.085106
0.978723
13.319149
medium
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/28/AR2006052801011.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006052919id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/28/AR2006052801011.html
Coverup of Iraq Incident By Marines Is Alleged
2006052919
A powerful member of Congress alleged yesterday that there has been a conscious effort by Marine commanders to cover up the facts of a November incident in which rampaging Marines allegedly killed 24 Iraqi civilians. "There has to have been a coverup of this thing," Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, charged in an interview on ABC's "This Week." "No question about it." John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also raised the issue of whether the military chain of command reacted properly and legally. "There is this serious question . . . of what happened and when it happened, and what was the immediate reaction of the senior officers in the Marine Corps when they began to gain knowledge of it," he said on the same program. He added, "That is seriously a question that is going to be examined." Warner said he intends to hold hearings on the Haditha incident as soon as he can without interfering with the prosecution of criminal charges, which are expected to be brought this summer. Iraqi witnesses in Haditha, an Upper Euphrates Valley farm town, say the Americans shot men, women and children on Nov. 19 at close range in retaliation for the death of a Marine lance corporal in a roadside bombing. Two U.S. military inquiries began earlier this year after Time magazine presented military officials in Baghdad with the findings of its own investigation, based on survivors' accounts and on a videotape shot by an Iraqi journalism student at Haditha's hospital and inside victims' houses. People familiar with the case say they expect that charges of murder, dereliction of duty and making a false statement will be brought against several Marines. Murtha, who like Warner is a former Marine, said that there was a preliminary investigation by the military but that "it was stifled." Until Time's report appeared in March, four months after the incident, he said, "There was no serious investigation." Murtha said he understands the stress being put on Marines fighting in western Iraq's turbulent Anbar province: "The pressure builds every time they go out," with roadside bombs exploding "every day they go out." But, he said, "I will not excuse murder, and this is what has happened," adding that there is "no question in my mind about it." He reiterated a previous statement that shootings of women and children occurred "in cold blood" and that there was no firefight in which civilians were killed in a crossfire, as some Marines asserted after the event. "This is worse than Abu Ghraib," he said, referring to the abuse of Iraqi detainees by U.S. soldiers at a prison west of Baghdad that, when revealed in spring 2004, became a major setback for the U.S. effort in Iraq. Murtha was most emphatic in discussing his belief that senior Marine officers acted to prevent the facts of the case from emerging. "The problem is, who covered up? And why did they cover it up?" he asked. He said an investigation should have been conducted immediately after the incident, with the facts disclosed to the public at that time.
A powerful member of Congress alleged yesterday that there has been a conscious effort by Marine commanders to cover up the facts of a November incident in which rampaging Marines allegedly killed 24 Iraqi civilians.
17.555556
1
36
medium
high
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/26/AR2006052602034.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006052719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/26/AR2006052602034.html
Hollywood Caters to a Ravenous Global Appetite
2006052719
CANNES, France -- While the Hollywood eye candy with the dark sunglasses is paraded before the paparazzi , the real and serious business of the Cannes Film Festival actually takes place in a cavernous basement next door to the grand movie palace. It is called, brutally, The Market. Though it has been spruced up in recent years, The Market retains the vibe of a vast and chaotic bazaar, where sleep-deprived Bulgarian distributors wrestle over percentage points with chatty Italian producers, where the Turkish showmen sell their films to the Koreans, and where Hollywood's polyglot sales agents are busy selling "the product" and its potential "ancillary exploitation" (DVDs, TV rights, etc.): everything from the biggest blockbusters to the littlest art house flick. The reason you should care is that Hollywood studios now sell more of their product overseas than they do at home. Which means that the movies you are offered at the local multiplex -- the action-adventure thriller with Tom Cruise set in showy European capitals, and historical swords-and-sandals epics with Brad Pitt in a tunic -- are as likely to be made with an audience in Australia or Germany or Japan in mind. "The decision to greenlight a film is now often based on the potential for international sales," says Nicolas Meyer, president of Lionsgate International. "The bigger the movie, the more it costs to make, the more important that decision." And he adds, "Everything about the movie business today is about the global market." The numbers tell the story. A decade ago, Hollywood considered international box office receipts as gravy. Today it is often the beef. The domestic box office last year was $9 billion, according to the Motion Picture Association of America and internal estimates by movie studios. Foreign ticket sales totaled $12 billion. Of that amount, Hollywood is the big cultural imperialist gorilla, representing at least 80 percent of the total, with the rest made by increasingly sophisticated, locally produced films. Still, the highest-grossing film in Taiwan last week? "Mission: Impossible III." In Poland? "Ice Age: The Meltdown." In France? Robin Williams's "RV" -- renamed for French consumption as "Camping Car." (Recall that the Gallic taste for comedy often includes Jerry Lewis.) Most American films do not begin to show a profit (the average studio release now costs $100 million to make and market) until they debut overseas -- a phenomenon that is changing the very nature of the business and the art of film, as studio executives increasingly try to predict how well a film will "travel."
The real and serious business of the Cannes Film Festival actually takes place in the global marketplace. Even Hollywood studios now sell more of their product overseas than they do at home.
14.942857
0.914286
11.371429
low
medium
extractive
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/26/AR2006052601547.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006052719id_/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/26/AR2006052601547.html
Don't the Fallen Deserve at Least a Moment?
2006052719
"Memorial Day Sale! Warehouse Is Stocked and Ready for Your Home"; "Memorial Day SALE plus EXTRA 15% OFF when you use your store card or pass"; "Memorial Day 1/2 Price Sale on Mattresses!"; "Memorial Day PIANO SALE"; "UNBELIEVABLE! STOREWIDE SAVINGS JUST IN TIME FOR THE HOLIDAY WEEKEND!" This cannot be what Maj. Gen. John A. Logan, national commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, had in mind when he officially proclaimed Memorial Day on May 5, 1868. His thought, as best I can tell, was to set aside a day to honor the war dead. The true meaning of Memorial Day, however, has been overcome by door-buster sales, backyard cookouts and the opportunity to get a little extra sleep. The fallen don't seem to mean much anymore except, perhaps, to veterans of previous wars and their families, and to the nearly 5,000 mothers and fathers of men and women in uniform who have given their all in Iraq. To those parents, please add surviving brothers and sisters, wives, husbands, children, grandchildren, cousins, aunts, uncles, nephews and nieces, neighbors and friends. If these folks happen to gather on Memorial Day, most likely it won't be to organize a shop-a-rama or barbecue. For them, Monday will be the time to remember loved ones who lost their lives serving their country. The shame is that much of the nation won't be sharing this day of observance with those families. The shameless will be too busy with other pressing matters, such as: · Taylor Hicks, the "American Idol" -- should he have really won out over Katharine McPhee? · Rep. William Jefferson from New Orleans! Was he on the take? · Don't forget Angelina, Brad and the expected baby in Namibia. Then there's Comcast and the Nats; Libby and the Veep; Pelosi, Hastert and the FBI; illegal immigrants, the border and the debate; and the John Allen Muhammad farce in Rockville. Anything and everything but time to honor to those who have paid the ultimate price. It shouldn't be this way. If ever there was a day when the country should call a timeout on fun and self-indulgent distractions and devote some serious time to a solemn observance, it's this Memorial Day. Goodness knows, enough Americans have given their lives to make it possible. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, beginning with the American Revolution and continuing through the war on terrorism (as of Sept. 30, 2005), there were 652,696 American battle deaths, including 53,402 in World War I; 291,557 in World War II; 33,741 in the Korean War; 47,424 in Vietnam; and 147 in Desert Shield-Desert Storm. Those totals don't include the other Americans who died in those theaters of war. That total comes to 14,416. To devote one day to the honor of 667,112 American souls should not be asking too much. Evidently it is. Otherwise, why will the malls, auto showrooms and ballparks be open for business on Memorial Day? Why, on Monday, will sales outnumber memorial services? But I overreach. I'm fussing about not having a day, when most people aren't inclined to give up a moment. You think not? What did you do last Memorial Day at 3 p.m.? What will you do this Memorial Day at 3 p.m.? Lest we forget: Congress put a "National Moment of Remembrance" resolution ( http://www.remember.gov/ ) on the books in December 2000 in the hope that America would return to the true meaning of Memorial Day. The resolution asks that in an act of national unity, Americans at 3 p.m. local time "voluntarily and informally observe in their own way a Moment of remembrance and respect, pausing from whatever they are doing for a moment of silence or listening to 'Taps.' " The resolution notwithstanding, on Monday, some folks will go on nonchalantly as if there isn't a war on. They'll be so distracted in their pursuit of a good time that they will be oblivious to the fact that some of the country's finest are in Iraq and Afghanistan paying with their lives. And the cruel truth, which the comfortable here at home will also ignore, is that today's troops slugging it out overseas -- conveniently out of sight and mind -- are bearing a disproportionately heavy load when it comes to heeding the call to service. They, more than any other group of Americans, are bearing the brunt of decisions made by politicians in Washington. Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan -- not the well-protected people in the White House, the Pentagon, the State Department and Congress -- are the ones losing arms, legs and life itself. An indebted nation owes them more than can ever be repaid. A single, uncluttered day of honor would be a good start. It's the least a grateful America can do.
An indebted nation owes our wounded and dead soldiers and their families more than can be repaid. A single, uncluttered day of honor would be a good start.
31.290323
0.903226
9.419355
medium
medium
extractive
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/05/911_truth_i_dont_think_so.html
https://web.archive.org/web/2006052719id_/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/05/911_truth_i_dont_think_so.html
9/11 Truth? I Don't Think So
2006052719
Every day, I receive a half dozen e-mails and a score or more comments from 9/11 rejectionists. The 9/11 cover-up, according to these correspondents, is that the U.S. government was complicit, even responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Like those who often write to tell me that the Pentagon, the FBI and/or the intelligence agencies are following them, that they are mind control victims whose lives have been ruined by directed energy weapons in space or the transmitters implanted in their teeth, I have a special place for this mass of correspondence. It is called delete. So, when the headline crossed my desktop on Monday that "Over 70 million American Adults Support New 9/11 Investigation," I admit that I fell for it and clicked on the link. The tale is depressing. The 9/11 truth seekers, that self-declared movement who now count in their membership a number of high profile celebrities, turn out to be exactly what I thought they were: predatory and devious, seekers of polarization and not light, abusive of the political system, contemptuous of anything that even resembles the "truth." There was a moment in December, 2004, after President Bush nominated Bernard Kerik to be Secretary of Homeland Security, when I thought the national security paradigm had finally changed in America. Kerik, to refresh flagging memories, led the New York City Police Department through 9/11. I always interpreted the White House's selection of Kerik as a need and a desire to neutralize the 9/11 families. I don’t mean a specific organization, nor a specific cause. I mean the mass of civilians who had become a powerful political force. Lives torn apart by a diabolical terrorist attack, they demanded action, accountability and investigation, speaking out despite the "men working" signs guarding national security making. Normal citizens found themselves compelled by loss and shock. These were not anti-war activists, nor a partisan special interest working on behalf of a single agenda. In the aftermath of 9/11, they were instantly conferred with respect and given voice: their very presence insured that the events of that day remained specific and devastating, that 9/11 would not become some political football or reality show for the administration or its opponents to abuse. But national security is men's work, and by the end of 2004, the men in charge had had enough. By appointing Kerik, I thought the President was specifically someone who could represent a sanctioned view of 9/11. Kerik would turn the citizen's movement into just another constituency, a special interest that needed to be dealt with but one marginalized rather than revered. Fast forward to 911Truth.org's press release Monday. "Although the Bush administration continues to exploit September 11 to justify domestic spying, unprecedented spending and a permanent state of war," it said, "a new Zogby poll reveals that less than half of the American public trusts the official 9/11 story or believes the attacks were adequately investigated." The poll, conducted from Friday, May 12 through Tuesday, May 16, shows, according to 911truth.org, that: Janice Matthews, executive director of 911truth.org said that there was "mounting evidence for U.S. government involvement in 9/11." 911truth.org went on to quote poll co-author W. David Kubiak as saying that the 9/11 "myth" is "the administration's primary source of political and war-making power." The organization then offered the view that if more Americans were exposed to "independent 9/11 research," that is, the mass of conspiracy theories that is being exploited by this Star Wars bar of "justice" activists, "about 90 percent would support a new investigation of the events of that fateful day." Zogby then put out its own press release warning that 911truth.org was offering its opinions, and not Zogby's as to the "meaning of the poll results." It pointed out that Mr. Kubiak was not a "poll co-author" but a member of the organization. "Zogby International had no role in interpreting the survey results for the sponsor or in producing the news release," Zogby warned. Zogby then gave its own narrative summary of the poll: In the question, "Some people believe that the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up. Others say that the 9/11 Commission was a bi-partisan group of honest and well-respected people and that there is no reason they would want to cover-up anything. Who are you more likely to agree with?" People are "completely divided" on whether they believe President Bush exploited the 9/11 attacks (44%). People are "closely divided" on whether there should be another investigation, with a slight plurality (47%) saying the attacks were thoroughly investigated, while 45% feel the attacks should be reinvestigated. 9/11truth.org refers to 9/11 "crimes," of "motives" involved in the attacks, it asks "who profited." Isn't the answer self-evident? The organization itself exploits the 9/11 families and the American public's confusion. For a moment, the 9/11 families -- and again I don't mean a specific set of families or any organization -- recognized that 9/11 was the largest governmental failure in history, that if "we" the people were going to have security we were going to have to involve ourselves. 911truth.org might pretend that this is their goal as well, but in fact there is no amount of investigation, no amount of fact, no amount of government action, no amount of intelligence information, no amount of war, in fact no amount of security that is ever going to change anyone's mind here. These are not typical Americans who just want better security and government and pray for successful prosecution of the war on terrorism. This is a purely partisan political and cynical anti-everything group looking to exploit 9/11, just as they accuse the administration of doing. Though 9/11truth.org and the blogosphere continues to rail against the mainstream media for ignoring their issue and their cause, the only gratifying element of the story is the restraint so far shown by the media in ignoring the thinly masked craziness and the Internet hype. Oh, I know I'm giving them air time, and surely the "news" will cover the "growing" 9/11 rejectionist movement as we get closer to election time, but what is really interesting here is not some cover-up but the enormous disillusionment that exists not just with the war in Iraq but also the fight against terrorism. By William M. Arkin | May 26, 2006; 8:19 AM ET | Category: War on Terrorism Previous: America's New China War Plan | Next: Let's Be Honest About the Marines in Hadithah 9/29/2006 2:39:02 PM generac generators Posted by: Lighthouse Generators | September 29, 2006 03:39 PM 9/26/2006 10:46:46 PM buy flonase flonase Posted by: buy flonase | September 26, 2006 11:52 PM 9/22/2006 11:21:29 AM allegra d buy allegra d Posted by: allegra d | September 22, 2006 12:21 PM 9/22/2006 8:10:29 AM i agree, lots of great info hot tub and pool spa supply Posted by: Indoor spa and hot tubs | September 22, 2006 09:12 AM Mr Arkin, it appears you are on the defensive for your bosses, and of course on the wrong side of history. You may be pilloried, and I don't mean people saying bad words about you, I mean pilloried with your arms legs and head in the stockades so people can see what a government terrorist apologist looks like as he gets tomato bombed!!! Posted by: PATHOCRACYDetector | September 21, 2006 12:06 AM 9/20/2006 9:56:10 AM allegra d buy allegra d Posted by: allegra d | September 20, 2006 10:55 AM 9/20/2006 9:40:01 AM buy estradiol estradiol Posted by: estradiol | September 20, 2006 10:44 AM 9/20/2006 12:27:26 PM hi guys,good site. Posted by: online bingo | September 20, 2006 05:28 AM 9/19/2006 3:55:51 PM buy elavil elavil Posted by: elavil | September 19, 2006 04:55 PM Posted by: john Huie | September 19, 2006 10:54 AM 9/17/2006 9:48:54 PM levbid buy levbid Posted by: levbid | September 17, 2006 10:48 PM 9/17/2006 12:17:01 PM buy buspar buspar Posted by: buspar | September 17, 2006 01:18 PM This is a video I've been editing after thinking about what we have been doing 20 years ago to deserve the massive mind control we're just witnessing. It's an attempt to link the new age gurus of the end of the 70s to the actual new world order lords. Posted by: exotoxic | September 17, 2006 01:03 PM You give 'em a bit more time and their lie becomes historic 'facts' example: -They said they landed on the moon when technology was using 'manual switches'.How come there'as been not even ONE landing after 197x-even so when technology has jumped by LEAPS and bounds since. Been foolin' you many times already boys.... Posted by: mankok | September 17, 2006 07:57 AM 9/16/2006 1:05:02 PM buy celexa celexa Posted by: celexa | September 16, 2006 02:04 PM 9/16/2006 11:24:55 AM buy famvir famvir Posted by: famvir | September 16, 2006 12:24 PM 9/15/2006 9:49:01 AM hi!!! excellent article Posted by: online blackjack | September 15, 2006 02:55 AM 9/12/2006 11:39:58 AM online pharmacy pharmacy</a Posted by: online pharmacy | September 12, 2006 12:39 PM Posted by: play65 | September 12, 2006 11:40 AM 9/11/2006 6:42:58 PM i like this site! Posted by: backgammon | September 11, 2006 11:48 AM It is absolutely DISGRACEFUL to see Arken say that the group who most benefitted from 911 are the proponents of the 911 Truth Movement. It just shows how shallow and meaningless this man's opinions are, and how worthless his commentary is. In fact its laughable, as clearly the group did not exist before 911. I hate this kind of polemic rubbish. More power to 911 truthseekers! Posted by: Richie B | September 8, 2006 11:29 AM It makes me sad when I read this kind of trash article, its just symptomatic of the society. People are so brainwashed by the competitive model of opinion carrying that they'll happily bash groups of who quite legitimately recognise the truth and point at it with both hands... My only real question at this point is: "If the powers that be felt it neccessary to commit 911 and start a never ending war to avoid a global economic recession, surely our only other alternative is... Global Economic Depression... Not fun. But I still say to Bush supporters and apologists... you live in a very SMALL WORLD. Please broaden your horizons for your own good and especially for the people whose life you hold dominion over... and the same goes for journalists like William Arken Posted by: Richard | September 8, 2006 11:24 AM Posted by: Jim | September 2, 2006 07:52 PM Posted by: bxdm cntk | July 31, 2006 08:41 AM qtof glqiw zklvsa mykbj guot rqtaxfghb autgqlvrf Posted by: ourhnm qvkirh | July 31, 2006 08:40 AM Very interesting & professional site. You done great work. nokia6630 Posted by: sonia | July 23, 2006 11:43 AM "... According to [a Pew Center] poll, 65 percent [of Muslims] in Indonesia, 59 percent in Egypt and Turkey, and 53 percent in Jordan say Arabs did not carry out the September 11 attacks. Among European Muslims, 56 percent in Britain, 46 percent in France, and 44 percent in Germany held the opinion. ..." http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060624-125415-4886r.htm Posted by: Frank Freeman | June 24, 2006 08:13 AM William Arkin's comments are one more underlining of the servility and moral bankrupcy of the mainsteam media. Posted by: Frank Freeman | June 24, 2006 07:29 AM Watch as Professor James Fetzer of the University of Minnesota turns-the-tables on the neo-cons of Fox News and the corporate talking-heads at Hannity & Colmes. Note that when the recent "no hard evidence" FBI/UBL issue is raised, Oliver North runs for cover! See the show of June 22, 2006 here: Posted by: Paul V. Sheridan | June 23, 2006 01:16 PM Everyone should note how the corporate media talking heads such as Tim Russert, run-for-the-hills when the TRUTH about September 11, 2001 is exposed: TALK ABOUT "KICK-BACKS"! Where's that coward "Mike" on this one! Posted by: Paul V. Sheridan | June 21, 2006 06:04 PM Note the psychotic ramblings of a "Sue Carnelli" posted here on June 12, 2006 @ 08:35 PM. Nothing substantial, just rantings about "blowing." 'Whatever turns you on sweetheart! And again, nothing from this dolt on-point or incremental to the discussion at hand: September 11, 2001. And that is a fact. Sad. Posted by: Paul V. Sheridan | June 21, 2006 05:49 PM Note the adolescent nonsense posted by a coward named "Mike" on June 12, 2006 @ 01:26 PM. First of all, like other assorted imbeciles and cowards that post here, he does not offer his (full) name. Second, his contribution to this discussion is libelous (that's about as intellectual/incremental as it will ever get for this closet fruitcake and others of his ilk). But third, and on-point, this coward contributes nothing relevant . . . sound familiar? Yessiree, I'm just in this for the money. Whoever or whomever this coward "Mike" is, they must live a demented, perverted life and should be pitied . . . very sad. By the way, if you are not a coward, you can show your bravery (Yeah . . . right!) and contact Mr. Ed Haas directly (efhaas@comcast.net) about your adolescent accusation. Mr. Haas is the webmaster for the site in-question. $$$$$$ You are truly a sad case. $$$$$$$ Posted by: Paul V. Sheridan | June 21, 2006 05:38 PM Posted by: insurance auto | June 21, 2006 12:03 AM Scott Laughrey,you are a dis-info agent. you have been caught. 9/11 was an inside job, and nothing you can say will stop us from exposing it. Posted by: k | June 16, 2006 05:38 PM Sad days for journalism when it becomes so obvious that those who read the articles have more inquiring minds than many journalists. The 911 report has so many flaws - it would seem logical to expect a free press to speak out in the public interest. Why was there a failure to meet the challenge ? That is an infinitely more interesting and concerning issue, than those raised by Mr Arkin. The NIST explanation for the WTC collapse will not be sustained because it is so clearly in difficulty, whether Mr Arkin is prepared to consider that is another matter. Scientific method is exactly that - a method designed to eliminate the bias of the scientist - maybe journalists should study it more. Posted by: Iain | June 14, 2006 11:06 PM still caught -- When you ignore my premises you won't get responses. I'm not here to hold the hands of the fascist Rove-ites who cannot debate. It is impossible to lose an argument when you're free to imagine false things about what your opponent is saying. Should you ever have the guts to specifically challenge my points this would be an interesting conversation. Until that magical day arrives, you will remain a sheeple, your basic Rove-ite, parasitic ninny. You need to come to the Baltimore Sun bulletin board and find me. Ask for Scott (or Kenect2 or My Two Cents or MithrilKnight, or Frodo or a slew of other names I use there). I would win any debate with you hands down and you still have not answered my theory about the squib charges set by the cronies of the Bush Evil Crime Family who started an illegal war and are war criminals and war profiteers. Why is Indymedia so desperate to prevent people from visiting 911Hoax.com, or to know that the authenticity of the networks' video from 9/11/01 is in doubt? Maybe Indymedia is infiltrated by Homeland Security. Maybe the conclusions brought up in 911Hoax.com are...correct. All of us really cool progressives and members of the angry bitter left know that Bush Lies and People Dies. This is the mantra that the A.N.S.W.E.R. and MoveOn.org people have been telling us to shout out online and at our anti-Amerika protests for years now. The socialist/communist propaganda of the anti-war/anti-Amerika movement is taking hold now, and the pawns (meaning the angry, bitter left) are now marching in goose-step with Dr. Dean. Bush based his illegal war for oil in Iraq in part on the official propaganda of 9/11. I am surprised you could not see that, unless the corporate controlled media already indoctrinates you. The really cool progressives do not accept the corporate controlled media propaganda of 19 hijackers and jet airplanes. There are many really cool progressive Web sites that show it was squib charges and holograms used on 9/11. The Web Fairy and me question authority and use Internet chat boards to show others that the 72 dpi images we use certainly disprove the months of detailed study by engineers from the National Science Foundation. As long as we keep up with our really cool postings to let the world know the truth, I would have to assume that we will in fact stop the illegal war in Iraq, have Rummy and Bush and Cheney arrested as war criminals, force Halliburton to give all of their illegal war profits to the Free Mumia Abu-Jamal fund, and overturn the marijuana laws in the U.S. Posted by: Scott Laughrey | June 14, 2006 10:56 AM I see that "Conspiracy Smasher" finally used his "real" pseudonym in the comments of the Post article. Then there's Namron, who ever since he showed up there have been several other distractors (all probably him) posting as well, such as Mary C. Scott, Rev. C. Solomon, Archimedes, Scott Laughrey, and a few others I probably missed. For example, one post of disinfo: Bush based his illegal war for oil in Iraq in part on the official propaganda of 9/11. I am surprised you could not see that, unless the corporate controlled media already indoctrinates you. The really cool progressives do not accept the corporate controlled media propaganda of 19 hijackers and jet airplanes. There are many really cool progressive Web sites that show it was squib charges and holograms used on 9/11. The Web Fairy and me question authority and use Internet chat boards to show others that the 72 dpi images we use certainly disprove the months of detailed study by engineers from the National Science Foundation. As long as we keep up with our really cool postings to let the world know the truth, I would have to assume that we will in fact stop the illegal war in Iraq, have Rummy and Bush and Cheney arrested as war criminals, force Halliburton to give all of their illegal war profits to the Free Mumia Abu-Jamal fund, and overturn the marijuana laws in the U.S. He makes it seem like he is a 9/11 researcher ("Truther", etc.), but his "many really cool progressive Web sites that show it was squib charges and holograms used on 9/11" statements make it clear to anyone who really pays attention that his post is satire. Then just go look at some of his other posts that don't give it away, to see that he's succeeding at his job of PAID Distraction, Deception, and Disinformation. These people will show up any time there is a comments section on a major article, because they know that's where more real truth comes out than the actual articles. They like to try to take away our power of influence on the internet by muddying the waters. I don't know how to deal with them when you can't moderate the comments. benthere | Homepage | 05.28.06 - 4:24 am | # still caught. Posted by: still caught | June 13, 2006 04:23 PM This Scott Laughrey character is amazing! I started doing some good ol' google digging and I've uncovered some Truth about this situation. There are two entities: Scott Loughrey, who is a real critic of the Bush administration / neocons, and who is hot on the trail of a lot of explosive stuff! see The Disinformation of Richard Clarke by Scott Loughrey Amy Goodman, Left Gatekeeper; by Scott Loughrey The Mysteries of 9/11 (I believe the spelling in the webpage title is a typo. Should be with an o) Then there is Scott Laughrey (with an a - get it) who is not necessarily one person, but perhaps a group of people/agency/bot who I am starting to believe actually is part of the 9-11 conspiracy / neocon conspiracy / disinformation campaign that is desperately trying to discredit the real Scott Loughrey and throw the public off of the trail that reveals their guilt. My advice to all Good and True citzens who are trying to investigate the Truth: do some more digging related to Scott Loughrey / Laughrey. There is some treasure under those rocks... Here's an key webpage to this mystery: News Junkie Scott's Blog on Baltimore Indymedia aka 911 Hoax. Follow the links. It's hard to tell what's going on here. Perhaps someone else can help figure it out. But this is for sure, here is one gem from the guilty party: "This has been a test of the Emergency Loopy-Leftist Broadcast System. Had this been an actual loopy-leftist alert, you would have been invited to Scott's mother's basement to sing along with Scott and Alice on the first few bars from "Cumberland Blues" off of the Workingman's Dead LP. This concludes this test of the Emergency Loopy-Leftist Broadcast System. " source - the bottom of this page from 8/10/05 of the mystery blog Posted by: HA | June 13, 2006 04:19 PM Nothing like blowing your own trumpet!!! I must admit I'm curious too... What does it mean to be awarded the 2005 Civil Justice Foundation Award? And what does it mean to be regarded as an 'expert' on anything? It surely doesn't mean that that person is always dealing with facts...surely? Posted by: Sue Carnelli | June 12, 2006 08:35 PM All of us really cool progressives who post here know that Bush Lies and People Dies. The only reason that Bush's illegal war for oil is able to continue is by the jingoistic flag waving of the corporate controlled media. The really cool progressives use the Internet to question authority and have intellectual discussion of topics that the corporate controlled media won't cover. I am somewhat of an expert on 9/11. I know from looking at some really cool progressive Web sites that it wasn't the propaganda that the corporate controlled media would have you believe of 19 hijackers and jet airplanes. I know of some really cool progressive sites that show how it was squib charges and holograms that destroyed the WTC. I can look at a 72 dpi image posted on a really cool progressive Web site and tell you exactly how steel is affected by burning jet fuel and the physics of an impact of 500-plus mph by a large object. That is what the Internet can do for us really cool progressives. Come over to the Baltimore Sun chat board and try and prove me wrong. I use the names Kenect2, Mithrilknight, Frodo, unclejohn and half a dozen others. Everyone there knows I am an Internet expert on 9/11 and other really cool things like tennis and pot. There's a lot more going on in the 9/11 cover-up than meets the eye. People who buy every word that the corporate-controlled media says should go buy George Orwell's 1984 and practice up; it won't be long before the hopelessly indoctrinated manage to get the clocks to thirteen here. Peace. -- Scott Laughrey Posted by: Scott Laughrey | June 12, 2006 06:26 PM Mr. Paul V. Sheridan (Winner of the 2005 Civil Justice Foundation Award), are you getting kickbacks from that website for getting people to pay $1.95 to read the rest of that article? Is that why you, Mr. Paul V. Sheridan (Winner of the 2005 Civil Justice Foundation Award), link to it in 2 of your past 3 posts? Or is it because the article says "Mr. Paul V. Sheridan (Winner of the 2005 Civil Justice Foundation Award)"? I think you are funny Mr. Paul V. Sheridan (Winner of the 2005 Civil Justice Foundation Award). Posted by: Mike | June 12, 2006 01:26 PM Posted by: Paul V. Sheridan | June 10, 2006 11:05 AM As a New Zealander I watched the horrific events of 9/11 played out on my tv screen in the early hours of the morning. America feels like a world away, however that particular morning as I viewed people frantic with worry over missing loved ones, I was overcome with the raw emotion of the moment. As an outsider looking in, it is dangerously easy to become disconnected from an image that appeared too surreal. I notice now that the media over here has lost interest with this particular 'story'. However, I am heartened to see that the facts surrounding 9/11 are now being made available to the NZ public in a relatively new publication called UNCENSORED, this excellent magazine as well as intelligent sites like 911Truth.org and st911.org present well researched and pertinent articles which have enabled me to draw my own conclusions. Well done to everybody working tirelessly to research/compile and present vital 9/11 information. If it wasn't for your pure dedication we might all be kept in the dark. I, myself would much prefer to be in the light thank you. Posted by: New Zealand | June 9, 2006 03:49 AM Dear Mr Arkin. Can I have a postal address for you so i can send you an array of audio and video presentations that, with a little extra research, will prove to all but the most anally fixated, that your government and elements of the mainstream media [ahem] we're complicit in 9/11. Posted by: davID | June 9, 2006 03:47 AM Careful people, you don't want to shout too loud. Remember that you're all under surveillance and the Patriot Act makes you all terrorists until proven otherwise. Hmm, I wonder what the prison camps they're building all over the country will be used for. Political prisoners? One thing is certain. Do not use the voting machines in the upcoming election. Demand to cast your vote on paper. Why? Do you really need to ask? Will you be surprised if Jeb moves into the oval office? Posted by: Librejustitia | June 9, 2006 02:42 AM If our new anonymous 'Happy to Be a U.S. Citizen' person has HARD evidence, that the FBI apparently (and now by their own admission) does NOT have vis-a-vis OBL, he/she should post it and/or call the FBI at (202)324-3000. In the meantime, his/her psychotic projectionisms about "miserable living in this country you so loathe" and other false DIVERSIONARY nonsense have no place during a presentation of FACTS. Facts do not need or rely-on "opinions," or for that matter "agreement." So these adolescent attempts by 'Happy to Be a U.S. Citizen' are by-definition absurd, and SHOULD be ignored. It is through love of this country that the rest of us will prevail, and our primary weapon will be the truth, not subjective goo. Our beloved country deserves no less. By the way, who funded OBL in the first place? Perhaps 'Happy to Be a U.S. Citizen' already knows the painful UNDISPUTED FACTUAL answer, and chooses to mislead us with his/her self-serving opinion? On the other hand, perhaps 'Happy to Be a U.S. Citizen' is so ignorant about that particular UNDISPUTED FACTUAL historical item, they he/she should be ignored on that basis. In any case, the facts are the facts, PERIOD. For example, if 'Happy to Be a U.S. Citizen' has any detailed knowledge about WTC7 then he/she should also post it here or give Larry Silverstein a call him at 212-490-0666, and get him up-to-date on all the WTC7 FACTS that 'Happy to Be a U.S. Citizen' has so painstakingly amassed (yeah, right!). One final note, if 'Happy to Be a U.S. Citizen' is so patriotic, why the cowardice demonstrated with an anonymous posting? Is this how you express your patriotism, from inside some closet? The rest of us are identified in-public defending the nation, the Constitution, stating facts, and supporting our troops without regard to the subjective consequences of opinionated cowards. We are not merely happy to be a U.S. citizen, we're willing to offer sacrifice for that privilege, understood? In the meantime we will be happy to consider/discuss your objective response to the issues of the FBI/OBL and WTC7/Silverstein; while ignoring anything less. Understood? Posted by: Paul V. Sheridan | June 8, 2006 03:02 PM Given all the anger swirling around politics today, I have to say I was still nonetheless flabbergasted to run across this collection of comments today. I had no idea so many intelligent people hated their own country so very much. Even more worrisome, most of you are too busy defending bin Laden and heeping horrific accusations against your own country that you don't seem to want to make things better. (And no, vindicating your astoundingly vitrolic conspiracy theories with "facts" that serve only to selfishly prove that you are "right" does not count as constructive.) One of you said, esentially, anyone who disagrees with you is either a liar or stupid. How does that approach help us "all get along"? You have the right to say what you think. And so do I. Given the tone of this discussion, I'll predict that my comments will just be immediately trivialized -- as everyone who else dares to have a different opinion than you -- as a shill for the Administration or the neocons and whoever else in the country you'd like to blame. In the meantime, you are miserable living in this country you so loathe while I feel very lucky indeed to be a U.S. citizen. Posted by: Happy to Be a U.S. Citizen | June 8, 2006 01:52 PM There are people out there, mostly mindless zybots, who actually CONTINUE to believe that Osama bin Laden executed 911. If that were true, than please explain your conspiracy theory about OBL/911 to the FBI because the latter emphatically states that there is NO "hard evidence" linking OBL to 911, see: http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html By definition, however, zybots are ROM type memory devices and cannot be taught anything new or truthful, they just process zeros and ones until entropy gobbles up the universe in the Big Collapse (the latter term having nothing in common with WTC-7). Mr. Arkin . . . are you paying attention? Posted by: Paul V. Sheridan | June 8, 2006 12:34 PM Oh, just lay off of Mr. Arkin, all of you "9/11 truth people" out there! I am very certain that Mr. Arkin has some very good reasons to believe in the... ...OFFICIAL U.S. GOVERNMENT 9/11 STORY: 1 airplane crash (NY) + 1 airplane crash (NY) --------------------------------- = 3 buildings falling down (NY) I mean, you don't have to understand math to write fiction at the grade one level. Posted by: God | June 8, 2006 03:06 AM If you can tell me why WTC 7 collapsed, I would be very interested in the answer. Posted by: Michael | June 7, 2006 01:09 PM I hope the PNAC crew are happy with everything they've accomplished in Iraq and America since 9/11. What was it NeoCon genius Richard Perle said about future generations singing songs of praise or glory or heroism or some such nonsense to their neo-conservative saviors? I can't wait. Unfortunately, the song this generation is singing is an old Willie Nelson tune. "Crazy." We should be listening to the song that John Murtha, my definition of a patriot, requests most frequently in reference to this uber-VietNam. That would have to be the Animals great "We Gotta Get Out of This Place", back again by popular demand. The Hadithah incident is a horrible tragedy amidst a greater, shameful fiasco. I don't see any glorious songs of praise going out to anyone over this. I'm sure the PNAC folks would disagree. Things are moving along very well for them. Lower taxes, higher defense budgets, Halliburton getting the contracts if not getting the job done, all of that outweighs Hadithah. The only alternative to belief in a conspiracy is the Theory of Infinite Coincidence, as in election 2000 (Jebbie & FLA. screw up an election), PNAC(Gee guys, if we could only have a catastrophe),9/11 (War games? What war games?), Halliburton (Dick says we get the contract, no bidding necessary),and more and more and more. I'm writing an answer book to Anne Coulter. It's called "How to Talk to a Neo- Conservative: If You Can Dumb Yourself Down That Low." Posted by: just wondering | June 7, 2006 12:00 PM we wait for the truth of what happened on that fateful day to be brought to light. Innocent until proven guilty, yet members of a jury are unable to make informed decisions until all the evidence available is presented and both sides of the story have been heard..and all relevant witnesses are given 'airtime'. Posted by: New Zealand | June 7, 2006 02:15 AM In terms of placing the individuals who produced it in grave danger, I believe that the new docuDrama, "Who Killed John O'Neill," may take the proverbial cake. This film, like several others that I am aware of, helps put the wrapper around 911. May the Satanic psychos that executed the murders of 911 be "bound up." I am certain Bush would be proud of what I just said, see: Posted by: Paul V. Sheridan | June 6, 2006 10:34 PM They somehow managed to find a hijackers passport in the WTC rubble B.S. I find it simply amazing that a paper passport would survive, yet the BLACK BOXES were destroyed. I think we should wrap the black boxes in paper, that would keep them safe. War is when the government tells you who the enemy is, Revolution is when you figure it out for yourself! Posted by: Winston_Smith | June 6, 2006 07:00 PM Posted by: Paul V. Sheridan | June 6, 2006 03:11 PM Maybe I'm Missing Something . . . The link below takes you to the official FBI "Most Wanted Terrorists" website page, where, as you might expect, OBL is listed as #1: http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm So how come, although there is specification that OBL is wanted for the the 1998 incident, but there is virtually NO mention or specification regarding OBL's alleged connection to September 11, 2001? The FBI site only inches-up to the 911 issue by stating: "ATTACK ON A FEDERAL FACILITY RESULTING IN DEATH" For my hard-earned tax-dollars, that's not close enough. I thought our government was VERY specific about who did or was involved or was wanted in-connection-with 911, especially the horror in New York City . . . I guess I was misinformed (!?). What am I missing?? Posted by: Paul V. Sheridan | June 6, 2006 03:07 PM Hey Arkin, Operation Mockingbird is alive.. "You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month." - CIA operative discussing with Philip Graham, editor Washington Post, on the availability and prices of journalists willing to peddle CIA propaganda and cover stories. "Katherine The Great," by Deborah Davis (New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1991) Posted by: AB* | June 6, 2006 02:30 PM How about PNAC, Bill? Why has no one ever asked the signatories publicly just what they meant by their big plans would be slow and drawn out absent a catastrophic event and wow, that sure would describe 9/11 wouldn't it? Should you be walked slowly through this Bill? Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Jebbie and the all Neo-Con Orchestra signed off on this? Can we just ask? Can you just answer? Can they? Can we place it in front of the American public and ask "What do you think?" I mean, this isn't conspiracy theory Bud, this is is real world, real words. How about it Bill? Are you there? Posted by: just wondering | June 6, 2006 11:55 AM Hey Arkin, look at all these comments... looks to me like you've been told.... If I were you, I'd pack up my sh*t and head for the hills... Pathetic dribble at best. Kudos to the the truth-seekers. Posted by: Backbencher | June 6, 2006 10:11 AM William M. Arkin you are a pathetic excuse for a journalist. Journalists are supposed to actually do research, to actually investigate and examine evidence. There are only three possible explanations for your position: 1. You looked at the evidence but are too brainwashed or dumb to reach the only possible logical conclusion. 2. You never looked at the evidence and you are just talking through you @$$ 3. You know exactly what the truth is and you are on the government payroll. Whichever it is, you are an insult to the field of journalism. By the way folks, 9/11 is just the tip of the iceberg. For more on the massive government coverup, see this on The Disclosure Project http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3186692959588220313 And this website regarding the truth about Bird Flu and how to treat it: http://www.truthmed.org Posted by: Ryan Bond | June 6, 2006 05:07 AM Dear Mr Arkin We must admit to a quiet giggle at your 911 article - wherein you so ardently tried to poison the well of discussion by rendering all 911 Questioners as 'nutjobs.' A bit like pissing in the wind, isn't it? The point is that all over this planet, intelligent, professional, non-Muslim capitalists are increasingly using phrases like 'synthetic terror', 'false flag ops' and 'American naivete' around the dinner table. Basically, the gig is over, however much you shill. Posted by: merle vidal | June 6, 2006 03:47 AM at least you are on record here, even if not under oath. that's better than dubya. anyone who takes the time to read and examine the evidence can reach the correct conclusion. we all know what that is. Posted by: publius | June 5, 2006 07:24 PM A rhetorical circle dance, Mr. Arkin. And feeble at that. Stop the babble and circumvention of the evidence. Alas you won't because this paltry pabulum is your meal ticket. Don't bite the hand that feeds you! Oh well, not all is lost. The jester disguised as journalist is still a clever ruse for the NSA to mine the addresses of freedom fighters. Could come in handy should the naked emperor declare martial law. Posted by: Post Mortem | June 5, 2006 05:49 PM Shrill shill. 9-11 Truth circling, closing in on the 9-11 propaganda presstitutes. But, hey, who can blame you for pretending to be a newspaper reporter. It's been a great cover, after all. Posted by: Sad Commentary | June 5, 2006 04:14 PM Arkin is just another Sayanim. What else would expect from an enemy agent? Posted by: Doug@usa.com | June 5, 2006 03:39 PM If the official story of 9/11 is true, why would the government resist all calls for an independent inquiry? Then, under enormous pressure, call for a commission full of government insiders. Remember how Bush and Cheney would only testify together and if there was no recording of their testimony whatsoever? Sounds like people who are afraid that they can't keep their story straight and have something to hide. Why would our government put gag orders on, just to name a few, the police, firefighters, and EMT workers at ground zero? Surely if the official story is true, anything these American patriots could say would fit into that story, so why silence them? Truth may hurt, but lies can be deadly. Our government has used 9/11 as an excuse for massive increases in military spending, the launching of two wars (so far), and massive curtailments of our civil liberties here at home. Yet Mr. Arkin seems to think that it is the 9/11 truth movement that is profiting, don't make me laugh. An 8-year old with three brain cells can see through the government lies surrounding 9/11. Let's be clear, there is nothing partisan about wanting truth and transparency from the government we pay for and being disgusted by the unprecedented levels of secrecy and corruption. There are record numbers of Americans waking up to the fact that 9/11 is just the latest in a long series of staged events that have been used throughout our history to manipulate us all into accepting things like war and the curtailment of our liberties that we wouldn't otherwise accept. We can no longer afford to allow the powerful to use our own fear as a weapon against us. Thomas Jefferson said "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.". So don't be afraid, talk to your friends, your family, anyone who will listen. Truth doesn't need to hide behind the veil of "National Security" or "an on-going investigation" or the innumerable shills in the media and on message boards promoting the "nothing to see here, move along" official agenda. Let's make truth and justice the American way again. Posted by: 911 is a joke | June 5, 2006 03:35 PM Mr. Arkin, for how long have you been an administration prostitute? Lies and the lying liars who tell them. Unless I'm wrong and your excuse is the only legitimate one, which is that you are too mentally-challenged to get the obvious. Those are your options: lying or stupid. Posted by: kdaves | June 5, 2006 03:31 PM You are just another coward journalist afraid to discuss the reality of 9/11. Affraid of getting fired for talking about the truth. You want to start this subject, the american people will bring it to you. I'm starting to have faith in the United States again. Justice is coming. All they are asking for is a simple independant probe. How long can the governement keep blocking their attempts? Why block independant, un-biased research in the first place? Posted by: God | June 5, 2006 02:52 PM I am so happy to see such support for the truth against the media's attacks. They refuse to discuss the matter because as soon as you open that can of worms it will be over. The evidence against the official story is infinite. The evidence for the official story is pathetic. RISE UP People. Demand answers, silence people, like Arkin, who refuse to look into the matter. A day of research will cause any rational logical person to understand that there is a serious problem with 9/11 and 19 hijackers are the most unlikely of causes. Posted by: LethargicNinja | June 5, 2006 02:48 PM A little on Arkin. Do intel collectors ever really retire? "Mr. Arkin served in the U.S. Army from 1974-1978, and was an assistant to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence of the US Commander Berlin. He was engaged in a number of covert intelligence collection projects and was the primary intelligence analyst for the West Berlin command." Below, the never quoted interview with Osama from 9/28/01 in which he denied involvement in the attacks on WTC: "I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle." Mr. Arkin, I'll use my common sense and my own faculties rather than buy the ridiculous theories promulgated by the gatekeepers of the mainstream media. Posted by: Susser | June 5, 2006 02:26 PM The Washington Post is government-sponsored propaganda, and guys like Arkin are hacks and shills who have sold out their country. The Post continues to actively cover up the administration's crimes against humanity, including 9/11. The good news is that these "journalists" are on the verge of being exposed for all the world to see. Their days of lying for the administration are coming to an end. Posted by: Peter | June 5, 2006 02:21 PM abusive of the political system? When the political system has become abuse by definition, what respect can one maintain for it. Hope you're well paid for your support of the insupportable. Posted by: nobody | June 5, 2006 02:16 PM God is watching you, Mr. Arkin. Posted by: God | June 5, 2006 01:51 PM Ever notice how the sleeze that believe that hydrocarbon fueled fires collapsed WTC-1, WTC-2 and especially WTC-7, avoid LIKE THE PLAGUE the fate and circumstances of Edna Cintron?? See: I guess she just magically waltzed through what Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld imbeciles call "raging fires," and never even got singed because she was Superwoman (!?). Where do these imbeciles come from? Posted by: Paul V. Sheridan | June 4, 2006 09:14 PM Mike, if you think the Pentagon is the only thing wrong the official story of 9/11 you havent done enough research. wake up sheep.they knew. Posted by: | June 4, 2006 05:44 PM First of all, for those of you that copy and paste a whole article, learn how to post a link. I followed someone's link and watched "Loose Change" for the first time over the weekend, because I was interested in hearing the evidence for a 9-11 cover-up. One of it's main thrusts was that the Pentagon was not hit by Flight 77. Though I don't believe that the movie explicitly stated it's final conclusion on what did hit the Pentagon (a missle, a C-130, a commuter plane, planted bomb, etc), I got the impression that the missile was the favored explanation. I agree that there are some things that just don't seem right, but the preponderance of evidence supports the official explanation of a plane. If it was a missile, how did 5 light poles get uprooted from the ground? Did they just happen to be in an exact line along the flight path of the missile? That would be pretty amazing. The movie presents one person saying the saw a commuter plane and one saying they saw a AA plane. That's a gross misrepresentation of the actual ratio of eyewitnesses. Hundreds of people claim to have been on 395 when the AA plane passed right overtop them. If 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, where did it go? What happened to the people? Are they dead? Were they murdered by the nefarious government? Is it strange that they didn't find the engines? Hell yeah. Is it odd that there wasn't as much damage to the outside of the structure as one might imagine? Of course. Is it ridiculous that the gov't doesn't just release the security tapes from the surrounding buildings to put an end to the discussion? Absolutely. But is it enough to convince me that Bush and Cheney ordered a jet to blow up a side of the Pentagon. No way. Seeing as how some people see fit to question the impacts of the 1st WTC plane, the Pentagon plane and the crash in PA, it's my opinion that if we didn't have 1000 different video sources of the 2nd plane hitting the WTC, conspiracy theorists would be questioning the veracity of that claim as well. I watched "Loose Change" with an open mind (the put option segment resonated with me for sure), but as the movie progressed, I became disillusioned with the lack of clear explanations for its fanciful scenarios. In fact, the weakest point of the movie and the conspiracy theories is that they don't seek to prove their own point by presenting one coherent line of reasoning toward a alternate explanation. They try to poke superficial holes in the official stories from multiple angles (it was a commuter plane, no it was a missile, no there was cordite so it was a bomb. Flight 93 was evacuated in Cleveland, no it was shot down in PA, etc). Posted by: Mike | June 4, 2006 11:20 AM You are unqualified to pass comment about the 'truth' of 9/11 that much is obvious. You are not fit to be called a 'journalist', youre an idiot and deeply embarrassing to yourself and the site you write for. Posted by: Matt | June 4, 2006 06:48 AM 17 Suspected Terrorists Arrested in Canada Canadian police and intelligence agents say they foiled a "series of terrorist attacks" by a group that had obtained three tons of explosive fertilizer -- more than the amount used in the Oklahoma City bombings -- to attack targets in Ontario. Posted by: arkin man | June 3, 2006 10:25 PM Oh yes.... Osama Bin Laden was just kidding..... He didn't really organize the terror attack.... He was just kidding and giving Bush political cover.... Posted by: Namron | June 3, 2006 04:06 PM the sounds of a desperate loser. sorry Namron, your defending a lie.the worm is turning and your on the wrong side of history.i hope you can live with the guilt. i hope your at least profiting off of the big lie like Arkin here. Posted by: | June 3, 2006 07:37 PM Oh yes.... Osama Bin Laden was just kidding..... He didn't really organize the terror attack.... He was just kidding and giving Bush political cover.... Posted by: Namron | June 3, 2006 04:06 PM The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie by Dr. David Ray Griffin Sunday, May 22, 2005 In discussing my second 9/11 book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, I have often said, only half in jest, that a better title might have been "a 571-page lie." (Actually, I was saying "a 567-page lie," because I was forgetting to count the four pages of the Preface.) In making this statement, one of my points has been that the entire Report is constructed in support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11 is true. Another point, however, is that in the process of telling this overall lie, The 9/11 Commission Report tells many lies about particular issues. This point is implied by my critique's subtitle, "Omissions and Distortions." It might be thought, to be sure, that of the two types of problems signaled by those two terms, only those designated "distortions" can be considered lies. It is better, however, to understand the two terms as referring to two types of lies: implicit and explicit. We have an explicit lie when the Report claims that the core of each of the Twin Towers consisted of a hollow steel shaft or when it claims that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down order until after 10:10 that morning. But we have an implicit lie when the Commission, in its discussion of the 19 alleged suicide hijackers, omits the fact that at least six of them have credibly been reported to be still alive, or when it fails to mention the fact that Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. Such omissions are implicit lies partly because they show that the Commission did not honor its stated intention "to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11." They are also lies insofar as the Commission could avoid telling an explicit lie about the issue in question only by not mentioning it, which, I believe, was the case in at least most instances. Given these two types of lies, it might be wondered how many lies are contained in The 9/11 Commission Report. I do not know. But, deciding to see how many lies I had discussed in my book, I found that I had identified over 100 of them. Once I had made the list, it occurred to me that others might find this summary helpful. Hence this article. One caveat: Although in some of the cases it is obvious that the Commission has lied, in other cases I would say, as I make clear in the book, that it appears that the Commission has lied. However, in the interests of simply giving a brief listing of claims that I consider to be lies, I will ignore this distinction between obvious and probable lies, leaving it to readers, if they wish, to look up the discussion in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. For ease in doing this, I have parenthetically indicated the pages of the book on which the various issues are discussed. Given this clarification, I now list the omissions and claims of The 9/11 Commission Report that I, in my critique of that report, portrayed as lies: 1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers---including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC---are still alive (19-20). 2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta---such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances---that is in tension with the Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21). 3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22). 4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23). 5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25). 6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26). 7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26). 8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed---an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26). 9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27). 10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft"---a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28). 11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28). 12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30). 13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel---that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel---made no sense in this case (30). 14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani's statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31). 15. The omission of the fact that President Bush's brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32). 16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34). 17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34). 18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing's façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34). 19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36). 20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner---even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36). 21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras---including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike---could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38). 22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's reference to "the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]" (39). 23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44). 24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46). 25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48). 26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50). 27. The omission of David Schippers' claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51). 28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52). 29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57). 30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57). 31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America's "most wanted" criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent (59). 32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the US military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60). 33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family and his country (60-61). 34. The omission of Gerald Posner's account of Abu Zubaydah's testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family---all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period---were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65). 35. The Commission's denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (65-68). 36. The Commission's denial in particular that it found any evidence that money from Prince Bandar's wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives (69-70). 37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for US airspace in effect at the time (71-76). 38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82). 39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86). 40. The omission of Coleen Rowley's claim that some officials at FBI headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90). 41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright's charge that FBI headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91). 42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui's computer (91-94). 43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds---testimony that, according to her later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101). 44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan's intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other US officials (103-04). 45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07). 46. The Commission's claim that it found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives (106). 47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09). 48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112). 49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113). 50. The omission of Gerald Posner's report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (114). 51. The omission of the 1999 prediction by ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas that the Twin Towers would be "coming down" (114). 52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly spoke of the 9/11 attacks as "opportunities" (116-17). 53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that "a new Pearl Harbor" would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the US military (117-18). 54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the US Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22). 55. The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks---Secretary Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart---were also three of the strongest advocates for the US Space Command (122). 56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban could not provide adequate security for it to go ahead with its oil-and-gas pipeline from the Caspian region through Afghanistan and Pakistan (122-25). 57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, US representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a US proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October (125-26). 58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the US public to support this imperial effort (127-28). 59. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years (129-33). 60. The omission of notes of Rumsfeld's conversations on 9/11 showing that he was determined to use the attacks as a pretext for a war with Iraq (131-32). 61. The omission of the statement by the Project for the New American Century that "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" (133-34). 62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command--even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158). 63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD's Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162). 64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times (162-64). 65. The acceptance of the twofold claim that Colonel Marr of NEADS had to telephone a superior to get permission to have fighters scrambled from Otis and that this call required eight minutes (165-66). 66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane's transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military's radar to track that plane (166-67). 67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD's response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69). 68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not know where to go (174-75). 69. The claim that the US military did not know about the hijacking of Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower (181-82). 70. The omission of any explanation of (a) why NORAD's earlier report, according to which the FAA had notified the military about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43, was now to be considered false and (b) how this report, if it was false, could have been published and then left uncorrected for almost three years (182). 71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 that morning (183). 72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it included discussion of Flight 175's hijacking (183-84, 186). 73. The claim that the NMCC teleconference did not begin until 9:29 (186-88). 74. The omission, in the Commission's claim that Flight 77 did not deviate from its course until 8:54, of the fact that earlier reports had said 8:46 (189-90). 75. The failure to mention that the report that a large jet had crashed in Kentucky, at about the time Flight 77 disappeared from FAA radar, was taken seriously enough by the heads of the FAA and the FBI's counterterrorism unit to be relayed to the White House (190). 76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military's radar (191-92). 77. The failure to explain, if NORAD's earlier report that it was notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 was "incorrect," how this erroneous report could have arisen, i.e., whether NORAD officials had been lying or simply confused for almost three years (192-93). 78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller at 9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington (193-99). 79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12). 80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke's videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210). 81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because "none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department"---although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211). 82. The Commission's claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke's videoconference---although Clarke's book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212). 83. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke's contradictory account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in Clarke's videoconference (213-17). 84. The failure to mention the contradiction between Clarke's account of Rumsfeld's whereabouts that morning and Rumsfeld's own accounts (217-19). 85. The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220). 86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36---in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223). 87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon---one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a "high-speed dive") and another in which there is no mention of this maneuver (222-23). 88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly scrambled to protect Washington from "Phantom Flight 11," were nowhere near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24). 89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-25). 90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93's hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253). 91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31). 92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233). 93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not standard protocol (234). 94. The omission of any exploration of why General Montague Winfield not only had a rookie (Captain Leidig) take over his role as the NMCC's Director of Operations but also left him in charge after it was clear that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36). 95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards Washington (237). 96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the US military until 10:31 (237-41). 97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane (238-39, 252-53). 98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240). 99. The omission of Clarke's own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240). 100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44). 101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44). 102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245). 103. The omission of reports that Colonel Marr ordered a shoot-down of Flight 93 and that General Winfield indicated that he and others at the NMCC had expected a fighter jet to reach Flight 93 (252). 104. The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from Washington (251). 105. The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States (257-58). 106. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62). 107. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63). 108. The failure to highlight the significance of evidence presented in the Report itself, and to mention other evidence, showing that NORAD had indeed recognized the threat that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles (264-67). 109. The failure to probe the issue of how the "war games" scheduled for that day were related to the military's failure to intercept the hijacked airliners (268-69). 110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation Northwoods to the attacks of 9/11 (269-71). 111. The claim---made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them---that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75). 112. The failure to point out that the Commission's claimed "independence" was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84). 113. The failure to point out that the White House first sought to prevent the creation of a 9/11 Commission, then placed many obstacles in its path, including giving it extremely meager funding (283-85). 114. The failure to point out that the Commission's chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest (285-90, 292-95). 115. The failure of the Commission, while bragging that it presented its final report "without dissent," to point out that this was probably possible only because Max Cleland, the commissioner who was most critical of the White House and swore that he would not be part of "looking at information only partially," had to resign in order to accept a position with the Export-Import Bank, and that the White House forwarded his nomination for this position only after he was becoming quite outspoken in his criticisms (290-291). I will close by pointing out that I concluded my study of what I came to call "the Kean-Zelikow Report" by writing that it, "far from lessening my suspicions about official complicity, has served to confirm them. Why would the minds in charge of this final report engage in such deception if they were not trying to cover up very high crimes?" (291) Posted by: | June 3, 2006 09:56 AM Yeah - sure.... I lost.... can't wait to attend Sanders Hick's victory party whern he runs for Senate... again.... Posted by: Namron | June 2, 2006 11:17 PM just as i thought Namron, you couldnt refute what Sander Hicks had to say. say no more. you just lost again. Posted by: you lost | June 2, 2006 08:53 PM at least you admit you cant refute a damn thing he said. you indeed lost. glad to see you finally get it. Posted by: | June 3, 2006 09:50 AM Yeah - sure.... I lost.... can't wait to attend Sanders Hick's victory party whern he runs for Senate... again.... Posted by: Namron | June 2, 2006 11:17 PM just as i thought Namron, you couldnt refute what Sander Hicks had to say. say no more. you just lost again. Posted by: you lost | June 2, 2006 08:53 PM A piece in the Washington Times supports your boy's assertions about the General and the $100,000 wire transfer... Anyone who cannot see the irony in the Washington Times supporting this theory has not been paying attention in this blog.... However, the connections between the General and 9/11 still (read the link) point to OBL having sole responsibility for 9/11.... And the link is much tighter than what your guy has - and yes, I watched the video.... still they keep talking about melting steel.... steel doesn't have to melt to have its integrity degraded... ask any metalrgy expert.... heck - look at a guy who shoes horses! So - at least give me credit for reading/watching what you post - a courtesy you have not extended to me. Posted by: Namron | June 2, 2006 06:13 PM You want me to explain why the head of Pakistani intelligence is not involved in 9/11.... Let me get this straight.... The General decides to fund 9/11 terrorist - with the foreknowledge of the W administration..... And he then decides that THE place to be on 9/11 is to be having lunch with congressional leaders in DC - a point of their attack... And I was given zero information on the "money trasnfer" that the Green Party (what a bunch of winners they are - or is that whiners?) claims this general made to Atta. And of course they are simply framing OBL and since he is already dead (unlike Elvis) they can morph his voice and image (even though the famous Swiss scientists NEVER claimed that the voice was a forgery) in order to put it out to the world that he committed 9/11. And I am sure that the USS Cole was attacked by CIA trained dolphins with a mine attached to their dorsal fin.... Greenpeace is outraged at that one.... And the American embassy bombings in Africa was just another way of keeping the African continent oppressed and under the control of DeBeers.... OBL didn't do that either.... Posted by: Namron | June 2, 2006 06:01 PM Posted by: you cant hide forever | June 2, 2006 03:48 PM "notice how the bootlicker Namron always shows up every few posts? that should tell you something about him and his motives..........." Yes - and so do you. Still - not one FACT that is not explained logically or reasonably by primary cources... all you have is little green men wearing tin foil hats.... You never read the Swiss report did you? You relied on your "friends" to tell you what was in it. You speak of a passport found at WTC yet offer no primary source... You would think that something that BIG would be in the official reports! But you do not read anything other than websites created by exploiters wishing to harm a country that was savagely attacked. You think it is Americans who are the problem. You can get away with this stuff in the ghettos of Palestine or Cairo - not here! Posted by: Namron | June 2, 2006 11:07 AM Namron says:"if my government and trusted corporate puppet media doesnt verify something, i refuse to believe it. i am a shill of the highest order. ignorance is bliss" Posted by: | June 2, 2006 11:05 AM Namron is here every day for a reason........... Posted by: | June 2, 2006 11:04 AM nice try Namron, but if you would actually read something other than government propaganda, you would see that you have been debunked over and over. wanna explain how WTC7 fell? your beloved government didnt even try. you are a shill and a traitor. Posted by: | June 2, 2006 11:03 AM From the guy who states I love propaganda... "The CIA verified it as authentic and then got a rotten egg in the face when the world's foremost voice identification experts in Switzerland reported that "the message was recorded by an impostor." " You have never read the Swiss report have you?! I even linked it below !!!!! Are you so scared of truth that you misrepresent claims until they jive with your beliefs? Is that not what you accuse our government/media of doing?! I find it AMAZING that 9/11 concpiracy protagonists refuse to rely on primary data. If the truth is out there - then POST IT FROM A PRIMARY SOURCE !!!!!! Still - where is the link that a passport was found at the WTC wreckage????????? Lastly - How do we KNOW that the "faked" tape was faked by the W administration? Why could it not have been faked by his followers to keep up moral for OBL's troops? And just how did the W Administration get Al Jazeera to authenticate the tape - or is Al Jazeera under W's voodoo spell as well? Another question - If W wants terror as a tool to control the American public; why would he have created a tape where OBL asks for a truce (January 2006)? "In an audio tape broadcast on Aljazeera, Osama bin Laden has warned that al-Qaida is preparing an attack very soon, but also offers Americans a long-term truce." http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/593298A0-3C1A-4EB4-B29D-EA1A9678D922.htm It must be that no news organizations actually exist here or in the Middle East! They are all holograms invented by the Neo-Cons! Posted by: Namron | June 2, 2006 10:59 AM Ya know, I'm starting to understand why the MSM is so successful at attacking conspiracy theorists. You put the cart before the horse every time. Will you please, please leave the conjecture out of it and just focus on PNAC. Remember what finally got Dick Nixon? His own words! He taped his own sick self!! PNAC is nothing less than a statement of intent and a strategy as to how to implement that intent, with signatures no less. Pound them over the head with it, shove their faces in it, make it a part of their every nightmare! Until this very incriminating document is placed prominently in front of the I don't know and I don't care majority of this country (sad but true)all your going to get is a dismissive roll of the eyes and the title "Nut Job" attached to your names. PNAC has to be the beginning of any serious investigation of 9/11. It's a fact that doesn't need further documentation to prove its existence. Bill Arkin, I repeat my challenge. Engage PNAC. Explain why our current leaders put their names to this piece of dangerous, crackpot ideology if they had no intention of implementing it at the first opportunity, which turned out to be the selection of G.W. Bush as president. This is the only way to open the door to the rest of the suspicions out there. Make them stand in front of the American people and explain their own words. And MSM, you may be part of the entertainment industry now but we need you to start acting like you have a real job. Finally! Posted by: just wondering | June 2, 2006 10:52 AM and he only believes what the federal government of the United States has to say. NOTHING else is good enough for him. that should tell you something. especially when the government he trusts so much didnt bother to explain so much about that day. Posted by: | June 2, 2006 10:46 AM notice how the bootlicker Namron always shows up every few posts? that should tell you something about him and his motives........... Posted by: | June 2, 2006 10:44 AM Namron said:[I found in official documents that a hijacker's passport was found.... but that was from the Pennsylvania crash site...] so Namron believes that a paper passport can survive a raging inferno from a plane crash and a huge explosion. this is all you need to know about the government apologist Namron. he will twist his neck 180 degrees to support the offical story. he believes in "magic passports" because his government tells him too. pay no attention to Namron the agent. hes just doing his job.(or hes jsut a fearful little gullible b*tch that cant spot false flags) Posted by: | June 2, 2006 10:43 AM So I take it you cannot find any primary source which doucments that a passport was found at the WTC? As for OBL being dead... That would be news to his lieutenants who keep sending tapes and invoking his name.... If the administration is so evil and skilled at deception.... then would they not have produced a tape that would leave no doubt as to its authenticity? If they are such bunglers - then how did they pull off 9/11 - an attack every credible intelligence agency (foreign and domestic) say was perpetrated by OBL? Stil.... Not one single FACT that anyone, other than the man who claims credit for it, committed the 9/11 attack.... And while we're at it - just who did send that flight down in Pennsylvania? Or were those recordings from the cockpt also part of the cover-up? The Administration is so skilled at creating an internal terror attack, but so inept that the leading terror experts have all been fooled? I suppose Tony Blair was behind that chemical weapons factory that the English raided this morning... He and Sherrie were cooking up some Ricin to improve his poll numbers... Posted by: Namron | June 2, 2006 10:31 AM i had about 4 more links to evidence that thre various Bin Laden tapes are phony. but Mr. Arkin, being the good government propagandist he is, keeps deleting it or wont post it. i trie, but Mr Arkin is a shameless man so i dont know if youll be seeing them.read up sheep.and remember, if its not on CNN or in TIme magazine or any of your other trusted corporate puppet news sources, that doesnt mean its not true.stop falling for the corporate bullsh*t. you look like a gullible fool. Posted by: | June 2, 2006 10:28 AM The Fake bin Laden Video Tape YOU ARE LOOKING AT A US GOVERNMENT LIE A videotape purportedly showing Osama bin Laden confessing to the 9/11 attacks was made public on December 13, 2001: The tape bore a label indicating it was made on November 9. Administration officials wouldn't reveal exactly how or when they got it, except to say it was found in a house in Jalalabad after anti-Taliban forces moved in. [Online NewsHour] The videotape was supposedly physically located. The size of a standard VHS videotape is 7.5 inches wide by 4.2 inches deep by 1 inch high - if you look in a video cabinet you'll see they're not very big. The satellite photograph on the right shows Jalalabad - it is very big and it contains a lot of buildings (not all single storey). Don't you find it somewhat fortuitous that a very small video tape of Osama confessing to the 9/11 attacks was found in this very big city? Were squads of video watchers sent in to view every tape found just in case one showed Osama confessing? Here's what was said of the "lucky find": Satellite photo of Jalalabad. Population ~150,000 Click for full sized image "For those who see this tape, they'll realise that not only is he guilty of incredible murder, he has no conscience and no soul, that he represents the worst of civilisation," said President George W Bush. US Senator Ron Wyden, who has also seen the tape, says he hopes it will remove suspicions in countries such as Pakistan that the 11 September attacks were an Israeli plot aimed at drawing the US into a war with Islamic countries. [BBC News] The video was very effective in diverting media attention away from the deportation of five Israelis who danced as the twin towers burned - "Osama" certainly picks his moments to appear. Details of the videotape - includes full video and transcript. A German TV show found that the White House's translation of the video was inaccurate and "manipulative". Bin Laden even praised two live 'hijackers' - Wail M. Alshehri and Salem Alhazmi. Why didn't he know the names of hijackers he personally chose? The quality of the video was very poor and the authenticity of the tape was questioned. This annoyed President Bush: "It is preposterous for anybody to think that this tape is doctored," he said during a brief photo opportunity with the prime minister of Thailand. "That's just a feeble excuse to provide weak support for an incredibly evil man." [CNN] To be perfectly honest it is preposterous to suggest this videotape could be authentic, but lets have a look at it anyway. Here's 5 Osamas - which is the odd one out? Posted by: | June 2, 2006 10:26 AM LOL -- Bin Laden Tape Plugs Book Against His Jihad In Afghan-Soviet War By Wayne Madsen 1-21-6 What's not right about the Osama Bin Laden audio tape. One thing that the Bush administration does well is manage perceptions of the public. Amid protests over the NSA wiretapping, the extension of the Patriot Act, and the nomination of neo-Fascist Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, an audio tape on Osama Bin Laden is sent to Al Jazzera. On the tape, Bin Laden suddenly veers from being a traditional right-wing Wahhabi fanatic to the right of the House of Saud to a leftist progressive. The tape by Bin Laden was quickly verified as "authentic" by a CIA that is now firmly in the grasp of neo-cons under Porter Goss. The Fake 2004 Bin Laden Video Tape Prophetic words, 17 December, 2003: Madeleine Albright: Bush Planning Bin Laden October Surprise October 30, 2004: Bin Laden video threatens America Close (closer than the last phony) but no cigar. Note the shape of the cheeks and the width of the nose. His arms and hands are in view and appear uninjured, whereas it was reported that the real Osama's left arm was severely injured at Tora Bora. The genuine bin Laden's last video appearance was late in 2001: "The big difference is that he's aged enormously between '97 and October of last year [2001]. ... So he's clearly got diabetes. He has low blood pressure. He's got a wound in his foot. He's apparently got dialysis ... for kidney problems." [CNN 2/1/2002] Bin Laden's beard was much whiter than on Nov 3, the last time al-Jazeera broadcast a video of him, and he appeared much older than his 44 years. Lack of sunlight and a poor diet seemed to have taken a toll on him. [Telegraph 12/28/2001] Bin Laden "aged enormously" between 1997 & 2001 due to kidney problems, lack of sunlight and a poor diet, but between 2001 & 2004 he "unaged". Truly amazing. President Bush said of the 2004 tape... "Let me make this very clear. Americans will not be intimidated or influenced by an enemy of our country. I'm sure Senator Kerry agrees with this." The American people were at war and would prevail, he said. [BBC News] ...this is somewhat different to the Bush administration's response to the genuine bin Laden video released in 2001: The recording was dismissed by the Bush administration yesterday as sick propaganda possibly designed to mask the fact the al-Qa'eda leader was already dead. "He could have made the video and then ordered that it be released in the event of his death," said one White House aide. [Telegraph] The 2004 video certainly helped Bush's election poll numbers: President Bush has opened a six-point lead over John Kerry in the first opinion poll to include sampling taken after the new Osama bin Laden videotape was broadcast on Friday night. [Telegraph 10/31/04] Even Walter Cronkite found the video incredibly convenient for the Bush administration. Consider this: if this was the real Osama, didn't his appearance prove that Bush has wasted two hundred billion dollars and a thousand American lives (plus 100,000 Iraqi lives) without making us any safer from Osama? If the 2004 tape were genuine, wouldn't it prove that Bush is a total failure in his own "war on terror"? http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape2.html The Fake bin Laden Video Tape YOU ARE LOOKING AT A US GOVERNMENT LIE A videotape purportedly showing Osama bin Laden confessing to the 9/11 attacks was made public on December 13, 2001: The tape bore a label indicating it was made on November 9. Administration officials wouldn't reveal exactly how or when they got it, except to say it was found in a house in Jalalabad after anti-Taliban forces moved in. [Online NewsHour] The videotape was supposedly physically located. The size of a standard VHS videotape is 7.5 inches wide by 4.2 inches deep by 1 inch high - if you look in a video cabinet you'll see they're not very big. The satellite photograph on the right shows Jalalabad - it is very big and it contains a lot of buildings (not all single storey). Don't you find it somewhat fortuitous that a very small video tape of Osama confessing to the 9/11 attacks was found in this very big city? Were squads of video watchers sent in to view every tape found just in case one showed Osama confessing? Here's what was said of the "lucky find": Satellite photo of Jalalabad. Population ~150,000 Click for full sized image "For those who see this tape, they'll realise that not only is he guilty of incredible murder, he has no conscience and no soul, that he represents the worst of civilisation," said President George W Bush. US Senator Ron Wyden, who has also seen the tape, says he hopes it will remove suspicions in countries such as Pakistan that the 11 September attacks were an Israeli plot aimed at drawing the US into a war with Islamic countries. [BBC News] The video was very effective in diverting media attention away from the deportation of five Israelis who danced as the twin towers burned - "Osama" certainly picks his moments to appear. Details of the videotape - includes full video and transcript. A German TV show found that the White House's translation of the video was inaccurate and "manipulative". Bin Laden even praised two live 'hijackers' - Wail M. Alshehri and Salem Alhazmi. Why didn't he know the names of hijackers he personally chose? The quality of the video was very poor and the authenticity of the tape was questioned. This annoyed President Bush: "It is preposterous for anybody to think that this tape is doctored," he said during a brief photo opportunity with the prime minister of Thailand. "That's just a feeble excuse to provide weak support for an incredibly evil man." [CNN] To be perfectly honest it is preposterous to suggest this videotape could be authentic, but lets have a look at it anyway. Here's 5 Osamas - which is the odd one out? Posted by: | June 2, 2006 10:25 AM Unwinding the Bin Laden tape On balance it's probably a fake - but perhaps Osama is the trickster Mark Lawson Saturday December 15, 2001 The Guardian In accidental homage to the commercial calendar of the superstars of American culture he desires to destroy, Osama bin Laden has a hot new video out just in time for Christmas. Regrettably, we would need to wait for the DVD - with those additional features including interviews with the creators of the piece - to be sure exactly what he meant by what is probably the most studied amateur video since the Zapruder footage. As with the frames of Kennedy's assassination, the scenes of Bin Laden apparently confessing to a Saudi Arabian cleric responsibility for the September 11 atrocities have already revealed many different meanings to different people. What the British and American governments present as decisive evidence against their chief suspect is seen elsewhere as a propaganda stunt: Mossad playing MGM. So let's examine in turn the three real possibilities as to the provenance of the tape: that it is genuine, that it is fake and that it is genuine but disingenuous. The main argument advanced against the tape being what it seems to be - an actual cave-video from the Bin Laden collection - is that, given his previous refusal to claim authorship, it would seem odd to make a record of such a confession. Yet there is a recognised psychosis among leaders as part of which they wish every moment of their lives to be recorded: Richard Nixon wanted everything he said preserved on tape, some emperors are said to have had their morning stool carried among the citizenry in jars. This impulse comes from a combination of a hunger to be in history and a paranoid desire to establish your version of events. It seems plausible to me that Bin Laden's personality profile might include a desire to keep a record of all events involving him. Certainly, the fact that on the tape he sounds so desperate to know what Muslim clerics have been saying about him - like some gruesome version of an actor poring over reviews - attests to a considerable ego. The creation of a potentially incriminating tape would also make sense if Bin Laden has come to accept the likelihood of his own martyrdom. As someone who planned such a theatrical and cinematic act of terrorism, might he even resent the loyal insistence in the Arab world that it wasn't him? Fearing the appearance of a B-52 above his cave, could he have wished history to know who it was who grounded the towers? Another clue used by the video-doubters is that Bin Laden (or, as they believe, a resting member of the Northern Alliance's Equity wing) wears a ring: supposedly unusual both for him and Islamists in general. This is a difficult one although we will come later to another theory about this curious jewellery. Those who accept the video as true are best supported by the dialogue. Forgeries - such as the Hitler Diaries - often hint at their fakeness by being written in too linear a fashion. They contain, that is, pretty much what an outsider might logically guess Hitler to have been thinking rather than the strange snakings of an actual brain. But Bin Laden's thought processes on the tape are realistically messy. It's unlikely to me that an American or Israeli counterfeiter would have written and directed the bizarre aria in which he expresses fears that his followers would dream the atrocities before they happen. This sequence is so unexpected that it could only be explained if David Mamet and Arthur Miller are working for the CIA or Mossad. And why would fakers have included claims so contradicting the western version? Bin Laden suggests, for example, that the hijackers only knew of the plans at the last moment. Yet western intelligence has spoken of years of preparation, flight schools, dummy runs in private planes, flight co-ordinates in the terrorists' briefcases. That oddity raises a third - and to me most plausible - possibility, which is that the tape is a fake or a semi-fake but that the trickster is Bin Laden himself. The wearing of a ring deliberately raises doubt about his involvement while the claim that the hijackers were unaware of the intended outcome during their years in America might help the defences of supporters held in western jails as associates. In the unlikely event that Bin Laden himself were ever tried, he has also put on record that he never intended so many to die. In its influence on Bin Laden's standing, the tape is likely only to consolidate rival certainties. The average American and the typical Arab will both prove the truth of Paul Simon's warning: "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest". Because of that cultural bias, the reviews of the video have not been all that Bush and Blair hoped for. What they released as a definitive piece of cinema vérité has been widely interpreted as a work of Bergmanesque ambiguity, and not just by reviewers in the Arab world. The western leaders are learning the power of a phenomenon which they must already have noticed as campaigning politicians: the way that reflex scepticism of the official version has spread from the campuses and bed-sits to the estate, the farm-house, the Old Rectory. In the court of public opinion, there is now almost no possibility of overwhelming, clinching evidence. Even when you show what you think is the smoking gun, people will still see shapes and shadows in the smoke. Posted by: | June 2, 2006 10:24 AM Bin Laden tapes are as phony as Sept. 11's connection to Islam by Kevin Barrett, The Capital Times [Madison, WI] As a Ph.D. Islamologist and Arabist I really hate to say this, but I'll say it anyway: 9/11 had nothing to do with Islam. The war on terror is as phony as the latest Osama bin Laden tape. It's a tough thing to admit because I know on which side my bread is buttered and dropping Islam from the 9/11 equation is dropping my slice of bread butter-side-down. The myth that 9/11 had something to do with Muslims has poured millions, if not billions, into Arabic and Islamic studies. I finished my Ph.D. last year, so all I have to do is Filed under: Bush administration plays 'terror' for political gain Questions about September 11, 2001 keep my eyes in my pocket and my nose on the ground, parrot the party line, and I'll be on the fast track to tenure track. The trouble is, it's all based on a Big Lie. Take the recent "bin Laden" tape, please! That voice was no more bin Laden than it was Rodney Dangerfield channeling my late Aunt Corinne from Peoria. I recently helped translate a previously unknown bin Laden tape, a real one from the early '90s, back when he was still alive. I know the guy's flowery religious rhetoric. The recent tape wasn't him. The top American bin Laden expert agrees. Professor Bruce Lawrence, head of Duke University's religious studies department, has just published a book of translations of bin Laden's speeches. He says that the recent tape is a fake and that it is possible bin Laden is not even alive. Fake bin Laden tapes, "verified" by the CIA, are nothing new. Every supposed bin Laden statement since 2001 has been blatantly bogus. The last we heard from the real bin Laden came in his post-9/11 statements to Pakistani journalists: "I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation. ... I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. ... I had no knowledge of these attacks." Then on Dec. 13, 2001, as George Bush was whining about the "outrageous conspiracy theories" that were spreading like wildfire, the first and shoddiest of the "bin Laden speaks from beyond the grave" tapes appeared. The video's sound and picture quality were horrible. It showed a big guy with a black beard, doing a passable imitation of bin Laden's voice, claiming foreknowledge, if not responsibility, for the 9/11 attacks, and chortling over their success. The trouble was, the big guy clearly was not bin Laden. He was at least 40 or 50 pounds heavier, and his facial features were obviously different. The "Fatty bin Laden" tape was widely ridiculed, and I have yet to meet an informed observer who considers it authentic. (If you haven't figured this out yet, go back and look at the images from the tape and compare them to other images of bin Laden.) But the media let the fraud pass without asking the hard questions: Why was the U.S. government waving this blatantly fake "confession" video in our faces? Perhaps due to the widespread hilarity evoked by "Fatty bin Laden," the next Osama from beyond the grave message had no images it was an audiotape delivered to al-Jazeera in fall 2002. The CIA verified it as authentic and then got a rotten egg in the face when the world's foremost voice identification experts in Switzerland reported that "the message was recorded by an impostor." Every bin Laden message since then has been equally phony. They are released at moments when the Bush regime needs a boost and the American media go along with the fraud. Remember the bogus bin Laden tape that made headlines right before the 2004 presidential election? If you didn't figure out that it was a CIA-produced commercial for George Bush, I have some great bridges to sell you. Walter Cronkite, bless his heart, opined that Karl Rove was behind that tape. But the rest of the media just kept pretending that the emperor was clothed. And the fraud continues. The most recent alleged bin Laden tape has been ridiculed by America's top bin Laden expert, yet the U.S. media keep right on holding a transparent fig leaf in front of the emperor! Professor Lawrence believes that this phony tape was designed to distract world opinion from the horrific massacre of Pakistani civilians by an errant CIA drone. But it may have another, more sinister purpose: to prepare public opinion for another false 9/11-style attack designed to trigger a U.S.-Israeli nuclear attack on Iran. The real bin Laden, who insisted that he had nothing to do with 9/11, has been dead since late 2001 or early 2002. The fake messages have been fabricated by "al-CIA-duh" to support the Bush regime and its phony "war on terror." It is time for Americans to rise up in revolt against the fake terror masters who are looting U.S. taxpayers, torching our Constitution, destroying our economy, and threatening nuclear Armageddon. Kevin Barrett holds a Ph.D. in Arabic, with a focus on Islamic studies, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is a co-founder of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth. E-mail: kevin@mujca.com Posted by: Namron loves propaganda | June 2, 2006 10:22 AM Duke Professor Skeptical of bin Laden Tape By Amber Rupinta (01/19/06 -- DURHAM) - A Duke professor says he is doubtful about Thursday's audiotape from Osama bin Laden. Bruce Lawrence has just published ?Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden,? a book translating bin Laden?s writing. He is skeptical of Thursday?s message. ?It was like a voice from the grave,? Lawrence said. He thinks bin Laden is dead and has doubts about the tape. Lawrence recently analyzed more than 20 complete speeches and interviews of the al Qaida leader for his book. He says the new message is missing several key elements. ?There?s nothing in this from the Koran. He?s, by his own standards, a faithful Muslim,? Lawrence said. ?He quotes scripture in defense of his actions. There?s no quotation from the Koran in the excerpts we got, no reference to specific events, no reference to past atrocities.? While the CIA confirms the voice on the tape is bin Laden?s, Lawrence questions when it was recorded. He says the timing of its release could be to divert attention from last week?s U.S. air strike in Pakistan. The strike targeted bin Laden?s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, and killed four leading al Qaeda figures along with civilians. Lawrence believes faulty Pakistani intelligence led to the strike and the civilian deaths, and the tape was leaked by Pakistani authorities to divert attention from their mistake. ?It led to a failed military operation where America got blamed, but they people who are really to blame are the ones who provided the intelligence,? Lawrence said. ?I think this is an effort to say were not going look at this terrible incident that happened.? Another element that Lawrence takes issue with in bin Laden?s latest message is it?s length - - only 10 minutes. Previously, the shortest was 18 minutes. Posted by: | June 2, 2006 10:21 AM OBL actually denied being behind 9/11. this was the REAL OBL because it was right after the attacks and it was with a Pakistani newspaper. the tape where OBL claims responsibility is NOT OBL. look for yourself, unless Osama got a nose job and gained 50 pounds while being on the run, that is not OBL.(also his skin is a much different color. you are WAY too gullible.)and the various audiotapes from OBL have never been proved as being him. in fact, some of them have been DISPROVED.wake up sheep. Posted by: | June 2, 2006 10:12 AM also Namron, the government NEVER fully explained how WTC7 fell. you lost again. Posted by: | June 2, 2006 10:09 AM and you say they found a passport at the wreckage in Pennsylvania? does that sound any more likely you moron? Posted by: | June 2, 2006 10:08 AM Namron, the passport was found in the rubble of the WTC, you cant find any official documents? how about the official report? you lost. Posted by: | June 2, 2006 10:07 AM GET IN THE REAL WORLD: THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ALSO PERPETRATED A FRAUD - thus their vote for Mr. Bush and the Republican Party during the last two General Elections, who have embarassed America before God and the world! The Bible reads, and I believe that the truth will make one free. If Americans truly desire freedom for themselves and all of the other beings who occupy this planet, the American postulators of truth, mostly pretenders in my view, must admit to themselves and the world, that America, since its inception, has been perpetrating its own self-serving fraud. Why? In deference to its historical claim of a desire for freedom for all human beings and for world peace, America's true motivation has been more self-serving, i.e., to pursue its own interests, and to design the world in such a way that the attainment of its own goals, are an achievable target. To be truly free, America must learn to cede the right pf self-determination to all of the people that God placed on this planet and to deal with its own internal strife and duplicity. Finally, America must come to understand that it is God that all nations, including America, must ultimately give an answer! Thee have been exceptions, however, God would prefer to use a righteousness nation to assist in accomplishing his goals on earth! Changing my moniker again, to the Reverend Formerly As... Posted by: The Reverend Formerly Known As | June 2, 2006 08:42 AM In reference to one of the blogs below, what about PNAC? I mean seriously Bill, what about it? I mean, it wasn't created out of whole cloth by some conspiracy theorist, it was created by the towering intellects and convicted Iran-Contra felons of the American Enterprise Institute and signed by same. If I were a cop investigating a murder and I found a statement that the murder victim was the only thing in the way of someone getting everything they wanted, I'd be looking at that someone first and foremost. To my knowledge, no member of the MSN has so much as brought up this disturbing document to the people who were brazen enough to put their names to it. Even to make them say " We regret that our words proved to be prophetic. Please, don't belive that we actually meant it." Not even that. I feel that before you continue with your smug attacks on people who are aware of a very bad stink rolling off of everything the Bush Mnkeys touch, you really need to address existing facts, of which PNAC is indisputably one. Until you explain how the existence of this document with it's very incriminating statements concerning the need for future catastrophes can be so persistently ignored by the media, you will remain just another irrelevant, meaningless noisemaker among the MSM, gutless and oh so self-satisfied. How about it Bill? Forget what crashed into what, Osama clones, and all of the conjecture. Just concentrate on addressing PNAC. I'm very curious as to how a true expert can spin that one. Have at it and please share. Posted by: just wondering | June 2, 2006 08:40 AM Come on, everybody, sing along! "Melody: Aqua - Barbie Girl" I'm a PNAC man, I'm a PNAC man, World domination, enslave the nation.. Terror everywhere, Osama's up your rear.. Our creation, it's only fiction... Come on, army, let's go party! Come on, army, let's go party! Posted by: The PNAC Song | June 2, 2006 04:17 AM you are hilarious, arkin. "but what is really interesting here is not some cover-up but the enormous disillusionment that exists not just with the war in Iraq but also the fight against terrorism." wow, that's deep. you really got to the heart of the matter, there. Posted by: entertained | June 2, 2006 02:17 AM Was this article written by the same William Arkin who compiled a book full of all the government-program abbreviations that he could dig up? Arkin throws in a smear at mind-control victims in his article. In researching those government programs, did he never come across programs like MKULTRA, COINTELPRO, MKSEARCH, BLUEBIRD, ARTICHOKE, etc.? How, then, did he become so callous or so naive? There are real mind control victims in the US, documented. The area has been studied for decades and tested on nonconsensual citizens (just like with the human radiation experiments). Does Arkin somehow think that in the current climate of secrecy, corruption, and abuses the government would never do what it was caught doing in the past? What does he think victims of modern-day mind control experiments would look like, especially if they are desperate, confused, and seeking help? As far as government programs and 9/11 Truth, Operation Northwoods comes to mind. Kennedy was what stopped that one; all the US Joint Chiefs of Staff were signed on. And Bush is definitely no JFK (assuming he would even have been "in the loop" at all). Posted by: Dan Brown | June 2, 2006 01:20 AM From an unidentified poster - "Namron, can you tell me how WTC7 fell? your beloved commission didnt.can you tell us why we should believe that a "magical passport" from one of the hijackers that hit the towers managed to survive the explosion and fall to the street to be found like a needle in a haystack by an FBI official, completely intact?" I linked several independant engineering sources below. My suggestion is to read them. As for the "magic passport".... You got me. I looked and looked and can find no mention of it in any official documents. Unless you can provide a LEGITIMATE source for such claims... you are the victim of an urban legend.... [I found in official documents that a hijacker's passport was found.... but that was from the Pennsylvania crash site...] Since you are fond of asking me questions.... how about answering one? What does OBL benefit from claiming responsibility for 9/11? He already has a battalion of crusading nutbags ready to bring down western civilization. Would it not make more sense to claim that 9/11 was a conspiracy? To claim that W and his cronies engineered it? Would that not be more effective propoganda than claiming responisbility? If not, then why did he also claim responsibility for the USS Cole and the African embassies? It would be MUCH easier to frame W for attacks not on our own soil.... Posted by: Namron | June 1, 2006 09:36 PM For Cripes sake, don't make the blog so long. They take forever to load and I can't even read them on the fly because the text jumps off screen after each block. Posted by: Monte Haun | June 1, 2006 08:12 PM William Arkin is a traitor to this country for writing thispropaganda. WIllaim Arkin should be thouroughly ashamed of himself. That MSM money rots the brain huh William? Posted by: | June 1, 2006 07:33 PM Namron, can you tell me how WTC7 fell? your beloved commission didnt.can you tell us why we should believe that a "magical passport" from one of the hijackers that hit the towers managed to survive the explosion and fall to the street to be found like a needle in a haystack by an FBI official, completely intact? your beloved commission thinks you should believe that.can you tell us whos brother helped run security in the towers just weeks prior and up to 9/11? i'll give you a hint, 2 members of this family were president in the last 20 years. oh,and your beloved comission omitted this fact.can you tell us what Sibel Edmonds said to the 9/11 commission? oh wait, your beloved comission made her a footnote and decided to put a gag order on her.look her up.inform yourself lemming.can you tell us why Rudy Giuliani(a former prosecutor no less)made the choice to ship the wreckage of the towers to Asia to be sold as scrap metal before it could be examined?(you've never heard of this because your a slave to corporate media,clearly) this was evidence in the biggest crime in american history,and the so called hero of 9/11 shipped it to Asia.your beloved commission ignored this. Posted by: | June 1, 2006 05:51 PM The Bush administration has been accused of raising the specter of terrorist threats for political purposes (Their 2004 campaign theme: "Be afraid! Be Very Afraid!!") Exactly what does happen to "credible" terrorist threats when the intelligence "chatter" apparently fades, and they seemingly simply go away? And what happens to credibility? Posted by: Jerswing | June 1, 2006 05:38 PM if so many of the threats are fake, why is it that big of a leap to thik the attacks themselves were at least partially fake? and Namron, your still wrong, nice try though, but your really reaching now. keep shilling sheep-boy. Posted by: | June 1, 2006 05:48 PM Don't know about 9-11 conspiracies; But I'm fascinated by the metaphysical mystery regarding the sudden disappearance of "credible" terrorist threats - which averaged one every other month from 9-11 until just six weeks before the 2004 election. So, exactly what did happen to several dozen "credible" terrorist threats? Were they more like old soldiers (simply fade away) or lone socks (no one actually knows)? Did terrorists, hearing that there was an alert, simply decide, "well maybe we'll just forget about it ... seems like a lot of trouble and risk"? I suppose that's one possibility. Or were they foiled, seemingly single-handedly, by Attorney General Ashcroft, who claimed his department's agencies foiled "probably 100" terrorist attempts? (Was he actually the unidentified passenger who wrestled would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid to the plane's aisle?) Note: Surely he could have told us about just one of those; but then, presumably, he'd have had to kill us! Remember the frightening but fanciful days of the "terrorist threat du jour"? "This week we think it may be: bridges, tunnels, railway stations, power plants, monuments, or military bases; All Americans are hereby instructed to pick your favorite, and worry, and wait!" And what about more specific threats, like the Palo Verde nuclear plant - remember that one? Did those rumored terrorists simply get discouraged by typical Phoenix area weather? ("It's too hot and dusty, let's just cancel our dastardly plans") The Bush administration has been accused of raising the specter of terrorist threats for political purposes (Their 2004 campaign theme: "Be afraid! Be Very Afraid!!") Exactly what does happen to "credible" terrorist threats when the intelligence "chatter" apparently fades, and they seemingly simply go away? And what happens to credibility? Posted by: Jerswing | June 1, 2006 05:38 PM In the sirit of open-mindedness, I investigated and read the report from the Swiss scientsts concerning the authenticity of the first OBL tape... You can read it here - http://www.idiap.ch/pages/press/bin-laden-eval.pdf "The work reported here was mainly motivated by pure scientific curiosity, also aiming at showing the possibilities and limitations offered by automatic speaker authentication system in non-optimal conditions (typically, noisy environments and limited amount of recordings). While this study does not permit us to draw any definite (statistically significant) conclusions, it nonetheless shows that there is serious room for doubt, and that it is also difficult to agree with some US officials saying that it is 100% sure that it is bin Laden. When addressing a problem with a scientific perspective (as opposed to a political approach), one has to be ready to also accept the uncertainty of the results. Even if the confidence of these results can be boosted by exploiting multiple automatic systems and multiple human expert opinions, it will never be possible to authenticate the latest bin Laden tape with 100% assurance." So while the tape cannot be 100% authenticated due to poor quality; the Swiss scientists also state that they cannot give us 100% assurances that it is NOT OBL.... Which brings us to the latest tapes where OBL claims responsibility for 9/11. Can anyone provide evidence that these tapes are faked? And before you poo-poo this post; at least have the intellectual bravery to READ the actual report! Posted by: Namron | June 1, 2006 04:15 PM Wednesday 24 May 2006, 3:22 Makka Time, 0:22 GMT Osama bin Laden has said Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person convicted in a US court for the September 11 attacks, had nothing to do with the operations, according to a website audio recording. The speaker on the tape, purported to be bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader, said he had personally assigned tasks to the 19 hijackers who staged the attacks on US cities which killed nearly 3,000 people. "The truth is that he (Moussaoui) has no connection whatsoever with the events of September 11. I am certain of what I say because I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers ... with the raids," said the voice on the tape. He said out of hundreds of people held on suspicion of links to the attacks, only two captives were connected to the attacks, but he did not name them. "I call to memory my brothers the prisoners in Guantanamo, may Allah free them all, and I state a fact, about which I am also certain: All the prisoners of Guantanamo, who were captured in 2001 and the first half of 2002 ... had no connection whatsoever to the events of September 11." The US administration was holding the detainees to justify the hefty costs of its "war on terror", the tape said. Bin Laden cited two Aljazeera employees - Tayseer Aluni and Sami al-Hajj - as examples of the many who "have no connection with al-Qaeda". Syrian-born correspondent Aluni was convicted by a Spanish court for conspiring with al-Qaeda and Sudanese cameraman al-Hajj is held in Guantanamo with no known charge. The authenticity of the tape, which was posted on a website often used by al-Qaeda - could not be immediately verified. Moussaoui was sentenced on May 4 to life in prison with no chance of release, ending four and a half years of legal wrangling over his fate. The 37-year-old French citizen of Moroccan descent pleaded guilty to conspiracy in connection with the attacks, in which hijacked airliners were flown into buildings in New York City and Washington DC. Posted by: Namron | June 1, 2006 03:59 PM 9/11 Lies? I Don't Think So *cough* New Pearl Harbor *cough* 9/11 - Cui Bono? Iraq? Muslims? An illegitimate President? Israel? The Military Industrial Complex?The Pentagon Budget? On 9/10/01 the Pentagon announced it lost 2 TRILLION DOLLARS! I don't know how you sleep at night Arkin? Lunesta? Posted by: Imaginary Shiite Fanatic | June 1, 2006 03:10 PM Posted by: | June 1, 2006 03:03 PM Alex talks with 9/11 Truth Activist Gypsy Taub about her recent confrontation of members of the Kean Commission. Watch the video to see the bewildered reactions of the whitewashers as their high crimes are exposed. Gypsy Taub Confronts Members of the Kean Whitewash Commission Problems listening to the audio? Play the audio directly in Real Player or download the video using the following link - this is more of PJ's beloved Commission, as usual ducking the issues. (did you know one of the 2 head commissioners wrote a book with Condi Rice? probably not huh bootlicker?look it up.) Posted by: | June 1, 2006 03:02 PM No more investigation is needed. Anybody with a rational brain knows what happened on 9/11. Posted by: PJ | June 1, 2006 02:48 PM PJ, can you tell me how WTC7 fell? your beloved commission didnt.can you tell us why we should believe that a "magical passport" from one of the hijackers that hit the towers managed to survive the explosion and fall to the street to be found like a needle in a haystack by an FBI official, completely intact? your beloved commission thinks you should believe that.can you tell us whos brother helped run security in the towers just weeks prior and up to 9/11? i'll give you a hint, 2 members of this family were president in the last 20 years. oh,and your beloved comission omitted this fact.can you tell us what Sibel Edmonds said to the 9/11 commission? oh wait, your beloved comission made her a footnote and decided to put a gag order on her.look her up.inform yourself lemming.can you tell us why Rudy Giuliani(a former prosecutor no less)made the choice to ship the wreckage of the towers to Asia to be sold as scrap metal before it could be examined?(you've never heard of this because your a slave to corporate media,clearly) this was evidence in the biggest crime in american history,and the so called hero of 9/11 shipped it to Asia.your beloved commission ignored this. Posted by: all i can say is wow. | June 1, 2006 03:01 PM Thanks for the thoughtful article. It's amazing how many clowns can watch airplanes crash into the WTC and Pentagon, hear transcripts of what went on in the aircraft cabins, learn about the terrorists' activities in planning and executing the attacks, and still choose to believe that the PRESIDENT of the US blew up the WTC..... No more investigation is needed. Anybody with a rational brain knows what happened on 9/11. Posted by: PJ | June 1, 2006 02:48 PM as usual the MSM zombies paint things with a broad brush and look at things in the most simplistic manner. the President is a puppet.Dick Cheney knew all about 9/11 beforehand, the president was blissfully ignorant but helped cover it up after the fact. Posted by: | June 1, 2006 02:52 PM Thanks for the thoughtful article. It's amazing how many clowns can watch airplanes crash into the WTC and Pentagon, hear transcripts of what went on in the aircraft cabins, learn about the terrorists' activities in planning and executing the attacks, and still choose to believe that the PRESIDENT of the US blew up the WTC..... No more investigation is needed. Anybody with a rational brain knows what happened on 9/11. Posted by: PJ | June 1, 2006 02:48 PM Curt Barclift, Mr. Arkin doesnt get paid to think. Hes probably not capable anyway. All those years in the mainstream corporate media has probably caused his mind to stop thinking critically.I however can assure you that PNAC is very real, the document you speak of is real, and it was signed by our current Secretary of Defense and Vice President among others within the current administration. Mr. Arkin should just plain be ashamed of himself. Posted by: Chris | June 1, 2006 01:42 PM Mr. Arkin, I need an answer to two questions. Does the "Project for a New American Century" document actually exist? Everything that I've seen verifies that yes, it does in fact exist. If so, does it actually state on page 63 that the ascendance of this new American empire will be very slow unless there is a catastrophic, Pearl Harbor- like occurence? If the answer is yes to both questions, do you see why people may just get the idea that something is very, very wrong here? Couple this with the seeming disappearance of any reference to the war games that were being conducted on 9/11 and the general and oft-quoted dishonesty of this administration (not to mention election 2000 in Jeb Bush's Florida)and what do you expect? The idea of perpetual power is quite seductive, I'm sure. Please tell me that PNAC is bogus, that's all. If it isn't....well. Posted by: Curt Barclift | June 1, 2006 12:36 PM this Namron moron would believe anything as long as someone in a position of power says it. bootlicker. Posted by: | June 1, 2006 12:02 PM Are you telling me that the other tapes delivered to Al Jazeera (in which OBL confesses to 9/11) are fake?! You are reaching waaaaay tooo far...... Posted by: Namron | May 31, 2006 10:22 PM 11/30/2002 - Swiss scientists: "The recording is a fake" Scientists in Switzerland say they are almost certain that an audio tape attributed to Osama bin Laden is a fake. ... Researchers at the Dalle Molle Institute for Perceptual Artificial Intelligence, in Lausanne, believe the message was recorded by an impostor. In a study commissioned by France 2 television, researchers built a computer model of Bin Laden's voice, based on an hour of genuine recordings. Using voice recognition systems being developed for banking security, they tested the model against 20 known recordings of Bin Laden. The system correctly identified his voice in 19 of them. This meant there was only a 5% risk of error in their conclusion that the latest tape is a fake, Professor Hervé Bourlard, the institute's director, told the Guardian yesterday. [Guardian] 12/2/2003 - Swiss Scientists: "Oops. We won't verify other tapes" Swiss researchers who last November analysed a tape attributed to Osama bin Laden say they won't be scrutinising the latest recording broadcast by the Arabic television network, Al-Jazeera. The Swiss analysts said the previous tape was almost certainly faked, despite US claims to the contrary. The Dalle Molle Institute for Perceptual Artificial Intelligence (Idiap) in Martigny told swissinfo on Wednesday that it had no intention of analysing the latest tape. [swissinfo] Latest Bin Laden Tape: Another of the NeoCons' "Greatest Hits" Experts already begin to come forward with revelations that Latest tape just another CIA fake Steve Watson | January 20 2006 Spying? Torture? Illegal airstrikes? SHUT UP and hate Bin Laden. The NeoCon use of Osama Bin Laden as a tool of fear and control is a tried and tested method whenever the going gets tough. It's predictable and it's tiresome, but the masses buy it every time and that's why he has reappeared once again. Just as the NSA spying tidal wave gathers increasing momentum, as the media demand more answers on rendition and torture and days after the bizarre airstrike on innocent women and children in Pakistan, we all magically get a timely reminder of just why the government is spying on its own citizens and torturing and killing anyone it likes anywhere in the world. Just like Orwell's ubiquitous Emmanuel Goldstein, Bin Laden always seems to pop up right on cue so we can disengage our minds from reality and join in the two minutes hate. We are reliably informed by the mainstream media that this is because he is a very clever man and has an impeccable sense of timing. Yet if this is the case, why can he not work out that EVERYTIME he has released a video or a tape it has HELPED Bush and the NeoCon agenda tenfold? Even the BBC lays this out in the open with the headline Bin Laden threats may boost Bush: The commander-in-chief has been under intense pressure in recent weeks, accused of trampling on civil liberties in pursuit of terror suspects. His defence has been that America is a nation at war. So Bin Laden's latest threats to launch new attacks on the US will only serve to underline this argument. The White House will also cite the tape when trying to convince allies abroad that the use of tough tactics is justified - even when civilians are killed, as in last week's air raid in Pakistan. That just says it all really. Bin Laden was created by US intelligence , worked with US intelligence in the late 70s and 80s, was used as a patsy by US intelligence before and after 911 and is now being used as a manipulative tool of fear by the criminal elite faction currently in power in the US. The last time Bin Laden appeared was October 2004, exactly three days before the election. The same headline "Boost for Bush" appeared and some, including Walter Conkite went as far as to suggest that the whole thing was manufactured by Karl rove in order to secure the election for Bush. The Tehran Times suggested that Bin Laden was "dancing to Bush's tune" and a "premeditated plan devised by Bush administration neoconservatives is unfolding". The report also noted that the CIA immediately confirmed the tape to be the voice of Bin Laden, something they had never previously done. They have also done this this time around too. Bin Laden personally criticized Bush's reaction on the day of 911, a move that undoubtedly instilled a rejuvenated support for the President amongst the American sheeple. If Bin Laden is so clever and so calculated and determined to justify himself to the American people, why can he not fathom that a personal attack could only ever help Bush? I thought it was common knowledge that you always steer clear of personal attacks in debates and arguments. Bush immediately took a six point lead and subsequently won the election. Of course, we shouldn't find it surprising that Bin Laden consistently helps Bush, after all it was the Bush Administration that allowed all members of the Bin Laden family to fly out of America immediately after 911 whilst all other air traffic was grounded. It was Bush himself who signed document W199I, ordering the FBI to back off investigating the Bin Ladens before 911. It was George W Bush who went into business with Bin laden's brother in the 1970s. It is George W Bush's father who is STILL DOING business with the Bin Ladens via the Carlyle Group, an international consulting firm. FBI Special agent Robert Wright broke down when testifying that he had been gagged and could not reveal the true extent of what he knew about the Bush-Bin Laden connection and 911. his lawyer stepped up and said live on C-Span that "The Bush Family vacations with the Bin Ladens". The ties run deep and all lead to money, huge amounts of money. This is how the Bushes do business, this is how they have always done business, they own the best enemies money can buy. Previous to the 2004 election, Bin Laden surfaced on a video on the eve of the two year anniversary of 911. Once again impeccable timing to deliver a video, given that he was reported to be hiding in the mountains of Pakistan. However, the video was quickly recognized by experts as simply a re-hash of old material cobbled together quickly and so amateurish that it could not have fooled anyone. Previous to the beginning of the Iraq war, Bin Laden appeared in February 2003 on an audio tape that was touted as proof positive of Al Qaeda links with Saddam Hussein. In another amazing timing coincidence, the tape came barely a week after Colin powell's attempts to link Al Qaeda and Saddam in his botched presentation of lies and exaggerations before the UN Security Council. In an even more bizarre twist, just hours before the tape was found and aired by AlJazeera, Colin Powell announced in the US Senate that a "Bin Laden tape is coming proving Iraq's links with Al-Qaeda." How does Colin Powell know what AlJazeera are going to broadcast before they do? The tape voiced support for Iraq, but did not prove any link between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi leadership. It was described as dubious at best and at worst as an outright fake. Previous to this tape a poor quality release in November 2002, deemed to be completely authentic by US Experts, was determined to be a total fake by the Dalle Molle Institute for Perceptual Artificial Intelligence in Switzerland. This time Bin Laden was said to be admitting to recent small scale terror attacks. Yet the voice on the tape was different to around twenty previous recordings of Bin Laden. And of course, then there is the all time classic Bin Laden video, the number one hit from december 2001. The one we like to call the "Fat nosed" Bin Laden video. This one was magically found in a house in Jalalabad after anti-Taliban forces moved in. It featured a fat Osama laughing and joking about how he'd carried out 9/11. The video was also mistranslated in order to manipulate viewer opinion and featured "Bin Laden" praising two of the hijackers, only he got their names wrong. This Osama also uses the wrong hand to write with and wears gold rings, a practice totally in opposition to the Muslim faith. Despite the fact that the man in the video looks nothing like Bin Laden, the CIA stood by the video whilst many have declared it an outright fake. And so we come back to this week's tape, Osama's "latest release". Already experts are coming forward to suggest that yet again this is a fake that has been put out at a very convenient time to divert attention away from important events. Professor Bruce Lawrence has described the tape as "like a voice from the grave". He thinks bin Laden is dead and has doubts about the tape. Lawrence recently analyzed more than 20 complete speeches and interviews of the al Qaida leader for his book. He says the new message is missing several key elements. We have previously highlighted the evidence to suggest that Bin Laden is dead. More and more experts are now coming forward with the same opinion. Every time a new tape is released it seems to become shorter and more vague as if whoever is making them is running out of material to work with . If it is conceivable that there is one group of fundamentalist individuals who wish to change the way we live because "they hate our freedom", then it is equally as conceivable that there is another group of richer, more sophisticated fundamentalists that wish to do the same thing themselves and will use the first group as a cover for what they do. They have groomed Bin Laden for their own ends and will continue to use his image (whether he is dead or not) until they no longer have a cause to, this is simply another example of his usefulness in the fake war on terror. your too easy Namron. your government lovs you trhough. they love em gullible and slavish like you. Posted by: | June 1, 2006 11:56 AM Not to mention that OBL has admitted his complicity... Posted by: Namrom | June 1, 2006 11:42 AM not to mention RIGHT AFTER THE ATTACKS, before the CIA could put out tapes for him ,HE DENIED THE ATTACKS. you selectively believe what fits your safe little gullible world view. wake up man. Posted by: wake up | June 1, 2006 11:53 AM man, this Namron shill never stops being a lemming. does he have a job? a life? by the looks of things it wouldnt seem so.Namron, you have been smacked all up and down this thread and all you can do is say things like "well look at the 9/11 COmmission Report,look at what the feds said". i would suggest you read "The 9/11 Commission Report:Omissions and Distortions"-by David Ray Griffin for all the various discrepencies and outright omissions that were involved in the 9/11 cover-up report. you seem way too guillible to be getting paid for what youve been doing on this board. i think your just operating out of fear. you cant bring yourself to NOT trust your corporate media and corrupt government.the media is not your friend, stop being so blind in your trust of it. poor little sheep, its ok to leave the flock and think for yourself. Posted by: Namron-shill | June 1, 2006 11:51 AM May I suggest you read the NIST and Congressional reports on the collapses and you will find logical reasonable explations to your questions... Not to mention that OBL has admitted his complicity... Posted by: Namrom | June 1, 2006 11:42 AM I have watched the Loose Change movie at last twice, and have watched earlier reports, as well as blogs, some over a year old by reporters such as Greg Palast on the strange put options on American and United Airlines stock just days before 9/11. Perhaps disregarding some far-fetched claims, such as alien involvement, I do believe the Loose Change presentation and related material on the oddly strange collapse of the WTC towers, and moreso about Building 7, presents more than sufficient evidence to re-open serious investigation into 9/11. Too many questions remain unanswered. You cannot watch this and not wonder what the truth really is...because the "official" explanation simply fails to fit! This is the Loose Change, 2nd Edition. Runs about an hour and a half. All Americans should be forced to watch this.... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848 Posted by: Jon Shafer | June 1, 2006 11:30 AM I am no photographic expert... but I do know that - 1. The tape was deemed to be genuine by every other intelligence agency. 2. I know that the when I take a photo with different cameras that exposures are different making the subject matter's color and clarity seem different.... this differential would be enhanced if you made copies. I cannot say I "KNOW" that this is Bin Laden. But I do "BELIEVE" that it is OBL. If I don't trust my own government, then I can always rely on other government's opinions.... They state it is OBL... Again - OBL has admitted his compicity in 9/11 and everyone "over there" seems to believe him.... This guy already hit the Cole and our embassies in Africa... why doubt him? Posted by: Namron | June 1, 2006 10:31 AM Note that the official FBI website no longer states the Osama bin Laden had anything to do with 911; see: http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm We should give Bob a call and let him know that we all appreciate his honesty, etc. We should also be proud of people such as Larry Silverstein and Elliot Spitzer for their honesty, and patriotism, especially as their behavior relates to World Trade Center Building #7. Posted by: Paul V. Sheridan | June 1, 2006 09:45 AM Posted by: Watch this! | June 1, 2006 09:42 AM Posted by: | June 1, 2006 09:39 AM Namron, Do you honestly think Rumsfield is going to reply to your letter? Bush: Hey Don, what are your working on? Rummy: Oh, I've got to write a letter to Mr. Namron. He seems somewqhat upset and I'd sure like to make him feel better. Posted by: Tired | June 1, 2006 08:27 AM Thanks for responding. You didn't answer me. Do you think that is the real bin Laden? Posted by: Curious | May 31, 2006 10:34 PM Let us say that it is a faked tape. Are you telling me that the other tapes delivered to Al Jazeera (in which OBL confesses to 9/11) are fake?! You are reaching waaaaay tooo far...... Posted by: Namron | May 31, 2006 10:22 PM The president stalls the official inquiry for over two years, jacks around with the 911 Commission by delaying providing information, and in the end won't even testify publicly, under oath-- or even on the record. Then when millions of people doubt the conclusions, they are "predatory and devious, seekers of polarization and not light, abusive of the political system, contemptuous of anything that even resembles the 'truth.'" I routinely tell people that lots of what's on the Net alleging dark conspiracy is myth, that a lot of claims are false and easily debunked. But what the h--- does our political leadership expect besides suspicion when they sneer at people for wanting to see the facts laid out and their questions answered? I'm not going to defend the 911truth.org because I know nothing about them. But I do know that Bill Arkin just struck a mighty blow in favor of more ill-will and suspicion. Posted by: Charles | May 31, 2006 07:48 PM Posted by: Curious | May 31, 2006 07:09 PM who needs a real job, a girlfriend, friends or a life when you can shill for the corporate media and corrupt government all day? i love my job........ Posted by: Namron | May 31, 2006 05:50 PM Mr. Arkin makes the utterly absurd accusation, quote, "The Pentagon has five sides." Well that is interesting since I offered to Mr. Donald Rumsfeld an open opportunity to put-to-rest an important 911 question posed about the Pentagon and just how many exterior walls the building actually has. If you look at the following link, you will find a hyperlink to my Rumsfeld letter: http://www.flailingmoron.com/Paul%20Sheridan.htm As of this post, almost a full year later, Mr. Rumsfeld has STILL not responded to my request at the top of page three. Perhaps rather than diatribe, Mr. Arkin would offer assistance? Posted by: Namron | May 31, 2006 04:02 PM Mr. Arkin makes the utterly absurd accusation, quote, "This is a purely partisan political and cynical anti-everything group looking to exploit 9/11, just as they accuse the administration of doing." Well that is interesting since I offered to Mr. Donald Rumsfeld an open opportunity to put-to-rest an important 911 question posed about the Pentagon and what was alleged to be "Flight 77." If you look at the following link, you will find a hyperlink to my Rumsfeld letter: http://www.spingola.com/Paul%20Sheridan.htm As of this post, almost a full year later, Mr. Rumsfeld has STILL not responded to my request at the top of page three. Perhaps rather than diatribe, Mr. Arkin would offer assistance? Posted by: Paul V. Sheridan | May 31, 2006 03:53 PM "Who is more foolish, the child afraid of the dark or the man afraid of the light?" Posted by: Namron | May 31, 2006 03:36 PM He actually first claimed responsibility in 2004.... "Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11 Last Updated Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:21:01 EDT CBC News QATAR - Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden appeared in a new message aired on an Arabic TV station Friday night, for the first time claiming direct responsibility for the 2001 attacks against the United States. INDEPTH: Remembering September 11 The militant Islamic group decided "we should destroy towers in America" because "we are a free people... and we want to regain the freedom of our nation," said bin Laden, dressed in yellow and white robes and videotaped against a plain brown background. INDEPTH: Who is Osama bin Laden? In the 18-minute message, parts of which were played on Qatar-based Al-Jazeera just four days before the American presidential election, bin Laden accused U.S. President George W. Bush of negligence on the day 19 suicide hijackers took over four American passenger jets. " "Before the beginning of great brilliance, there must be chaos. Before a brilliant person begins something great, they must look foolish in the crowd." Posted by: Namron | May 31, 2006 03:34 PM Sure .... OBL also denied bombing the Cole and our Embassies... And he denied 9/11 in order to stop us from kicking his butt out of Afghanistan.... now he sings a different tune.... AMMAN: Al Qaeda terrorist network leader Osama bin Laden said in an audiotape broadcast by the Al Jazeera satellite channel that he himself had assigned 19 people for the Sep 11, 2001, attacks in the US. "In fact, brother Zacarias Moussaoui has no connection whatever with the Sep 11 operation," Osama bin Laden said in the audiotape that Al Jazeera on Tuesday reported was posted on a website. "I am the man responsible for the recruitment of the 19 people who carried out the attacks, and I did not assign any task to Moussaoui," he added. Moussaoui was recently sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole, sparing him the death penalty by a US jury. Osama bin Laden contended that Moussaoui's confession to having a role in the Sep 11 attacks was "null and void, because it was extracted under pressure". "Moussaoui was arrested two weeks before the September events, and if he knew anything about (the operation), we should have told (9/11 ringleader) Mohammed Atta and his brothers to leave the US at once," the Al Qaeda chief said. "You can shout me down but you cannot answer me!" - Henrik Ibsen from "An Enemy of the People".... Posted by: Namron | May 31, 2006 03:27 PM get a real job Namron, you look liek a bootlicking fool......... Posted by: u poor gullible bastard | May 31, 2006 03:03 PM Ummat Interviews Usamah Bin-Ladin 28 September 2001 Bin-Ladin Denies Involvement in the 9/11 Attacks Source: Khilafah.com, 10 Oct 2001 The Al-Qaidah group had nothing to do with the 11 September attacks on the USA, according to Usama bin Ladin in an interview with the Pakistani newspaper Ummat. Usama bin Ladin went on to suggest that Jews or US secret services were behind the attacks, and to express gratitude and support for Pakistan, urging Pakistan’s people to jihad against the West. The following is the text of an interview conducted by a "special correspondent", published in the Pakistani newspaper Ummat on 28 September, place and date of interview not given. UMMAT: You have been accused of involvement in the attacks in New York and Washington. What do you want to say about this? If you are not involved, who might be? USAMA BIN LADEN: In the name of Allah (God), the most beneficent, the most merciful. Praise be to Allah, Who is the creator of the whole universe and Who made the Earth as an abode for peace, for the whole humankind. Allah is the Sustainer, who sent Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) for our guidance. I am thankful to the Ummat Group of Publications, which gave me the opportunity to convey my viewpoint to the people, particularly the valiant and momin (true Muslim) people of Pakistan who refused to believe the lies of the demon (Pakistani military dictator General Pervez Musharraf). I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam. All that is going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to call the wrath of God upon the United States and Israel. There is also a warning for those Muslim countries, which witnessed all these as a silent spectator. What had earlier been done to the innocent people of Iraq, Chechnya and Bosnia? Only one conclusion could be derived from the indifference of the United States and the West to these acts of terror and the patronage of the tyrants by these powers that America is an anti-Islamic power and it is patronizing the anti-Islamic forces. Its friendship with the Muslim countries is just a show, rather deceit. By enticing or intimidating these countries, the United States is forcing them to play a role of its choice. Put a glance all around and you will see that the slaves of the United States are either rulers or enemies of Muslims. The U.S. has no friends, nor does it want to keep any because the prerequisite of friendship is to come to the level of the friend or consider him at par with you. America does not want to see anyone equal to it. It expects slavery from others. Therefore, other countries are either its slaves or subordinates. However, our case is different. We have pledged slavery to God Almighty alone and after this pledge there is no possibility to become the slave of someone else. If we do that it will be disregardful to both our Sustainer and his fellow beings. Most of the world nations upholding their freedom are the religious ones, which are the enemies of the United States, or the U.S. itself considers them as its enemies. The countries which do not agree to become the U.S. slaves are China, Iran, Libya, Cuba, Syria [Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iraq, Sudan, Indonesia, Malaysia] and Russia. Whoever committed the act of 11 September are not the friends of the American people. I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed. According to my information, the death toll is much higher than what the U.S. Government has stated. But the Bush Administration does not want the panic to spread. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the U.S. system, but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology could survive. They can be anyone, from Russia to Israel and from India to Serbia. In the U.S. itself, there are dozens of well-organized and well-equipped groups, which are capable of causing a large-scale destruction. Then you cannot forget the American-Jews, who are annoyed with President Bush ever since the elections in Florida and want to avenge him. Then there are intelligence agencies in the U.S., which require billions of dollars worth of funds from the Congress and the government every year. This [funding issue] was not a big problem till the existence of the former Soviet Union but after that the budget of these agencies has been in danger. They needed an enemy. So, they first started propaganda against Usama and Taleban and then this incident happened. You see, the Bush Administration approved a budget of 40 billion dollars. Where will this huge amount go? It will be provided to the same agencies, which need huge funds and want to exert their importance. Now they will spend the money for their expansion and for increasing their importance. I will give you an example. Drug smugglers from all over the world are in contact with the U.S. secret agencies. These agencies do not want to eradicate narcotics cultivation and trafficking because their importance will be diminished. The people in the U.S. Drug Enforcement Department are encouraging drug trade so that they could show performance and get millions of dollars worth of budget. General Noriega was made a drug baron by the CIA and, in need, he was made a scapegoat. In the same way, whether it is President Bush or any other U.S. President, they cannot bring Israel to justice for its human rights abuses or to hold it accountable for such crimes. What is this? Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United Sates? That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks. UMMAT: A number of world countries have joined the call of the United States for launching attacks on Afghanistan. These also include a number of Muslim countries. Will Al-Qa'idah declare a jihad against these Islamic countries as well? USAMA BIN LADEN: I must say that my duty is just to awaken the Muslims; to tell them as to what is good for them and what is not. What does Islam say and what do the enemies of Islam want. Al-Qa'idah was set up to wage a jihad against infidelity, particularly to counter the onslaught of the infidel countries against the Islamic states. Jihad is the sixth undeclared pillar of Islam. [The first five being the basic holy words of Islam ("There is no god but God and Muhammad is the messenger of God"), prayers, fasting (in Ramadan), pilgrimage to Mecca and giving alms (zakat).] Every anti-Islamic person is afraid of jihad. Al-Qa'idah wants to keep jihad alive and active and make it a part of the daily life of the Muslims. It wants to give it the status of worship. We are not against any Islamic country. We do not consider a war against an Islamic country as jihad. We are in favour of armed jihad only against those infidel governments, which are killing innocent Muslim men, women and children just because they are Muslims. Supporting the U.S. act is the need of some Muslim countries and the compulsion of others. However, they should think as to what will remain of their religious and moral position if they support the attack of the Christians and the Jews on a Muslim country like Afghanistan. The orders of Islamic Shariah [jurisprudence] for such individuals, organizations and countries are clear and all the scholars of the Muslim brotherhood are unanimous on them. We will do the same, which is being ordered by the Ameer-ul-Momeneen [the commander of the faithful] Muhammad Omar [leader of the Taleban] and the Islamic scholars. The hearts of the people of Muslim countries are beating with the call of jihad. We are grateful to them. UMMAT: The losses caused in the attacks in New York and Washington have proved that giving an economic blow to the U.S. is not too difficult. U.S. experts admit that a few more such attacks can bring down the American economy. Why is Al-Qa'idah not targeting their economic pillars? USAMA BIN LADEN: I have already said that we are not hostile to the United States. We are against the [U.S. Government] system, which makes other nations slaves of the United States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic freedom. This system is totally in the control of the American Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States. It is clear that the American people are themselves the slaves of the Jews and are forced to live according to the principles and laws laid down by them. So the punishment should reach Israel. In fact, it is Israel, which is giving a blood bath to innocent Muslims and the U.S. is not uttering a single word. UMMAT: Why is harm not caused to the enemies of Islam through other means, apart from the armed struggle? For instance, urging the Muslims to boycott Western products, banks, shipping lines and TV channels. USAMA BIN LADEN: The first thing is that Western products could only be boycotted when the Muslim fraternity is fully awakened and organized. Secondly, the Muslim companies should become self-sufficient in producing goods equal to the products of Western companies. Economic boycott of the West is not possible unless economic self-sufficiency is attained and substitute products are brought out. You see that wealth is scattered all across the Muslim World but not a single TV channel has been acquired which can preach Islamic injunctions according to modern requirements and attain an international influence. Muslim traders and philanthropists should make it a point that if the weapon of public opinion is to be used, it is to be kept in the hand. Today's world is of public opinion and the fates of nations are determined through its pressure. Once the tools for building public opinion are obtained, everything that you asked for can be done. UMMAT: The entire propaganda about your struggle has so far been made by the Western media. But no information is being received from your sources about the network of Al-Qa'idah and its jihadi successes. Would you comment? USAMA BIN LADEN: In fact, the Western media is left with nothing else. It has no other theme to survive for a long time. Then we have many other things to do. The struggle for jihad and the successes are for the sake of Allah and not to annoy His bondsmen. Our silence is our real propaganda. Rejections, explanations, or corrigendum only waste your time and through them, the enemy wants you to engage in things which are not of use to you. These things are pulling you away from your cause. The Western media is unleashing such a baseless propaganda, which makes us surprise but it reflects on what is in their hearts and gradually they themselves become captive of this propaganda. They become afraid of it and begin to cause harm to themselves. Terror is the most dreaded weapon in modern age and the Western media is mercilessly using it against its own people. It can add fear and helplessness in the psyche of the people of Europe and the United States. It means that what the enemies of the United States cannot do, its media is doing that. You can understand as to what will be the performance of the nation in a war, which suffers from fear and helplessness. UMMAT: What will be the impact of the freeze of Al-Qa'idah accounts by the U.S.? USAMA BIN LADEN: God opens up ways for those who work for Him. Freezing of accounts will not make any difference for Al-Qa'idah or other jihad groups. With the grace of Allah, Al-Qa'idah has more than three alternative financial systems, which are all separate and totally independent from each other. This system is operating under the patronage of those who love jihad. What to say of the United States, even the combined world cannot budge these people from their path. These people are not in hundreds but in thousands and millions. Al-Qa'idah comprises of such modern educated youths who are aware of the cracks inside the Western financial system as they are aware of the lines in their hands. These are the very flaws of the Western fiscal system, which are becoming a noose for it and this system could not recuperate in spite of the passage of so many days. UMMAT: Are there other safe areas other than Afghanistan, where you can continue jihad? USAMA BIN LADEN: There are areas in all parts of the world where strong jihadi forces are present, from Indonesia to Algeria, from Kabul to Chechnya, from Bosnia to Sudan, and from Burma to Kashmir. Then it is not the problem of my person. I am a helpless fellowman of God, constantly in the fear of my accountability before God. It is not the question of Usama but of Islam and, in Islam too, of jihad. Thanks to God, those waging a jihad can walk today with their heads raised. Jihad was still present when there was no Usama and it will remain as such even when Usama is no longer there. Allah opens up ways and creates loves in the hearts of people for those who walk on the path of Allah with their lives, property and children. Believe it, through jihad, a man gets everything he desires. And the biggest desire of a Muslim is the life after death. Martyrdom is the shortest way of attaining an eternal life. UMMAT: What do you say about the Pakistan Government policy on Afghanistan attack? USAMA BIN LADEN: We are thankful to the Momin and valiant people of Pakistan who erected a blockade in front of the evil forces and stood in the first file of battle. Pakistan is a great hope for the Islamic brotherhood. Its people are awakened, organized and rich in the spirit of faith. They backed Afghanistan in its war against the Soviet Union and extended every help to the mojahedeen (freedom fighters) and the Afghan people. Then these are very Pakistanis who are standing shoulder by shoulder with the Taleban. If such people emerge in just two countries, the domination of the West will diminish in a matter of days. Our hearts beat with Pakistan and, God forbid, if a difficult time comes we will protect it with our blood. Pakistan is sacred for us like a place of worship. We are the people of jihad and fighting for the defense of Pakistan is the best of all jihads to us. It does not matter for us as to who reforms Pakistan. The important thing is that the spirit of jihad is alive and stronger in the hearts of the Pakistani people. Source: Ummat, Urdu-language daily newspaper based in Karachi, Pakistan - Friday, 28 September 2001 - pages 1, 7. Source: BBC Monitoring Service. Source: http://www.khilafah.com/ Posted by: Namron is gullible | May 31, 2006 02:59 PM Then there is the small matter of OBL claiming credit for the attack on video.... Posted by: Namron | May 31, 2006 02:20 PM Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks September 17, 2001 Posted: 11:21 AM EDT (1521 GMT) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DOHA, Qatar (CNN) -- Islamic militant leader Osama bin Laden, the man the United States considers the prime suspect in last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, denied any role Sunday in the actions believed to have killed thousands. In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it. "I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said. "I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations," bin Laden said. CNN.COM SPECIAL REPORT CNN NewsPass Video Agencies reportedly got hijack tips in 1998 MORE STORIES Intelligence intercept led to Buffalo suspects Report cites warnings before 9/11 EXTRA INFORMATION Timeline: Who Knew What and When? Interactive: Terror Investigation Terror Warnings System Most wanted terrorists What looks suspicious? In-Depth: America Remembers In-Depth: Terror on Tape In-Depth: How prepared is your city? RESOURCES On the Scene: Barbara Starr: Al Qaeda hunt expands? On the Scene: Peter Bergen: Getting al Qaeda to talk EXTRA INFORMATION Osama bin Laden Asked Sunday if he believed bin Laden's denial, President Bush said, "No question he is the prime suspect. No question about that." Since Tuesday's terrorist attacks against the United States, Bush has repeatedly threatened to strike out against terrorism and any nation that supports or harbors its disciples. Bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi-born exile, has lived in Afghanistan for several years. U.S. officials blame him for earlier strikes on U.S. targets, including last year's attack on the USS Cole in Yemen and the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998. Bin Laden's campaign stems from the 1990 decision by Saudi Arabia to allow U.S. troops into the kingdom after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait -- a military presence that has become permanent. In a 1997 CNN interview, bin Laden called the U.S. military presence an "occupation of the land of the holy places." Immediately after the attacks that demolished the World Trade Center's landmark twin towers and seriously damaged the Pentagon, officials of Afghanistan's ruling Taliban said they doubted bin Laden could have been involved in carrying out the actions. The Taliban -- the fundamentalist Islamic militia that seized power in Afghanistan in 1996 -- denied his ties to terrorism and said they have taken away all his means of communication with the outside world. The repressive Taliban regime has received almost universal condemnation, particularly for their harsh treatment of women. Only three countries, including Pakistan, recognize them as the country's rightful government. A high-level Pakistani delegation was set to travel to Afghanistan on Monday to urge Taliban supreme leader Mullah Mohammed Omar to hand over bin Laden, CNN learned Sunday. The Taliban, which controls more than 90 percent of the country, has threatened any neighboring country that allows its soil to be used to help the United States stage an attack on Afghanistan. Posted by: Namron is gullible | May 31, 2006 02:57 PM Allow me to address your points - 1) The towers fell identical to a controlled demotion; This does not mandate "conspiracy". The architects of ANY skyscraper will tell you that buildings are designed to fall like that - on purpose or by accident. Just like San Fran has earthquake codes - so do cities with high density population - the buildings MUST be designed so they do NOT fall into others. 2) On this day, three buildings fell in this manner when no steel-building in history has ever behaved this way despite buildings that have suffered significantly more damage and have burned for much longer time; Jacko - please read - http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/tech/failure.htm 3) The color of smoke exiting the towers which can indicate with some accuracy that the fires were not hot enough to compromise the steel; Jacko - answered by above link. 4) Video footage of WTC workers, emergency personnel, and media reporting explosions in areas well away from the planes' impact; Jacko - like I stated below... It is not unnormal to hear explosions when you have all that electrical circuitry and transformers situated on specific floors of the building... 5) The video footage that shows the toppling of the top portion of the North Tower that was falling to one side and then unexpectedly fell into itself; Jacko - not sure what you mean by this. Could you elaborate? 6) The video footage of the multiple implosions shooting out from the side of the building well below the falling tower; Jacko - again - electrical circuitry and transformers would explain this. Do not forget that thousands of gallons of jet fuel was pouring down the INSIDE of this building.... 7) The video footage of molten steel streaming out of the South Tower which can easily be explained by the presence of explosives; Jacko - It can also be easily explained by something else burning. Zinc for one.... http://electrainternational.exportersindia.com/ 8) The frame-by-frame video footage of the planes just before making impact which show something unusual on the bottom of the plane and what appears to be a missle exiting the plane and making contact with the building; Jacko - easily explained in the Popular Mechanics article... by experts with no axe to grind.... 9) The amount of concrete dust consistent with the aftermath of a controlled demolition; Jacko - In all seriousness.... go to any home that is being "gut-rehabbed".... The amount of dust is unreal.... Further, the amount of dust was consistent with a building of that size being brought down. 10) The manner of destruction of the 47 steel columns which should have remained under the pancacke theory; Jacko - see the link to Duke University I provided above. 11) and the fact that the towers were shut down and everyone removed for 36 hours in the weeks prior to 9/11 which has never happened before. Jacko - this one I'll have to get back to you on.... Is this covered in the Congressional report on 9/11? By chance have you read this document? "Does this constitute your definition of evidence? Most, if not all, of these facts are not explained in the pancake theory." I sincerely hope that I answered some of your questions. But think about this.... not one of your facts mandate a conspiracy by the US government. Individually or collectively... Even if all these questions were answered... Remember - extreme Muslims attacked these very buildings once before.... Then there is the small matter of OBL claiming credit for the attack on video.... Posted by: Namron | May 31, 2006 02:20 PM The said Truth is that the Criminals name here (Judges, Prosecutors, Police, Sheriff, Sheriffs Deputies, Local FBI, Local Homeland Security, est. est.) who are in fact directly involved in the planning and execusion of the Bombing of the Federal Building in Oaklahoma City and the Terrorist Attacks of 9 / 11. The following Court records can be Checked and Verified on the Official Jackson County Michigan Website or by directly accessing the Jackson County Michigan 12th District Court Website at; d12.com See for yourselves. There has not been even one Honest Judge, not one Honest Prosecutor, not one Honest Law Enforcement Officer of Any Kind in Jackson County Michigan for at least 30 years. And this is one of President George Walker Bush's favorite places to visit. He has come here many times not just during elections either. But to make sure his position and power is bought and paid for and to try to control and railroad the one person who has been an unwilling slave to the criminals in the government because of his abilities and tallents and knowledge. The Following has been published on not less then 16 NEWS websites; When reading the case numbers the first two numbers are the year of the court action/offence charge filing. Example; TOWNSEND,RICHARD M 10-28-1966 91128FYB FY 12 WARRANT FELONY UNASSIGNED "91128FYB FY 12" the first two numbers are "91" which means the offence/charge/Warrant was issued in 1991 and is still in effect as that it has not been removed from the courts record and that the case has never been heard. Illusion is the Criminals best friend. In Jackson County Michigan there are absolutely NO Honest Judges, NO Honest Prosecutors and No Honest Police and No Honest Sheriffs. The following is a Court Document that Proves this; Use the display settings below and click on to display the desired cases. Last Name/Business: First: Case#: Search text contained anywhere in name. Judge/Jurist: All ARBUCKLE BISHOP DUNGAN FALAHEE FILIP GAGE GRANT JUSTIN MANSER MAZUR MCBAIN NELSON SANDERSON SCHMUCKER VANDERCOOK UNASSIGNED Court: All District Circuit Probate Visitors *NAME DOB *CASE # PETITION # *STATUS *CASE TYPE *JURIST TOWNSEND,RICHARD 01-01-0001 061037LT LT 12 OPEN LANDLORD/TENANT JUSTIN TOWNSEND,RICHARD M 10-28-1966 02J098541A OI 12 CLOSED ORDINANCE CIVIL INFRACTION UNASSIGNED TOWNSEND,RICHARD M 10-28-1966 031739JP OM 12 CLOSED ORD. NON-TRF MISDEMEANOR UNASSIGNED TOWNSEND,RICHARD M 10-28-1966 040295JPA OM 12 CLOSED ORD. NON-TRF MISDEMEANOR JUSTIN TOWNSEND,RICHARD M 10-28-1966 91128FYB FY 12 WARRANT FELONY UNASSIGNED TOWNSEND,RICHARD M 10-28-1966 91364FYA FY 12 WARRANT FELONY UNASSIGNED TOWNSEND,RICHARD M 10-28-1966 98JP35823A OI 12 CLOSED ORDINANCE CIVIL INFRACTION UNASSIGNED TOWNSEND,RICHARD M 10-28-1966 98JP44649B OI 12 CLOSED ORDINANCE CIVIL INFRACTION UNASSIGNED TOWNSEND,RICHARD H 03-23-1943 99B699890A SI 12 CLOSED STATE CIVIL INFRACTION TRAFFIC UNASSIGNED TOWNSEND,RICHARD M 10-28-1966 991634JP OM 12 CLOSED ORD. NON-TRF MISDEMEANOR JUSTIN TOWNSEND,RICHARD 01-01-0001 04-3369LT LT 12 CLOSED LANDLORD/TENANT JUSTIN TOWNSEND,RICHARD M 10-28-1966 02BT51726C OI 12 CLOSED ORDINANCE CIVIL INFRACTION UNASSIGNED TOWNSEND,RICHARD M 10-28-1966 02BT51726B OI 12 CLOSED ORDINANCE CIVIL INFRACTION UNASSIGNED TOWNSEND,RICHARD M 10-28-1966 02BT51726A OT 12 CLOSED ORDINANCE MISDEMEANOR TRAFFIC JUSTIN TOWNSEND,RICHARD 10-28-1966 91057336 FH 38 CLOSED NON-CAPITOL FELONY UNASSIGNED TOWNSEND,RICHARD 10-28-1966 91057494 FH 38 CLOSED NON-CAPITOL FELONY SCHMUCKER TOWNSEND,RICHARD 01-01-0001 77011477 DM 38 CLOSED DIVORCE - MINOR CHILDREN NELSON TOWNSEND,RICHARD M 01-01-0001 98090407 DP 38 CLOSED PATERNITY MCBAIN TOWNSEND,RICHARD M 01-01-0001 99093394 PP 38 CLOSED PPO DOMESTIC SCHMUCKER TOWNSEND,RICHARD M 10-28-1966 00JP45691A OI 12 CLOSED ORDINANCE CIVIL INFRACTION UNASSIGNED TOWNSEND,RICHARD M 10-28-1966 00JP45691B OI 12 CLOSED ORDINANCE CIVIL INFRACTION UNASSIGNED TOWNSEND,RICHARD H 03-23-1943 01C194992A SI 12 CLOSED STATE CIVIL INFRACTION TRAFFIC UNASSIGNED TOWNSEND,RICHARD 01-01-0001 84034487 DI 38 CLOSED URESA INITIATION GRANT TOWNSEND II,RICHARD M 10-28-1966 92062997 FH 38 CLOSED NON-CAPITOL FELONY NELSON TOWNSEND II,RICHARD M 01-01-0001 02003251 PP 38 CLOSED PPO DOMESTIC SCHMUCKER ----------- Case Number Petition # Name DOB 91128FYB FY 12 TOWNSEND, RICHARD 10-28-1966 Amount Assessed* Amount Paid Balance Due Last Payment $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 00-00-0000 *Assessed amount does not include restitution ordered. Comment Jail Term: Years Months Days 0 0 0 Probation Term: Years Months Days 0 0 0 COUNT CHARGE ADJUDICATION DATE JUDGMENT 1 CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE DELIVERY/MANUFACTUR 02-20-1991 EXAM WAIVED ; DEFENDANT BOUND 2 CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE DELIVERY/MANUFACTUR 02-20-1991 EXAM WAIVED ; DEFENDANT BOUND 3 CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE DELIVERY/MANUFACTUR 02-20-1991 EXAM WAIVED ; DEFENDANT BOUND -------------- Case Number Petition # Name DOB 91364FYA FY 12 TOWNSEND, RICHARD 10-28-1966 Amount Assessed* Amount Paid Balance Due Last Payment $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 00-00-0000 *Assessed amount does not include restitution ordered. Comment Jail Term: Years Months Days 0 0 0 Probation Term: Years Months Days 0 0 0 COUNT CHARGE ADJUDICATION DATE JUDGMENT 1 CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE DELIVERY/MANUFACTUR 03-01-1991 EXAM WAIVED ; DEFENDANT BOUND 2 CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE DELIVERY/MANUFACTUR 00-00-0000 ---------------- Richard Townsend is a DRUG Dealer who has been BRIBING EVERY JUDGE, Prosecutor and Police Officer and Sheriff and Sheriffs Deputy for the Last 15 years (and he has been Bragging about it also) since a Jackson County Judge issued the 2 Warrents for a total of 5 Felony counts of "Manufacturing and Delivery of Controlled Substances" (i.e. DRUGS). Richard Townsend lived unincumber by any lawenforcement at 600 E. Ganson in Jackson Michigan for 15 years until he was busted by the DEA in January of 2006. Richard Townsend was Married about a year ago by one of the Crooked Judges with 2 other Crooked Judges as Witnesses. Now the Local Jackson County Criminals (i.e. Judges, Prosecutors and Police/Deputies) are trying to FRAME the HONEST person (i.e. Mr. Bengt Thulin) who turned them into the DEA and the U.S. Attorney's Office in January of 2006 for Crimes he has not committed including Not Paying Child Support. Mr. Thulin has NO children and is Biologically incapable of being the father to any children because of an injury which he received when he was 12 years old and there are Medical Records to Prove this. Mr. Thulin was a member of SOG and Honorably Disharged. And for his Honor he is being Persecuted. Posted by: Jackson Citizen Patriot, member of SOG | May 31, 2006 02:09 PM Incidentally William, you really should have written a more fair and balanced piece. That's just my personal opinion. Posted by: Namron | May 31, 2006 02:02 PM I have been paid by a right-wing leaning lobbying firm to sit here, and denounce everything you guys have been saying without any actual information. I was told to just sit here, and insult you. To do my best to make you look like fools, but unfortunately, I haven't done a very good job. Sorry for all the aggravation I've caused. Posted by: Namron | May 31, 2006 02:00 PM I'm sorry fellas. I was wrong, and you were right. Posted by: Namron | May 31, 2006 01:58 PM I am watching the video that I was directed to in an earlier posting... The editing is also nice... However they misrepresent the timeline of events with respect to the WTC and W in the classroom (see earlier posting) The piece asks "What devout Muslim would destroy one of Islam's holiest sites?" Well, what devout Muslim would take hostages inside of Islam's HOLIEST SITE? [November 20, 1979: Grand Mosque Seizure. 200 Islamic terrorists seized the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, taking hundreds of pilgrims hostage. Saudi and French security forces retook the shrine after an intens battle in which some 250 people were killed and 600 wounded.] Don't tell me that a Muslim could not blow up a lesser revered mosque when they clearly violated Muslim law by taking Muslim hostages in Mecca during the pilgrimage! Now the video states "they lied" with regards to Iraq's WMDs... Did they? The video then tells of "controlled" explosions.... Of course there is NO way that these explosions could have been transformers or airconditioning units blowing up! Or could they? "NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse." Or is the NIST and ALL their investigators under the control of the W Administration as well? Next is he quote from Steohen Gregory about explosions.... Does anyone doubt that a skyscraper that has a plane flown into it will experience explosions ?! Imagine all the jet fuel! ALL the electrical cuircutry !!!! All the compressed gasses! Do you maybe even think that all the electrical/airconditioning infrastructure were on the same floors blowing up at the same time? Or did each office in the WTC have to provide their own window units?! DUUUUUUH! Do you think the sound of floors being blown out had anything to do with those explosive sounds? DUUUUH! Then the video goes on about witnesses stating that the building was brought down by explosives..... the interviews are on 9/11.... Any investigator will tell you that eyewitness testimony is "iffy" at best. Hmmmm.... Wonder why they don't interview a structural engineer ??? Perhaps he will not say kind things about their cause? [hmmmm.... wonder why they don't bring up that this was the SECOND attack on the WTC by Muslim extremists.... the first being perpetrated - one of whom is sitting in Federal prison.... the other was captured in..... wait for it..... Baghdad! http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-17-iraq-wtc_x.htm ] Why do these people say they heard explosions and then the conspiracy theorists think "explosives"? Sure, it is natural I guess.... but do not transformers and electrical boards also explode? I am sure people are getting tired of reading this post as I am typing it.... From what I discern.... They take a lot of witness statements from unkowledgable people and ask questions that have reasonable answers but they choose to promote conspiracy.... but they have no proof! They only have questions that they refuse to listen to the logical answers! NAME ME ONE FACT THAT PROVES CONSPIRACY !!!!! I HAVE WATCHED YOUR MOVIE AND DEBUNKED ALL OF WHAT I WATCHED! The funny thing is NOTHING they claim points to an "inside" job.... Everything they promote could have just been a bigger, bolder plan by OBL... Or maybe it was the Israelis using Emelia Earhardt to fly the planes? Posted by: Namron | May 31, 2006 01:41 PM It is such a huge and obvious mistake to lump together, and dismiss, everyone who questions the official 9/11 narrative advanced by government officials, that the integrity and sincerity of Mr Arkin should no longer be taken for granted. It is quite true that the lunatic fringe and professional paranoids are well-represented among the critics, and that some of the contentions that have been raised are absurd. But there are also very reasonable questions that the government has never seriously tried to answer...such as who the hijackers really were, after the claims about their identities, so confidently announced by the government within hours of the attack, began to unravel. The FBI acknowledged, at last, that at least some of the names it gave the public were wrong (with every reason to believe they ALL could be false). Has the government no interest in who these people really were? And why were none of the aircraft interecepted, not when they strayed, not when it was suspected they were hijacked, not when it was KNOWN they were hijacked, not even after they began crashing into skyscrapers in New York City... not ONE of them, even with notice of more than an hour? And I didn't say "shot down", but intercepted, in the same manner that planes are routinely intercepted, when they stray from their designated flight paths, and cannot be contacted by controllers. These are serious questions. Arkin and other apologists have not answered them. Posted by: M David Levi | May 31, 2006 01:38 PM Namron, I apologize for my quick insult in my latest response to you. It often feels that those who support the "official theory" of 9/11 gain pleasure from poking sticks at the 9/11 Truth Movement. I respect that you are willing to watch, "What's The Truth" that may offer the evidence you are seeking to suggest conspiracy on the government's behalf. I found this film the most compelling of all the documentaries as it minimizes sensationalism and lets the facts, video footage, and quotes speak for themselves. Of all the issues, the falling of the WTCs have affected me the deepest given the sheer number of lives lost. When I looked at the evidence surrounding these issues, I learned and saw many things that could never be explained by the "official theory" and pointed me in the direction of governement conspiracy. There is considerable evidence that supports the controlled demolition of the buildings. If there were a controlled demolition, then complicity is proven because such an act would take planning and not done by terrorist. Here is some of the major evidence: 1) The towers fell identical to a controlled demotion; 2) On this day, three buildings fell in this manner when no steel-building in history has ever behaved this way despite buildings that have suffered significantly more damage and have burned for much longer time; 3) The color of smoke exiting the towers which can indicate with some accuracy that the fires were not hot enough to compromise the steel; 4) Video footage of WTC workers, emergency personnel, and media reporting explosions in areas well away from the planes' impact; 5) The video footage that shows the toppling of the top portion of the North Tower that was falling to one side and then unexpectedly fell into itself; 6) The video footage of the multiple implosions shooting out from the side of the building well below the falling tower; 7) The video footage of molten steel streaming out of the South Tower which can easily be explained by the presence of explosives; 8) The frame-by-frame video footage of the planes just before making impact which show something unusual on the bottom of the plane and what appears to be a missle exiting the plane and making contact with the building; 9) The amount of concrete dust consistent with the aftermath of a controlled demolition; 10) The manner of destruction of the 47 steel columns which should have remained under the pancacke theory; 11) and the fact that the towers were shut down and everyone removed for 36 hours in the weeks prior to 9/11 which has never happened before. Does this constitute your definition of evidence? Most, if not all, of these facts are not explained in the pancake theory. World Trade Center 7 is the clincher for me. This building was not struck by a plane and did not suffer the amount of damage other buildings that surrounded the towers. Yet, it fell just like a controlled demolition as we can all witness. Only three floors were on fire which is minimal for a 47 story building. Video footage shows implosions moving up the side of WTC-7 as the building begins its descent. Documented transcripts by Mayor Guiliano (sp?) indicates that he knew the building was going to fall. Video footage of the building owner, Mr. Silverstein, documents that he was told the building was going to be "pulled" which means demolished. Tenants of WTC7 include Department of Defense, CIA,Securities and Exchange Commission, and Office of Emergency Management. These occupants create the motive to destroy the building and evidence. I am aware that your "Popular Mechanics" article states that there was a diesel tank of some sort in the basement that exploded and brought the building down. However, you can compare the "evidence" and determine what theory best fits the evidence. The bottom line: the evidence does not not come close to being explained by the "official" account. In my lengthy post, I mostly focused on the facts which could either be considered as gross incompetence or conspiracy. Many people believe that our government is not capable of the level of incompetence shown on 9/11 and that there were forces within our government that allowed the attacks to happen. Am I really out there to believe it impossible that our military could not of possibly failed to intercept the Pentagon bound plane within 45 minutes. Does the information I and others have shared at this post and others meet your definition of "evidence" for conspiracy. I will say it again: if the WTC towers and building 7 were a controlled demolition, then significant planning would be required to prepare the buildings. My goal is not to indict the government on the spot but rather call for a new investigation. The 9/11 commission was not independent nor was it supported by the Bush Administration. The commission was denied access to many important documents. The commission was only willing to examine evidence that supported the "official" theory. I want the evidence I have been shown to be examined by an impartial commission and let them dismiss it if I am really off-base. If there is no one to blame but terrorist so be it. Yet, if there is a chance of government complicity, I want it exposed for America, for our earth, and for our children. I am willing to continue this dialogue with you either publicly at this post or you can email (curiousjako@gmail.com). Posted by: Jake O'Neill | May 31, 2006 01:32 PM You know who holds the truth when they start attacking the messenger instead of the message. I don't care if Osma Bin Laden wrote the piece! If it was not scientifically honest, the magazine would have been held up to the world as a sell-out by others in media! You still have yet to bring up JUST ONE fact concerning 9/11 that is not reasonably and logically accounted for! Are you sooooo hopeless and pathetic that you cannot even name ONE?! Is your entire conspiracy movement so void of intellectual honesty that you have to hide behind other's names while attacking those that publish facts for an international magazine? What are you afraid of? You are so brave to scream out loud about conspiracy yet so cowardly that you cannot even NAME ONE FACT THAT SUPPORTS YOUR THEORY?! Posted by: Namron | May 31, 2006 12:18 PM Chertoff's Cousin Penned Popular Mechanics 9/11 Hit Piece Chistopher Bollyn for American Free Press | March 7 2005 Dictators like Saddam Hussein have always used nepotism to protect their secrets and maintain control. Like a dictatorship, the inner cabal that directs the actions of the Bush administration uses the same tactics to confuse the public and conceal the truth of 9/11. Dictators have always employed nepotism, the placing of family members in key positions, for one simple reason: only loyal family members can be trusted with the secrets that keep them in power. For this reason the shameless nepotism of the Bush administration should alarm Americans because it indicates that a dictatorship is encroaching upon the United States. The Defense Department defines nepotism as the situation when relatives are in the same chain-of-command. An egregious example of dictatorial-style nepotism occurred when George W. Bush won the White House ? twice ? thanks to the key "swing state" of Florida, where the presidential candidate's younger brother is governor. In 2000 and 2004, against all odds, Florida swung decisively, the Bush way. With high federal offices being given to the wives, sons and daughters of senior members of the Bush administration, the Hearst Corporation executives that publish Popular Mechanics magazine probably didn't worry about the ethical considerations of hiring a cousin of Michael Chertoff, a former Assistant Attorney General and the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as senior researcher. But the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics (PM) plumbs new depths of nepotism and Hearst-style "yellow journalism" with its cover story about 9/11. PM's senior researcher, 25-year-old Benjamin Chertoff, authored a propagandistic cover story entitled "Debunking 9/11 Lies" which seeks to discredit all independent 9/11 research that challenges the official version of events. "Conspiracy theories can't stand up to the hard facts," the cover reads. "After an in-depth investigation, PM answers with the truth," it says. But the article fails to provide evidence to support its claims and doesn't answer the key question: What caused the collapses of the twin towers and the 47-story World Trade Center 7? The Chertoff article goes on to confront the "poisonous claims" of 16 "myths" spun by "extremist" 9/11 researchers like myself with "irrefutable facts," mostly provided by individuals in the employ of the U.S. government. But who is Benjamin Chertoff, the "senior researcher" at Popular Mechanics who is behind the article? American Free Press has learned that he is none other than a cousin of Michael Chertoff, the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. This means that Hearst paid Benjamin Chertoff to write an article supporting the seriously flawed explanation that is based on a practically non-existent investigation of the terror event that directly led to the creation of the massive national security department his "cousin" now heads. This is exactly the kind of "journalism" one would expect to find in a dictatorship like that of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Because the manager of public relations for Popular Mechanics didn't respond to repeated calls from American Free Press, I called Benjamin Chertoff, the magazine's "senior researcher," directly. Chertoff said he was the "senior researcher" of the piece. When asked if he was related to Michael Chertoff, he said, "I don't know." Clearly uncomfortable about discussing the matter further, he told me that all questions about the article should be put to the publicist ? the one who never answers the phone. Benjamin's mother in Pelham, New York, however, was more willing to talk. Asked if Benjamin was related to the new Secretary of Homeland Security, Judy said, "Yes, of course, he is a cousin." Posted by: Namron loves propoganda | May 31, 2006 12:02 PM Mr. Arkin is right on! Who could believe that the war in Iraq, for instance, which caused many more deaths than 9-11, was based on anything but forthrightness by our government and the press! The Washington Post did just an exemplary job of revealing the rationale for Operation Iraqi Liberation (O.I.L), er...Operation Iraqi Freedom.... C'mon people! Haven't they earned your trust?! The very idea of any coverup of 9-11 is just absurd! Moussoui was convicted, and that single conviction is good enough for me!! My God, he's going to jail for decades -- isn't that enough accountability for 9-11?!! And the White House (Zelikow) Commission( to investigate the White House) produced the expected result -- let's get over it people! Case closed!! Mr. Arkin, you are a tribute to your fine profession -- the guardians of democracy. Please keep up your work of speaking truthiness to power!! Posted by: D. Rollo | May 31, 2006 11:47 AM Posted by: Namron | May 31, 2006 11:08 AM Posted by: watch | May 31, 2006 09:22 AM i hope Mr. Arkin is proud of me. ive been shilling here for days now. Posted by: Namron | May 31, 2006 09:21 AM H.R. 282: Iran Freedom Support Act Title: To hold the current regime in Iran accountable for its threatening behavior and to support a transition to democracy in Iran. Status: Passed House (Bipartisan support.) This bill has been passed in the House. The bill now goes on to be voted on in the Senate. Introduced: Jan 6, 2005 Last Action: Apr 26, 2006: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 397 - 21 (Roll no. 105). Your government has failed you. Thats right folks, the prophecy must be fullfilled so we can all go to hell. A special shout out to the neocons, busheviks, the PNAC crowd, and honorary status of course to the christian-zionists. If interested in some scientific study and not the pop-mechanics scam research 911revisted, or scholarsfortruth. Posted by: Its Over | May 31, 2006 07:21 AM Posted by: | May 31, 2006 04:23 AM Lets see. Great that Gen. myers and Ralph Eberhardt of NORAD got promoted after 911, see its not a conspiracy, its normal routine to get promoted for failing to protect our airspace miserably! Now the WTC needed 1bil. in renovations and asbestos removal, the same asbestos that covered the steel beams. It was also where many insider trading investigations were kept, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, AIG, Lava LLC, all benefited from the destruction of the WTC, simply an amazing coincidence! And what a coincidence that Larry Silverstein & mall developer Frank Lowrey took over the finacially failing WTC 1&2 in a 99 year lease insuring the towers for 3.5 bil with clauses specifically citing acts of terrorism in July 2000 another AMAZING coincidence. And you know its just coincidence that Marvin Bush and cuzin willert were on the board of Securacom the company that handled security at the WTC and were also on the board of HCC holdings that insured parts of the WTC.Secracom also handled the security for Dulles and United Airlines. And can anyone tell me how I can get a passport like Salem Al Saqamis that was found by the FBI completely unscathed by the fireball at the WTC. I thought passports were made of paper. The idiot who wrote this story is either paid to lie by the neocon smear machine or has delusional moments of 'clarity' Plllleeeeaaase Posted by: fingers | May 30, 2006 10:34 PM Posted by: Namron | May 30, 2006 10:03 PM I do love it when others steal my name... Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery... I am sure that these same people wish they could come up with just one fact that proves a 9/11 conspiracy... But when the light of truth is turned on, all these prolificators of propoganda scurry like cockroaches... Come on cucarachas - Just one fact! Posted by: Namron | May 30, 2006 09:48 PM Hey Namron, With you as part of the mass, the neo-con agenda is in safe hands. You take the information that I and others share with you and you give back a criticism of not mentioning that Bush met with aides at the school after he sat dumbfounded for 13 minutes. That pretty much says it all. Posted by: Jake O'Neill | May 30, 2006 09:46 PM i have no job(unless you count this) so thats why im here so much. and i love my corporate media, i gotta get their backs. Posted by: Namron | May 30, 2006 06:09 PM its hard work shilling for the official story.i dont get sick of it though, it makes me feel important. not my government!!! not my honest corporate media!!!! i trust them oh so much! Posted by: Namron | May 30, 2006 06:08 PM "Is that all YOU'VE got is what's the issue here." Yes, all I have is the fact that no news organizations covered a poll. All I have is the idea that ALL news organizations are not under some sort of spell to further a 9/11 conspiracy. All I have is the FACT that there was no other news on May 25 other than the Zogby poll and the Bin Laden tape. We saw NO other news that day except for the Bin Laden tape. There was a complete news blackout on all news other than the Bin Laden tape. No adverse news that Iraq is in chaos, no news that the market is falling, no news that inflation might be coming.... the ONLY news is that Bin LAden released the tape. That is how effective our government is - they have total and complete control over the news media. They have such complete control over the news media that it is impossible to catch their 9/11 cover-up unless you can get them to prove that they didn't do it. Posted by: Namron | May 30, 2006 05:35 PM Zogby poll? A news "blackout"? Seriously... is this all you can muster? How many news organizations do NOT cover every single poll? This "fact" of a 9/11 conspiracy due to a "news blackout" can also be applied to the right wing who complain that virtually no good news is EVER reported when it comes to Iraq - and yes, there is good news... The media does not pay attention to all the polls that Zogby does; live with it! Did you read the news media coverage of Zogby's poll about Hillary? I never saw it... Does this prove "conspriacy"? Come on ! Is this all the "truth seekers" of 9/11 have?! ^Is that all YOU'VE got is what's the issue here. What the hell is wrong with you if you don't think "42% of voting Americans believing there's a 9/11 cover up" is not HEADLINE NEWS!! No instead a "bin laden tape" was released, coincident right? NOT! Get real, I don't want to believe it was a conspiracy, I certainly didn't on the day, and not for about three years after did I have doubts. But honestly, look at what 9/11 is being used for, and who by. "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." Page 51 Sep 2000 http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf ^Do you know who wrote that, and co-signed it? Have a guess! Posted by: | May 30, 2006 05:25 PM Zogby poll? A news "blackout"? Seriously... is this all you can muster? How many news organizations do NOT cover every single poll? This "fact" of a 9/11 conspiracy due to a "news blackout" can also be applied to the right wing who complain that virtually no good news is EVER reported when it comes to Iraq - and yes, there is good news... The media does not pay attention to all the polls that Zogby does; live with it! Did you read the news media coverage of Zogby's poll about Hillary? I never saw it... Does this prove "conspriacy"? Come on ! Is this all the "truth seekers" of 9/11 have?! Posted by: Namron | May 30, 2006 05:09 PM "I admit the conclusions reached by the 9/11Truth Movement seem unbelievable when considered without examining what we know happened." I have posted a few times for ANYONE to bring to light just ONE "FACT!" that does not have a reasonable explanation that is based in FACT. Maybe you will take me up? Just one fact is all I ask. Posted by: Namron | May 30, 2006 04:19 PM ^ You want a fact? How about the fact that the mass media still has yet to cover that Zogby poll! And instead just days after Zogby published it's results a new "Bin Laden Tape" was released to the media, reinforcing the official notion, and burying the poll results in the process. That's a "FACT" as you put it. Why will the mass media not cover those poll results......? Posted by: | May 30, 2006 04:58 PM Dear Jake - this is one reason nobody with any intellect takes your movement seriously - "Between 9:03AM and 9:06AM, Chief of Staff Andrew Card informs President Bush of the second impact in the WTC South Tower. President Bush remains in his seat for another 13 minutes and does not leave the school for another 26 minutes." This is HIGHLY misleading! Part of that time was spent with his aides - be briefed on exactly what was happening. If you want honest answers, then start with honest questions. Skewing the facts so they suit your purpose just paints your movement as a nutty extremist organization who refuses to react rationally and objectively to evidence that is not in dispute. Posted by: Namron | May 30, 2006 04:40 PM "I admit the conclusions reached by the 9/11Truth Movement seem unbelievable when considered without examining what we know happened." I have posted a few times for ANYONE to bring to light just ONE "FACT!" that does not have a reasonable explanation that is based in FACT. Maybe you will take me up? Just one fact is all I ask. Posted by: Namron | May 30, 2006 04:19 PM Dear Mr. Arkin, I am appalled by your recent judgment regarding the 911Truth Movement. Am I right to understand that a journalist's task is to be objective, examine evidence, and reach conclusions that best fit the evidence? I admit the conclusions reached by the 9/11Truth Movement seem unbelievable when considered without examining what we know happened. I know many will question why I took the time to write to someone who wrote such an insensitive and hateful article. I have no idea if you will quickly dismiss this message because you disapprove of the messenger. I believe the best chance of being heard is to honestly share with you the reasons for my involvement in the 9/11 Truth Movement. I want you to understand why I am calling for a new independent investigation and why every effort must be made to select impartial commission members who care nothing about political affiliations. Rather, this new commission's objective should be the examination of every ounce of evidence so the truth of what happened on 9/11 can be understood. It is how one would want their lawyer to act on their behalf if their children had been murdered. To begin, let's assume that the "official" account of 9/11 is, for the most part, true. Nineteen radical Islamic fundamentalist with the assistance of Al Qaeda were solely responsible for the attacks on our country. Given this, the evidence can be examined on how our government responded to pre-9/11 threats and how it failed to protect our country on 9/11. This information is readily available from legitimate news sources. Given the internet's capability of distributing unlimited information to the public, anyone can easily determine the accuracy of this information. First, our government was forewarned from eleven foreign countries in the months before 9/11 of pending terrorist attacks on US soil against significant American interests and landmarks. As of today, the American people do not know any government response to these warnings. "Wanted" terrorist moved freely about our country in the months prior to 9/11. There is no record of any terrorist ever being detained despite two terrorists who lived with an FBI informant in San Diego. Many "wanted" terrorists, who took no steps to hide their identity, received flying lessons in the United States in the year prior to 9/11. They accomplished this task despite an Arizona FBI Agent's repeated effort to alert his superiors of suspicious activity which only fell on deaf ears. Does it concern you that "wanted" terrorists were able to do this in our country? Then there is the day of 9/11. On this day, our defense system failed to stop three hijacked airplanes from hitting their targets which resulted in thousands of deaths. As a military analyst, you must know firsthand that our military has a system in place to quickly intercept planes which stray off-course. In most instances, interception can occur within ten minutes and this would be particularly true for the airspace of Washington DC and New York. The following is a timeline taken from Paul Thompson's well-researched timeline for the morning of 9/11 (The following information can easily be verified from mainstream news reports): • FLT 11 failed to respond to FAA at 8:13AM. At 8:20, FLT 11 stopped transmitting its IFF beacon which confirmed a hijacking. So, the clock begins at 8:20AM when FAA knows a hijack has occurred. At this time, do you agree that NORAD would be contacted and fighter jets would be ordered to intercept the hijacked planes? (For some reason, NORAD was not contacted until another 18 minutes at 8:43AM.) • At 8:46AM, FLT 11 hits the World Trade Center. At this moment, our government knows without a doubt that a plane has struck the WTC and a second is hijacked. At this point, scramble order are issued at Otis AFB despite there being closer bases such as Atlantic City. Twenty-six minutes have now past. As a military analyst, do you find this acceptable? What if local emergency services took twenty-six minutes to call an ambulance to respond to your desperate call that your child was bleeding to death? • At 8:52 AM, Otis Air National Guard pilots take off, 12 minutes after receiving notification to respond. • At 8:54 AM, FL 77 goes off course over Ohio and heads east indicating a target in Washington, DC. At this point, our government knows the North WTC tower has been hit; another plane is hijacked in the skies of New York; and a third plane is heading toward our Capitol. At the same moment, President Bush's motorcade arrives at the school knowing a plane has struck the WTC. Our President chose to enter the classroom instead of responding to the crisis. Do you agree with his decision to continue to with his planned schedule? • At 8:46AM, NMCC officials at the Pentagon are talking to law enforcement officials about possible responses. This is forty-five minutes before the Pentagon is hit. Do you think it is reasonable to believe our military is capable of responding to this crisis within 45 minutes, particularly given the resources available around our nation's Capitol? • At 9:03AM, FLT 175 hits the South Tower, WTC. The F-15s from Otis AFB are still 71 miles away. Simple math shows an average speed of less than 700MPH based on when the planes departed and the number of miles traveled. As a military analyst, I assume you know that F-15s are capable of speeds up to 1875 mph with a supersonic cruise of 1600 mph. • Between 9:03AM and 9:06AM, Chief of Staff Andrew Card informs President Bush of the second impact in the WTC South Tower. President Bush remains in his seat for another 13 minutes and does not leave the school for another 26 minutes. At the same time, secret service agents are quickly escorting the Vice-President to an emergency bunker in the White House. Does it seem reasonable to expect that the President of the United States would receive the same treatment from the secret service as the Vice-President? Instead, our President remained in a known location, with children, for another 26 minutes while our nation was under attack? These facts, and many others, clearly indicate that our government failed miserably to respond to the crisis of 9/11. As a military analyst, do you find it odd that our military inexplicably failed in its inability to intercept three hijacked planes despite having 78 minutes to do so? We know our military is capable of responding in 26 minutes which would have stopped the first plane from hitting the North WTC. Our military had another 17 minutes to stop the second plane. Imagine the lives that could have been saved had our military performed to its abilities on this day. What is more confusing is that our military was well-practiced in performing flight interceptions. A total of 67 flight interceptions in the year prior to 9/11. Most of us remember how quickly our military responded to intercept Payne Stewart's fatal flight ten minutes after the plane erred off course. As a military analyst, how you do rate the government's performance in responding to 9/11? The American people are unaware of a single person who has been reprimanded for their actions regarding 9/11. In some instances, key government personnel related to 9/11 have been promoted. As of yet, I have not discussed any evidence that suggest government complicity and I have only assumed incompetence versus complicity. Is it correct to assume that your acceptance of the "official" account of 9/11 indicates that you also accept the gross incompetence of our government? Have you forgiven those who failures to protect thousands of American lives? Are you giving our government a break because, hell, who could of knew something of this magnitude would happen (even though they did know it was coming)? Even though you know that the United States military was more than equipped to respond to this crisis? I would be surprised if an accomplished journalist and military analyst would be so forgiving. I, for one, am not ready to forgive and move on. I ask, for a moment, that you imagine what it might be like to be part of the 42% of Americans who question the government's role in 9/11. You have reviewed the evidence and found convincing support that the World Trade Center Towers and WTC7 fell in a controlled demolition (Are you part of the 52% of Americans who are unaware that World Trade Center-7, a 47 story steel-framed building, fell into itself, in the exact manner of a controlled demolition on 9/11? This happened despite WTC7 not being hit by a plane and the fact that no known steel-framed building has ever collapsed, let alone at free-fall speed). You learn that there was highly unusual number of "put" options placed on American and United Airlines in the week prior to 9/11. You see pictures of the hole in Pentagon before the roof collapsed and reason that a 757 could never create such little damage. You learn that much of evidence at Ground Zero was shipped immediately away to China without an appropriate investigation. You learn that a mere 3 million dollars was first appropriated to investigate 9/11 (another 11 million dollars would be added) compared to the 50 million to investigate President Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky. After reviewing the evidence, you are aware that there is high likelihood that the "official" account is much more than mistakes and miscommunications, but rather, a series of calculated deceptions and lies. You realize a faction within your own government may have acted with the intent to kill thousands of American lives. You are left with the knowledge that an evil presence still exists in your government and continues to influence US policy. If there were even the slightest possibility that people existed within our own government who would purposefully kill thousands of American lives to further their own agenda, wouldn't you want to know? Would you not want America to use everything in its power to ensure that all of our intelligence and technology were implemented to rule out this possibility? (Hell, wouldn't you demand this type of investigation given the scope and implications of this event, regardless of whether the government was complicit or not?) Yet like our government on 9/11, the 9/11 Commission failed to do their job. As a distinguished journalist whose has devoted his career to protecting of our nation, I am at a lost to understand how you overlook this evidence and accept the status quo. I am outraged at your insults directed at the people of the 9/11Truth Movement. How dare you judge their actions and make malicious claims that their intentions are to exploit the families of 9/11? I can speak for myself and say that I hope the 9/11 families' inconsolable losses are somewhat redeemed by America doing everything in its power to reveal the truth and hold those who committed these unspeakable crimes accountable. Ultimately, I hope for a peaceful future where world leaders resolve conflict without sacrificing our children's lives. I assume that your willingness to write the article indicates a certain amount of interest in this matter. Since you have thrown your cheap two-cents into the pot, I ask that you to take the time to carefully examine the available evidence. Read everything you can and then reach your own conclusions. That is the what journalist do, is it not? The irony of your scathing commentary of the 9/11 Truth Movement is that this movement would not exist if you, the press, had done their job. For many of us who have looked at the evidence, we feel more than justified to raise our voices and demand justice. Regardless of your disturbing and uninformed comments, I am steadfastly committed to using my rights as an American citizen to hold our government accountable and to protect our threatened democracy. Posted by: Jake O'Neill | May 30, 2006 12:41 PM This Scott Laughrey character is amazing! I started doing some good ol' google digging and I've uncovered some Truth about this situation. There are two entities: Scott Loughrey, who is a real critic of the Bush administration / neocons, and who is hot on the trail of a lot of explosive stuff! see The Disinformation of Richard Clarke by Scott Loughrey Amy Goodman, Left Gatekeeper; by Scott Loughrey The Mysteries of 9/11 (I believe the spelling in the webpage title is a typo. Should be with an o) Then there is Scott Laughrey (with an a - get it) who is not necessarily one person, but perhaps a group of people/agency/bot who I am starting to believe actually is part of the 9-11 conspiracy / neocon conspiracy / disinformation campaign that is desperately trying to discredit the real Scott Loughrey and throw the public off of the trail that reveals their guilt. My advice to all Good and True citzens who are trying to investigate the Truth: do some more digging related to Scott Loughrey / Laughrey. There is some treasure under those rocks... Here's an key webpage to this mystery: News Junkie Scott's Blog on Baltimore Indymedia aka 911 Hoax. Follow the links. It's hard to tell what's going on here. Perhaps someone else can help figure it out. But this is for sure, here is one gem from the guilty party: "This has been a test of the Emergency Loopy-Leftist Broadcast System. Had this been an actual loopy-leftist alert, you would have been invited to Scott's mother's basement to sing along with Scott and Alice on the first few bars from "Cumberland Blues" off of the Workingman's Dead LP. This concludes this test of the Emergency Loopy-Leftist Broadcast System. " source - the bottom of this page from 8/10/05 of the mystery blog Posted by: you lose | May 30, 2006 11:52 AM He makes it seem like he is a 9/11 researcher ("Truther", etc.), but his "many really cool progressive Web sites that show it was squib charges and holograms used on 9/11" statements make it clear to anyone who really pays attention that his post is satire. Then just go look at some of his other posts that don't give it away, to see that he's succeeding at his job of PAID Distraction, Deception, and Disinformation. These people will show up any time there is a comments section on a major article, because they know that's where more real truth comes out than the actual articles. They like to try to take away our power of influence on the internet by muddying the waters. I don't know how to deal with them when you can't moderate the comments. benthere | Homepage | 05.28.06 - 4:24 am" ^ Great post, got those dis-info clowns banged to rights lol! Posted by: you lose | May 30, 2006 11:50 AM Mr. Arkin: Just as a by-the-by, please note that the official FBI website no longer states the Osama bin Laden had anything to do with the operations that led to the horror of 911; see: http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm Please give Bob a call and let him know we all appreciate his honesty, etc., since only with the brutal truth will we be free, as opposed to being in bondage. Mr. Arkin, you are a true patriot, one that is deeply appreciated by people such as Larry Silverstein, and soon Elliot Spitzer. Posted by: Paul V. Sheridan | May 30, 2006 11:28 AM "Remember the Maine," "Remember the Alamo," Manilla, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Texas, California "they attacked us" when they didn't sometimes crime pays. and we already know that the Attorney General refused to testify under oath about NSA wiretap. and the oil execs get to retire with $380 Million in foodstamps, government dole, after testifying (not under oath) to avoid perjury charges... we love our rich, that's why we had ALL of our seniors dedicate $30 a month of their medicine money to them....to help them out, so that they could have enough to eat... Posted by: I like to make people uncomfortable by telling them the | May 30, 2006 11:05 AM I hope that someone is reporting to our public officials just what people are saying on this blog. The consensus is that the majority of Americans do not trust them or believe what they say. As Jesus once said about King Herod, someone should go tell that fox... Our fox, needs to know what the people are saying. Perhaps he will see that it is time for a change. For when he speaks, only a few Americans believe him! I for one never did. Posted by: Rev. C. Solomon | May 30, 2006 11:05 AM Perhaps YOU can tell me how and why WTC7 just fell down. Posted by: Alphonse | May 30, 2006 10:44 AM Posted by: che arkin | May 30, 2006 09:46 AM When people on MSM use the phrase , "In a post 9/11 World..." I know that some type of BullSh$t is going to come out of their mouth. They will say something like give up your liberty for security...or We are going to bomb Iran and make it radioactive so that Iranian women can vote...or that we are going to spend our tax dollars on state of the art weapons to protect the crumbling U.S. economy. Also if anyone is listening, WE WANT A RIGHT TO VOTE IN THE US, the Rich White Men are still the only ones who get to vote for REAL. The good news is that no Empire lasts forever, not even the US Empire. Eventually it will fall and hopefully it will just shrink back instead of exploding. Posted by: Comments on a post 9/11 world | May 30, 2006 09:41 AM By all means, spread the word the "Che" is off his rocker. William Arkin, you are spot on. This conspiracy crap is all nonsense and it does to owe largely to disenchantment with Bush, who is a lousy President but not guilty of what these idiots are claiming. Posted by: RC | May 30, 2006 09:29 AM FOR UNCENSORED NEWS PLEASE BOOKMARK: WWW.WSWS.ORG WWW.TAKINGAIM.INFO WWW.ONLINEJOURNAL.COM OTHERSIDE123.BLOGSPOT.COM WWW.COUNTERPUNCH.ORG Posted by: che | May 30, 2006 05:30 AM This is just another part of the "matrix" of deceit that the Bush regime has used to further its illegal war for oil in Iraq. The Internet allows us really cool progressives to question authority. Really cool progressives like me and the Web Fairy question authority and have intellectual discussion on the fact that it was squib charges and holograms used on 9/11, not the propaganda put out by the corporate controlled media of 19 hijackers and jet airplanes. I am somewhat of an expert on 9/11. I can look at a 72 dpi image on a really cool progressive Web site and tell you more than any aerospace or civil engineer what really happened. There's a lot more going on in the 9/11 cover-up than meets the eye. People who buy every word that the corporate-controlled media says should go buy George Orwell's 1984 and practice up; it won't be long before the hopelessly indoctrinated manage to get the clocks to thirteen here. Peace. - Scott Laughrey Posted by: Scott Laughrey | May 30, 2006 05:07 AM A Memorial Day wish for President Bush & Company to resign By Jerry Mazza Online Journal Associate Editor Email this article Printer friendly page As I sit here on the Upper Westside of Manhattan writing, I'm buzzed suddenly by the awful sound of a fighter jet coming so low and so loud I figure it's 9/11-2. The jet buzz doesn't end in a crash as I dread. Instead it returns, reaching max-roar and fades into the distance again. A few minutes later, I go outside my apartment building to catch, through the spaces between the rooftops, what look like two C-130s, big bulky Navy gray crafts booming overhead. I get that eerie feeling again. And then I remember. It is frigging Fleet Week and the fleet sailed last Wednesday: 4,000 active duty service men and women to join in the 19th annual "festivities," ships, planes, et al. Oh goodie. Where were they on 9/11? Unfortunately, I know the answer to the question. Military jets were pulled from away from New York air space by five simultaneous terrorist hijacking drills (what a coincidence), as far away as Canada and Alaska. Yet there remained as many as 22 planes or objects on air controllers' screens to totally confuse them. NORAD, in fact, consciously stood down. There was mass confusion. The CIA had spread the word. Meanwhile, the President in Absentia was reading his goat book in a Florida classroom for all the children left behind. It was awhile before he got off his butt and went forward; an hour more to even get back in the air. And then he flew off to hide in a military cave. Dick Cheney and Condi Rice scuttled into the basement of the White House and were later helicoptered to some secure bunker in Pennsylvania, not far from groundhog Punxsutawney Phil who, come rain or shine, annually makes a February appearance to forecast whether there are six more weeks of winter or if spring is just around the corner. But Cheney and Condi's story is more like the sleazy weatherman Phil Connors, played by Bill Murray in the film Groundhog Day. Connors is assigned to cover the event about "a weather forecasting rat" as he cynically calls it. But Phil finds that his relentless cynicism causes him to live the same Groundhog Day over and over again until he gets it right, that is, how to love the girl he meets, stop telling the same ratty jokes, stop treating people like crap, and actually turn into a decent human being. Then he can get on with time and his life, a profoundly meaningful message for Bush & Company. Since they acted so miserably on 9/11, they have to repeat their lies, their deceptions, their behavior over and over again, caught in the time warp of The War on Terror, sinking lower and lower into the winter of Ground Zero, among the shadows of the dead. I am speaking here not just of the nearly 3,000 victims of the 9/11 murder, but of the deaths of 2,700 soldiers in the illegal Iraq War, and of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died, and before that the untold number of Afghans who died in that first preemptive strike. And I speak for all of us in America who have to live that day over and over again in our memories, trying to figure out the cruelty of our own people being behind it, dodge and deny it as they will. So let this Memorial Day be a commemorative to the living as well as the dead, to the victims' families and friends, to a nation caught in two wars, to veterans losing their lives or health or benefits, to the drowned and lost of New Orleans, to the elderly faced with losing health care and Social Security, to a once great nation that lead the world and that now lags behind like Phil Connors, looking for the light. I hope we find it soon, before the world decides we're the bad guys and need to be taken down soon, real soon. Some Quotes from the Sun What is amazing as well are quotes from some service people in an article, "As They Steam in, Sailors Prepare To See 'Everything' During Fleet Week," in last Thursday's ultra right-wing New York Sun. Well, the "everything" they need and want to see is less than a mile south from their docking point on West Street and the Hudson River. It's Ground Zero, a well-paved hole in the ground consuming some 16 acres, where a memorial to the dead will be dug even deeper, if and when everyone can agree on the final design and spiraling construction costs. Designs for the memorial, originally called, "Reflecting Absence" are still being considered. I'm sure the service people will get a kick out of that. You see, if you simply stand at street level and stare into that giant hole where so much life throbbed and died, if you close your eyes, you can hear and see it all again, the joy and the tragedy of that life, the explosions not from jet fuel that bombed the daylights out of us, the buildings falling into neat footprints, the ashen clouds of concrete and asbestos rising into the air like nuclear conflagrations, the ash gray crowds on the ground scuttling away for dear life. You can hear the cries of firemen in the hallways, saying they've got the fire under control, and suddenly their voices are lost. You can see bodies falling like angels from the windows. You can see, as Eliot wrote, "life in a handful of dust." And perhaps as you think, another jet will go roaring overhead, and you're post traumatic shock will send a shiver through you. But then you can read this Sun article and the comments of Corporal Todd Meyer, among others, who recently returned from Fallujah. Sailing on an 844-foot assault ship, he says, "I want to see everything." Ah but it's gone, young man, everything's gone. Like Fallujah. This is why sometimes New Yorkers feel like the enemy, like we were singled out for something by our government, and have this compulsion to speak truth to power. But "Corporal Meyer, 22, surmised that he would be working at a fast food joint in his hometown of Lawrence, Kan., had he not chosen to enlist in the military shortly after the terror attacks. . . ." So, was Fallujah really a better option than the local fast food joint? Is that how it is? Or how bad opportunity was? But he said Fleet Week "would not only provide him some much needed leisure time, but would reinforce his decision to join the Armed Forces." In his words, "It gives us a chance to see what happened here . . . It's one of the reasons why we do what we do." Well, my son, don't do it for us. Your action is brave but misguided. Get your crew and go to Washington, DC, and ask your Commander in Chief, the one who showed up on the aircraft carrier in his tailor-made jump suit on May 2, 2003, to declare the war was over . . . ask him and his administration to resign for murderous incompetence or face a firing squad. The war isn't over and it won't be for awhile; in fact no one knows when. And you may soon be in some other desperate straits. It's not all about this week's "Galas, military demonstrations, concerts, and parades . . ." The war is about people dying at your and others' well-meaning hands, just as they died on the steel blue morning of 9/11. So be it. Arriving also for Fleet Week, which was "a homecoming of sorts," was Lieutenant Mike Lucrezio, a 36-year old Queens native. He said he had spent the last few days dispensing advice about New York attractions to his fellow servicemen and -women, many of whom would be visiting the Big Apple for the first time." He said, "They want to know where to get good pizza, how to get to the Empire State Building, and if it's really safe to get on the subway." Yeah, Mike, it's safe. Why not take them on the famous A train up to Harlem or the Lexington Avenue line to El Barrio, and show your buddies some of the hard core poverty that gives those communities their Third World look and flavor. The kids will love your uniforms. Probably join after dropping out of high school. They're havens for recruiters. And a Special Treat for All But Mike, bless his Italian soul, wanted to go out to Forest Hills to see his 89-year-old Italian grandmother. "She always wanted to see me in my Dress Whites," he said, pointing to his Navy uniform. But, thank god, she never had to see him in pieces, like the thousands of parents of the dead or wounded. But hey, I'm getting dark here. To cheer everybody up, and promote the new movie, X Men: The Last Stand, actors Hallie Berry, Hugh Jackman and Kelsey Grammer paid a visit to Fleet Week. The X-Men action movie (also a Play Station 2 game) was described by critic Jeanne Aufmuth of the Palo Alto weekly this way: " . . . Not to mention the perfect excuse for malicious mutant supremacist Magneto (Ian McKellen), who believes in survival of the fittest at all costs ('we are the cure!'), to stage war on those who preach tolerance and acceptance, among the telekinetic Professor Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart) and Secretary of Mutant Affairs Dr. Henry McCoy, aka Beast (played with rock-solid warmth and intelligence by Kelsey Grammer). "The stage is set for a catastrophic showdown between man and mutant, ripe with atmosphere and pregnant with the ramifications of contemporary bias (think homosexuality, immigration, etc.). Unfortunately playboy director Brett Ratner ("Rush Hour," "Red Dragon") sacrifices socio-political relevance for flashy pyrotechnics and visceral pleasures galore . . ." How 'bout that. Art imitates life or is it life imitating the movie and the video game to pass the time between battles. I guess Charley Sheen wasn't available to tell them about his view of 9/11. Of course, "the [X-Men] stars expressed their gratitude to the Armed Forces; the troops cheered and snapped photographs of the famous visitors, who arrived on the ship via helicopter late yesterday morning." How very well spun. "Later in the day, Mr. Grammar and his wife, Camille, spent several hours chatting with the servicemen and -women, taking down some of their e-mail addresses and vowing to stay in touch [uh huh]. Asked about the widespread anti-war sentiment in New York and Hollywood, he [Grammar] said, 'I chalk it up to lack of thought, and lack of thoughtfulness.'" That's a line good enough to be written by Bush himself. "Marine Corps Sergeant Anthony Nagle of Struthers, Ohio, said he didn't think Fleet Week should be about politics," the Sun reported. "Even though the war's unpopular, I've realized that there's a lot of support for the troops," the 22-year old Sergeant said, recently returned from Iraq. "I joined the military because I felt that I would die for my country. I just hope people here will appreciate that." On behalf of the people of New York City, sergeant, we hope you and all your fellow service people live for America, a long time, and in peace. And not have your innocent devotion exploited by a murderous government, which brings me back to the resignation of the members of this cabal who participated in the creation and execution of 9/11 and subsequent illegal wars . . . Therefore, we the people of New York City and America, will offer Mr. Bush and his cohorts the privilege of life in a super-max prison and not the heartless death by poison injection they gleefully favor for others, just so long as their departure is swift, complete, and a full confession is made before an international court of justice. Let the death and destruction and its daily repetition end. Let life begin and go forward again, as it did for Phil Connors. And let Punxsutawney Phil and the forces of nature return us to spring, summer and the blessings of light and life. Jerry Mazza, freelance writer, is a life-long resident of New York City. gvmaz@verizon.net. Copyright © 1998-2006 Online Journal Posted by: che | May 30, 2006 03:24 AM either there is no terrorist threat or we have an unbelieveably incompetent president.... seeing as how he got elected with no qualifications with ongoing scandal unequaled since Nixons time... I would have to posit that corruption in congress parallels this unequaled stench of evil and corruption, other wise it couldn't have happened..... the fact that Iraq is the second largest holder of an economic wealth in the world speaks volumes about how much money is a part of this charade.... both Noriega and Saddam were suprised that George H.W. Bush was attacking them, and expressed that on record, perhaps they had a deal with him, eh? Posted by: it's real simple... | May 30, 2006 01:43 AM I don't have a problem believing 19 were able to pull off 9-11 and I don't have a problem believing we were so incompetent. What I have a problem with and which I wholeheartedly agree with you is how our government has used 9-11 to further its own agenda, the securing of Iraqi oil for American oil companies and the emergence of the executive branch as having unqestioned authority. Posted by: Robert | May 30, 2006 12:17 AM Even if you wholeheartedly believe that 19 ragtag Arabs led by an ex-CIA asset on a dialysis machine hiding in a cave halfway around the world pulled off the biggest, most complicated and most successful terrorist strike ever all by themselves despite the best efforts of the trillion dollar a year mil/intel/justice/customs/law enforcement organizatons of the most powerful nation in world history, whose interests are you serving by promulgating this notion and cautioning those who speculate otherwise? This is why I've never understood how any well-meaning individual could possibly spend time and energy policing those who question the events of 9/11 in ostensibly intelligent discussion groups. Even if 9/11 was not an inside job, we're far better off treating it as if it were -- because, despite the dubious official "narrative" of that day, the "9/11 changes everything" mantra has been successfully used to justify: 1) an insane invasion and occupation, 2) an Orwellian state of neverending warfare, 3) an all-out assault on our Bill of Rights and our Constitutional separation, balance and oversight of powers, 4) rampant and bald faced war profiteering and a huge increase in dubious mil/intel/security expenditures, 5) an insane doctrine of military pre-emption, 6) torture and rendition, 7) a culture of authoritarian secrecy, 8) the persecution of political dissent, 9) enraging the Muslim world and alienating the rest of the world, 10) etc., etc., etc. while doing little or nothing to enhance our security or address the root causes OR symptoms of Islamic terror. Our ports are no more secure than they were on 9/11, and they are being sold to an Arab government that recognized the Taliban. Our nuke plants are just as vulnerable as ever. The CAPPS II no-fly list supposedly protects us against a non-existent threat (when was the last time a US domestic flight was hijacked by a US citizen?) while actually HELPING any terrorist cell with the resources to do a few test runs before the big event. Finally, not one individual has been publicly held accountable for his or her failures on 9/11, and Homeland (Pork Barrel) Security proved its "worth" during the Katrina debacle. All of this disgusting vileness and much more has gone down in the name of an incredibly dubious official conspiracy theory worthy of Doctor Evil and containing far more plot holes than any Ed Wood feature. And even assuming that this official conspiracy theory is remotely true, the problem of a few thousand hardcore fundamentalist Islamic terrorists would quite obviously be best addressed with a small but expertly trained team of covert infiltrators and special operations forces. How can anyone with any political interests other than advancing elitist hegemony even further possibly find merit in policing those who rationally draw attention to dubious elements of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory -- regardless of his or her personal beliefs concerning the events of that day? Considering all the heinous crap that's been done in the name of the 9/11, why don't any non-regressives who still believe the official conspiracy theory at least have the common decency to keep quiet about it? Posted by: Kelly Duke | May 29, 2006 11:52 PM I really dislike this Arkin guy's holier-than-his-readers attitude, which this column is only one of many examples. I think the progressive blogs who months ago predicted his column would add a fresh and well-informed voice to the discussion, got it wrong. That's probably why they don't link to him anymore. Arkin's clearly a member of the pundit class. (That is not a flattering description.) I am not one of the "Capricorn One" style 911 conspiracy theorists. On the other hand, I do not dismiss these people out of hand. I am convinced we do not know the whole story, and much was covered up. With all the heretofor unimaginable things the Bush administration HAS done these past 5 years (that we know of), it is not that much of a stretch to wonder... By posting this column, Arkin has once again shown that he has his head up his own arse. Posted by: | May 29, 2006 10:59 PM There's really not much I can add to what Mr. Gold and other informed Americans have posted. Why don't you join us? I'd recommend getting the 2004 book "Crossing the Rubicon" by Michael Ruppert, as a starting point. It WAS one of the top 5 political books on Amazon.com, not that THAT would get Mr. Ruppert an interview in the mainstream press. Or you could look at Daniel Hopsicker's website, madcowprod.com, which is a shining example of what a TRUE independent investigative journalist does for a living. Come on, try it for just a month, and see where it leads you. Posted by: Alan on an open WiFi AP somewhere out of country | May 29, 2006 08:10 PM "He makes it seem like he is a 9/11 researcher ("Truther", etc.), but his "many really cool progressive Web sites that show it was squib charges and holograms used on 9/11" statements make it clear to anyone who really pays attention that his post is satire. Then just go look at some of his other posts that don't give it away, to see that he's succeeding at his job of PAID Distraction, Deception, and Disinformation. These people will show up any time there is a comments section on a major article, because they know that's where more real truth comes out than the actual articles. They like to try to take away our power of influence on the internet by muddying the waters. I don't know how to deal with them when you can't moderate the comments. benthere | Homepage | 05.28.06 - 4:24 am" ^ Great post, got those dis-info clowns banged to rights lol! Ps For any one who still believes the official 9/11 account, do your own research! Don't expect the Mc Media to inform you. Here's a good place to start; Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? by Brigham Young University Physics Professor Dr Steven E. Jones http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html Posted by: Dis-info jokers exposed | May 29, 2006 06:01 PM Ohio election fraud investigated ... by the man who caused it by M.R. Kropko, Associated Press CLEVELAND - Democrats called Monday for Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell to remove himself from an investigation into what went wrong with the primary election in Ohio's largest county. Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Chris Redfern said Blackwell should step aside because his office is responsible for the rules that govern county election boards that had scattered problems last Tuesday, including poll workers who did not know how to turn on new electronic voting machines. Blackwell, the Republican gubernatorial candidate, faces too many conflicts of interest to properly oversee the probe, Redfern said. "It's a silly request," said James Lee, a spokesman with the secretary of state's office. "The people of Ohio twice elected Ken Blackwell to serve as secretary of state. He will continue to serve." Blackwell asked the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections on Friday for an investigation of voting glitches during the county's first attempt at electronic voting using Diebold Inc. touch-screen and optical scan systems. The board, which met Monday for the first time since the primary, said an independent committee would try to determine what caused failures at polling places. Committee members will have expertise in electronic voting technology and elections administration, and the panel will be asked to provide a report by July 15, said Bob Bennett, who is chairman of both the Cuyahoga County elections board and the Ohio GOP. In Cuyahoga County, which has a little more than 1 million registered voters, some poll workers did not show up to open voting sites. Officials also ordered the hand-counting of more than 18,000 paper ballots after new optical scan machines produced inconsistent tabulations. The counting was not complete until Sunday night, leaving several local races in limbo for days, and the outcome of one race for state representative was reversed. Questions remain whether the equipment or the paper ballots, or both, were at fault, said Michael Vu, the county's elections director. Posted by: che | May 29, 2006 05:13 PM Please bookmark the following sites: http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/ www.wsws.org www.onlinejournal.com www.takingaim.info otherside123.blogspot.com Bilderbergers Nervous About Canada's PM By James P. Tucker Jr. Bilderbergers are nervous about their host for this year's secret meeting near Ottawa, Canada. But this is not the first time the new Conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, has been part of this elite group of secret world leaders. Harper was photographed at the 2003 meeting in Versailles, France. The Kyoto Treaty to reduce air and water pollution is a Bilderberg baby and Canada signed off on it years ago. Former President Bill Clinton, a Bilderberger, dutifully embraced Kyoto. But test votes showed it would be rejected overwhelmingly by the Senate if submitted for ratification. So it remains in White House files, much to Bilderberg distress. The new Canadian prime minister may also be ruffling feathers among Bilderbergers. At UN climate talks that ended May 26 in Bonn, Germany, Canada said it is unable to meet a legally binding target to cut emissions of heat-trapping gases by 2012 and that it will take part in an extension only if all nations agree. "The Canadian government of Stephen Harper is trying to sabotage 15 years of international efforts to address climate change," the Climate Action Network said. Negotiators from 163 nations that have signed onto the UN's Kyoto Treaty met in Bonn to discuss ways to extend it beyond 2012 to prevent climate changes they say cause heat waves, droughts and floods. Canadian newspapers reported that Ottawa had instructed its Canadian negotiators, saying: "Canada will not support agreement on language in the work program that commits developed countries to more stringent targets in the future." Poor nations signed on easily because they are required to do nothing and are exempt from limitations placed on "industrialized countries." For example, Mexico can build smokestack industries on its U.S. border. If the United States signed, even more U.S. industries would move to Mexico where they have no restraints and are not burdened with U.S. laws on ecology, minimum wages or required benefits, such as paid vacations. But Kyoto was pushed by Bilderberg for the same reasons it wants a direct UN tax, favors NAFTA and the WTO and turned NATO into the UN's standing army, among other actions: it is a step on the road to creating world government. When Bilderberg gathers behind armed guards at the Brook Street Resort near Ottawa June 8-11, Harper will greet the 120 leaders in international finance and politics for the second time in his life. But even as they politely applaud, Bilderbergers will eye Harper with suspicion. AFP correspondent James P. Tucker Jr. is a veteran journalist who spent many years as a member of the "elite" media in Washington. Since1975 he has won widespread recognition, here and abroad, for his pursuit of on-the-scene stories reporting the intrigues of global power blocs such as the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission. Posted by: che | May 29, 2006 05:06 PM thanks Michael Moore whereever you are and may this administration find their just reward in this lifetime at then end of the noose of justice. I'd like to see some funny dancing.... thanks so much, ta ta. Posted by: oh well, enough of this jousting | May 29, 2006 04:37 PM I deeply respect Michael Moores work. I _would_ call exposing hypocrisy, I WOULD CALL DEFENDING HYPOCRISY TREASONOUS!!! I would CALL MICHAEL MOORE A FRIGGIN PATRIOT... not some souless namroon seeking to line his pockets with the fleece of innocent civilians.... let the treasonous, sellers of flesh, taste the sword of truth and find incarceration and poverty as _their_ just friggin reward... can I get an AMEN? Posted by: by the by, | May 29, 2006 04:31 PM are you confusing me with scot? namrod, or is it dimrod or namroon, or is that camber loon... eh? speak up suckie...take it out of your mouth so i can hear you. Posted by: dear short penis... | May 29, 2006 04:15 PM NSA Snoop Program: All about the Neocon Enemies List Friday May 26th 2006, 6:35 pm National Review Online, the home of many a Straussian neocon, has posted an excerpt from William Arkin on its Media Blog page. Arkin, who writes a column for the CIA's favorite newspaper, the Washington Post (the editors over there like to call Arkin's Early Warning a blog), declared on May 16, in regard to the massive NSA snoop program, "there is no enemies list" and the "Bush administration has been arrogant and incompetent in communicating to the American public. It has cynically split the country into red and blue in order to give itself greater power to pursue a wrong-headed national security strategy that it claims is red, white and blue.... The Congress has also utterly failed in five months to get to the bottom of the NSA's warantless surveillance program and thereby resolve its legality and assuage public anxiety." In other words, it is simply more partisan politics and splenetic political manipulation la mode de Karl Rove. Nothing to see here, except a bit of unresolved legality. Please move along. If you believe the Bush and the neocons in the White House and the Pentagon, as Arkin suggests, have not drawn up a comprehensive list of domestic enemies, and are not snooping them right now, I have a chartreuse pony to sell you. It's no mistake Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden was breezily selected, as predicted, by a large number of senators (78-15 in his favor) earlier today. Hayden will merge CIA and Pentagon covert and snoop operations and scant little of the work will concentrate on Osama's cartoonish cave dwellers and the spurious boogieman known as "al-Qaeda." William Arkin may trust his government to employ a colossal snoop program in a myopic effort to gain short term political gain, but those of us who take a look at not too distant history understand otherwise. Verne Lyon, a former CIA undercover operative, wrote for Covert Action Information Bulletin, Summer 1990, that with "the DCS, the DOD [Domestic Operations Division], the old boy network, and the CIA Office of Security operating without congressional oversight or public knowledge, all that was needed to bring [Operation Chaos] together was a perceived threat to the national security and a presidential directive unleashing the dogs. That happened in 1965 when President Johnson instructed [John] McCone to provide an independent analysis of the growing problem of student protest against the war in Vietnam. Prior to this, Johnson had to rely on information provided by the FBI, intelligence that he perceived to be slanted by Hoover's personal views, which often ignored the facts." In order to "achieve the intelligence being asked for by the President, the CIA's Office of Security, the Counter-Intelligence division, and the newly created DOD turned to the old boy network for help." Lyon continues: As campus anti-war protest activity spread across the nation, the CIA reacted by implementing two new domestic operations. The first, Project RESISTANCE, was designed to provide security to CIA recruiters on college campuses. Under this program, the CIA sought active cooperation from college administrators, campus security, and local police to help identify anti-war activists, political dissidents, and "radicals." Eventually information was provided to all government recruiters on college campuses and directly to the super-secret DOD on thousands of students and dozens of groups. The CIA's Office of Security also created Project MERRIMAC, to provide warnings about demonstrations being carried out against CIA facilities or personnel in the Washington area. All of this should be familiar, as the Pentagon's Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA) kept a database on "a motley group of about 10 peace activists [who] showed up outside the Houston headquarters of Halliburton" in 2004, according to Michael Isikoff of Newsweek, in order to protest the corporation's "supposed" war profiteering. "A Defense document shows that Army analysts wrote a report on the Halliburton protest and stored it in CIFA's database. It's not clear why the Pentagon considered the protest worthy of attention," muses the clueless Isikoff, about as tuned in to domestic spook operations (in the case of the CIA, quite illegal under its charter) as his colleague, William Arkin, who should know better. The CIFA's activity in regard to Haliburton is reminiscent of Proiect RESISTANCE, a domestic espionage operation coordinated under the DOD, a fact discovered with a simple Wikipedia search (obviously, writers working for Newsweek and the Washington Post cannot be bothered with online encyclopedias). Under Operation Chaos and Project MERRIMAC, the CIA went about violating the strictures of the Bill of Rights with customary zeal. The CIA "infiltrated agents into domestic groups of all types and activities. It used its contacts with local police departments and their intelligence units to pick up its 'police skills' and began in earnest to pull off burglaries, illegal entries, use of explosives, criminal frame-ups, shared interrogations, and disinformation. CIA teams purchased sophisticated equipment for many starved police departments and in return got to see arrest records, suspect lists, and intelligence reports. Many large police departments, in conjunction with the CIA, carried out illegal, warrantless searches of private properties, to provide intelligence for a report requested by President Johnson," writes Lyon. After Johnson left office, Nixon continued the programs. "In June 1970 Nixon met with Hoover, [Richard] Helms, NSA Director Admiral Noel Gaylor, and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) representative Lt. Gen. Donald V. Bennett and told them he wanted a coordinated and concentrated effort against domestic dissenters. To do that, he was creating the Interagency Committee on Intelligence (ICI), chaired by Hoover. The first ICI report, in late June, recommended new efforts in 'black bag operations,' wiretapping, and a mail-opening program. In late July 1970, Huston told the members of the ICI that their recommendations had been accepted by the White House." If not for the Church Committee (the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, a Senate committee chaired by Senator Frank Church in 1975), the extent of crimes committed by the CIA, FBI, and the Pentagon would have likely remained secret. According to revelations brought forth by the committee (see the Church Committee's supplementary detailed staff report on Operation Chaos), during "the life of Operation CHAOS, the CIA had compiled personality files on over 13,000 individuals including more than 7,000 U.S. citizens as well as files on over 1,000 domestic groups. The CIA had shared information on more than 300,000 persons with different law enforcement agencies including the DIA and FBI. It had spied on, burglarized, intimidated, misinformed, lied to, deceived, and carried out criminal acts against thousands of citizens of the United States. It had placed itself above the law, above the Constitution, and in contempt of international diplomacy and the United States Congress. It had violated its charter and had contributed either directly or indirectly to the resignation of a President of the United States. It had tainted itself beyond hope." Of all this, the CIA's blatant contempt for the rights of individuals was the worst. This record of deceit and illegality, implored Congress as well as the President to take extreme measures to control the Agency's activities. However, except for a few cosmetic changes made for public consumption such as the Congressional intelligence oversight committee nothing has been done to control the CIA. In fact, subsequent administrations have chosen to use the CIA for domestic operations as well. These renewed domestic operations began with Gerald Ford, were briefly limited by Jimmy Carter, and then extended dramatically by Ronald Reagan. According to the corporate media and the standard gaggle of neocon pundits, we have nothing to fear now that Hayden has won over the Senate. After all, as the neocons assure us, the CIA and spook operations emanating out of the Pentagon (and the NSA) focus on "al-Qaeda," a shadowy group with unestablished and undocumented ties within the United States, and those of us worried about the return of Operation Chaos, Project MERRIMAC, and the FBI's COINTELPRO are simply paranoid tinfoil hatters or worse. Never mind the superabundance of material demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt consistent government complicity in not only denying American citizens the right to dissent and seek redress of grievances, but also employing harassment and violence against them. It appears William Arkin simply does not bother to read history and is woefully ignorant of government subversion and desecration of the Constitution. His assertion that the Bush administration and the neocons at its core are not interested in "enemies list" à la Nixon is, on its face, absurd and should be discarded as a dangerous fallacy. Allan Uthman writes for the Buffalo Beast (Top 10 Signs of the Impending U.S. Police State): If Bush's nominee for CIA chief, Air Force General Michael Hayden, is confirmed, that will put every spy program in Washington under military control. Hayden, who oversaw the NSA warrantless wiretapping program and is clearly down with the program. That program? To weaken and dismantle or at least neuter the CIA. Despite its best efforts to blame the CIA for "intelligence errors" leading to the Iraq war, the picture has clearly emerged -- through extensive CIA leaks -- that the White House's analysis of Saddam's destructive capacity was not shared by the Agency. This has proved to be a real pain in the ass for Bush and the gang. Who'd have thought that career spooks would have moral qualms about deceiving the American people? And what is a president to do about it? Simple: make the critical agents leave, and fill their slots with Bush/Cheney loyalists. Then again, why not simply replace the entire organization? That is essentially what both Rumsfeld at the DoD and newly minted Director of National Intelligence John are doing -- they want to move intelligence analysis into the hands of people that they can control, so the next time they lie about an "imminent threat" nobody's going to tell. And the press is applauding the move as a "necessary reform." Remember the good old days, when the CIA were the bad guys? It should be noted, regardless of the witless declarations of William Arkin and his ilk, the military is busy at work ferreting out and monitoring terrorists, that is to say American citizens who have nothing to do with the CIA asset Osama bin Laden or the phantom "al-Qaeda," the database. "NBC investigative correspondent Lisa Myers reported that NBC News had obtained a secret 400-page Defense Department document listing more than 1,500 'suspicious incidents' across the country over a recent ten-month period," Barry Grey wrote last December. "One of the items listed as a 'threat' was a meeting held by a group of activists a year ago at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Florida to plan a protest against military recruiting at local high schools. Myers said the Defense Department data base obtained by NBC News included nearly four dozen anti-war meetings or protests. Among them was an anti-war protest held last March in Los Angeles, a planned protest against military recruiters last December in Boston, and a planned protest last April in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.... A separate press report noted that the Pentagon data base also mentioned weekly protests at an Atlanta, Georgia military recruiting station and an anti-war protest at the University of California in Santa Cruz." These limited revelations in and of themselves reveal that the Bush administration and the Pentagon, with the collusion of congressional Democrats as well as Republicans, have pushed aside limits on military domestic spying that were imposed following congressional hearings in the 1970s on Pentagon spying against civil rights organizations and opponents of the Vietnam War. In addition to the creation of CIFA, mentioned above, a "second major effort to expand the military's domestic spying operations involves legislation being pushed by the Pentagon on Capitol Hill that would establish an exception to the Privacy Act, allowing the FBI and others to share information about US citizens with the Pentagon, the CIA and other agencies, as long as it was deemed that the information was related to foreign intelligence.... In addition, each of the military services has launched its own program to collect domestic intelligence. The Post quotes a Marine Corps order approved in April of 2004 that states the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity will be 'increasingly required to perform domestic missions,' and as a result 'there will be increased instances whereby Marine intelligence activities may come across information regarding US persons.'" Of course, since there is zero oversight, there really is no need to make the fraudulent claim these operations will be conducted only if "related to foreign intelligence." As the above indicates, the government is primarily interested in snooping and subverting its own citizens, who are more of a threat to their stranglehold on power than any number of phony "al-Qaeda" groups or other contrived Freddy Kruger scarecrows. Posted by: che | May 29, 2006 04:14 PM being a criminal, selfish beyond belief...sorta like his friend I didn't know he'd finally admitted to conning the American people about 9/11 and taking over Iraq to line his feather bed with and the beat keeps on....laaa dee daaaa dee doh! REMEMBER the current fiasco/regime STARTED? probably not, it was actually more than a few years ago. key player: started in Florida, where's Goss from, where's jeb working out of? what is the W in Geogre H. W. Bush's name stand for? Walker....his uncle that lost a sugar plantation when the communists took over Cuba....Zapata OIL, Bay of Pigs, WATERGATE, Bush Sr. is the former head of CIA, Congressman before that, Vice President, then President...probably more than 50 years of his life making connections... and he's a member of the Stuarts of England...former royalty...not much for working when international connections can pay your way through life.. George H.W. Bush Sr.: sent April Gillespie to Iraq, who with a nod and a wink told Saddam that his border dispute with Kuwait was an internal matter. I think Saddam was suckered into invading because the US needed a new enemy after the collapse of the soviet union.... Saddam invades Kuwait, we now have an official reason to be there.... looks like we'll establish a presence in Kuwait, we already have one in Saudi...our CIA trains them...CIA trained the 9/11 pilots. Saudi Royals was given the rights to Saudi Arabia by the Brits after WWII, the Royals were put into power... who owns the ports on US soil? the Brits...who's supporting us in Iraq? Protecting the Kuwaiti's: We go into Iraq with Stormin Norman....and kill a couple of 100 thousand Iraqis and stop short of Bagdhad....you know why, WE'RE GOING BACK...that's why we stopped... and now that we occupy, are embedded in Kuwait, we put the country of Iraq in stasis with embargoes until we need it........or the world economy is shifting and things are ripe....China Pakistan, and India are emerging... THEN, the family needed to intervene....in this case the international riche, which includes the Saudis, Kuwaitis, and the US Affluent that stand to make a bit of cash....mind you the Germans, English and French have their hands in this...but your buddy dubya, is the gawdfathers only visible son....unless you need the state militia called to keep Terry Schiavo from being unhooked...as a grandstanding event... so we intervene on national television...bombs going off, constant coverage, city surrounded, surveillance on every living thing that's bigger than a booger.. and somehow, miracle of miracles, like the virgin mary turning up on your french toast: Saddam escapes from Bagdhad with three tractor trailer loads of cash, $9 BILLION$ in CASH right? Anyone in dubyas extended family gotten riche lately? the museums were emptied right? ha ha ha...that's rich. as far as conspiracy goes, there never was a CIA/NORIEGA/BUSH Sr. connection right? and the Chilean president wasn't asassinated in DC with full CIA knowledge, and where'd that white up George W. Bushes nose come from? Panama? the thing of it is, the United States suckered, under George H.W. Bush, Saddam Hussein into attacking Kuwait, so we could be the "heroes", and become military occupiers...to lead us to this point.... walking down the road with no impetus to replacing our dependence on oil, a non-renewable resource....because it's not to the benefit of the countries leaders this has a lot to do with _families_ working together _not related by blood_, as well as politics that don't include you as a positive recipient of thier efforts, as well as... helping you to understand that it isn't all cowboy hats and honesty leading you... Saddam was deliberately mislead into attacking Kuwiat, by President George H.W. Bush, we indicated that we would look the other way if Saddam wanted to reacquire some land and oil wells that he thought the Kuwiatis had taken.....so we would have an excuse to extend our influence. did we tell Saddam Hussein the truth? it wasn't to our advantage. the bushes intimately understand the middle eastern tribe mentality, they have trbal mentality, they protect and work with their own....they use the government to get what they want for their tribe ps. you're not included in their tribe.... morons in charge and morons voted them in...using demagoguery as a political tool needs to be exposed....predjudice as a tool. you want a better country quit pandering to morons and pandering to hate..... the point of it is, the bush family, is trying to bury some information that needs to be understood the ultimate threat to this country is people that can write but can't think or see...or don't want you to. I would suggest that those who would use thier governmental office for personal gain at the expense of the citizens lose thier citizenship, and be charged with treason and their properties confiscated.... intimidation as control shouldn't be tolerated.... read the bill of rights, the right to bear arms was specifically inserted into the Bill of Rights to prevent the United States from being taken over from within, which is what what is happening now.... that's the point, a dictatorship and a congress that takes advantage of citizens, doesn't deserve to serve.... tom delay: violated his oath of office twice and not a single member of congress has the oats to call him on it....cowards or fellow crooks? who needs to look for leaks when anyone with two eyes can see a pattern...of deceit and corruption. Posted by: you're talking about bush right? | May 29, 2006 04:10 PM This article by William Arkin disgusts me. I am becoming disgusted by the Washington post. Shame on the publishers for this garbage. Are you trying to provide an arguement against a poll? ..or better yet, physics? For any self respecting scholar out there, there are some gaping holes in the official 9/11 story. Period. Answer our questions! If you are going to deny us, then we are going to call you for what you are, Mr. Arkin- scum. Posted by: Jay | May 29, 2006 04:09 PM I'm not leftist or angry, I'm hungry and I'd like to see this administration put in jail, executed and their properties sold as reparation... and my name isn't scott... you ever heard of fallicious reasoning lets do it, I'm hungry for the other white meat.... Posted by: hey "sh-it head" | May 29, 2006 04:07 PM oh, you of the pink flesh sucking, who do you work for? you post under your own name, are you posting for yourself or do you represent someone? what's a hologram and what importance does it have here? you know really weak people use phrases like: as a way of labeling. the other side does it by saying neocon, or right wing hater or jew basher or whatever... I'm here to destory you, with the truth, and I feel pretty comfortable saying that, want to have a go pinkboy? Posted by: hey namron.. | May 29, 2006 04:02 PM weak use the royal "we" we caught you, big brother is against you. right, that's why they're sending you out to joust with me... move closer so I can feel you midget entity... by the way, do you know what a hologram is? Posted by: people who are | May 29, 2006 03:56 PM is it possible that it was planned? has anything like it ever been done before? how many men were killed at pearl harbor? how many people died by handguns last year? how many people had their lives ruined by outsourcing or factories moving overseas? did bush send the National Guard overseas, when he in fact joined that organization to avoid war time duty in combat? why was the National Guard formed? what would be gained by sending the National Guard overseas if there had been a coup by the people in power, that was not representative of the voting population? have there ever, in recent history, been so many accusations of voter fraud or so much evidence of them? let me ask you this... who trains the Saudi military and Al Queerdas? who was given preferential treatment for leaving the United States immediately after 9/11 occured when all of the other flights were grounded? are the bushes personal friends with the leaders of the UAE as well as the Saudi government.... who supplies the bulk of the Saudi and UAE military, espionage and paramilitary training? what does "false flag" mean? how long have people been dressing up like pirates and attacking someone to make them belive that they have been attacked by an enemy? is it a tried and true tactic, a military standard? Posted by: let me ask you this... | May 29, 2006 03:48 PM I wonder how many people who believe the "official" story are aware of Ajex Jones' very specific warning to his viewers and listeners in July, 2001? You see, this guy Alex had very specific foreknowledge of the pending attacks and told his viewers that "financial interests in New York are being targetted and the government is going to blame the attacks on OBL". He then disclosed the phone number of the white house and requested his viewers and listeners call, begging them not to carry out the attacks. Posted by: Steve B | May 29, 2006 03:44 PM Iraq was a set up, and Iran is a setup in the making. But, 9/11 wasn't a setup. It would have been too difficult for the U.S. or any Western power to mount such an operation using al-Qaida. It was al-Qaida who did the deed, and al-Qaida is our only legitimate target in the Middle East. The Bush Administration wasted assets on Iraq, and, now, Iran, that should have been devoted to al-Qaida in Afghanistan. There would have been no al-Qaida in Iraq if assets hadn't been diverted from Afghanistan by an unnecessary war. They have done enough real damage. You don't need to look any further for smoking guns. Posted by: P. J. Casey | May 29, 2006 02:15 PM Caught - I only post under my own name. Others cannot claim that. Posted by: Namron | May 29, 2006 12:17 PM maybe you could take the name David Jay Griffin since you like confusing people by taking established 9/11 researchers names? Posted by: ? | May 29, 2006 10:57 AM yes, you are done,. youve been exposed. go back and tell your handlers you need a new name.also, it looks like your playbook hasnt changed much: Re: Who are these 'honest critics'? (Score: 1) by Scott_Laughrey on Thursday, January 12 @ 05:59:04 EST (User Info) I am so happy to see other members of the angry, bitter left continuing to question authority. Many of those who aren't really cool progressives think we are just paranoid fringe members of society. But the really cool members of the angry, bitter left like me and Noam Chomsky and Sean Penn and Michael Moore don't let that stop us from promoting our views on Internet chat boards. Bush's illegal war for oil in Iraq only continues because of the jingoistic flag-waving of the corporate controlled media. Bush Lies and People Dies. If you look at this Internet chat board and see the number of really cool leftists promoting their hate and intolerance of Amerika and the Bush regime, one would assume that we are the majority. Either that or many of us don't have jobs. Whatever the reason, as long as we keep up with our really cool postings to let the world know the truth, I would have to assume that we will, in fact, stop the illegal war in Iraq, have Rummy and Bush and Cheney arrested as war criminals, force Halliburton to give all of their illegal war profits to the Free Mumia Abu-Jamal fund, and overturn the marijuana laws in the U.S. These are the things the angry left is fighting for. And it is through our use of Internet chat boards and the constant posting of Bush Lies and People Dies that we can make this all happen. Peace. - Scott Laughrey [ To reply to this message, you must first logon or register ] Posted by: bye bye disinfo | May 29, 2006 10:50 AM I think I'm done here. I expect nothing more from the fascist Rove-ites but assertions which are contradicted by sources already posted here, as well as indications that the fascist Rove-ites are truly insecure in a debate. Can you folks summarize in one post why my views are wrong without misrepresenting what I'm saying? Consider it my challenge to the fascist Rove-ites. While the fascist Rove-ites amuse themselves with the facts they want to see, they're ignoring my posted comments Posted by: Scott Laughrey | May 29, 2006 10:44 AM hmmmmmm, i found this on another site. looks familiar huh? Re: Who are these 'honest critics'? (Score: 1) by Scott_Laughrey on Thursday, January 12 @ 08:52:49 EST (User Info) When you ignore my premises you won't get responses. Should you ever want to specifically challenge my points this would be an interesting conversation. There's a lot more going on in the 9/11 cover-up than meets the eye. People who buy every word that the corporate-controlled media says should go buy George Orwell's 1984 and practice up; it won't be long before the hopelessly indoctrinated manage to get the clocks to thirteen here. - Scott Laughrey Posted by: change your name maybe? | May 29, 2006 10:44 AM This Scott Laughrey character is amazing! I started doing some good ol' google digging and I've uncovered some Truth about this situation. There are two entities: Scott Loughrey, who is a real critic of the Bush administration / neocons, and who is hot on the trail of a lot of explosive stuff! see The Disinformation of Richard Clarke by Scott Loughrey Amy Goodman, Left Gatekeeper; by Scott Loughrey The Mysteries of 9/11 (I believe the spelling in the webpage title is a typo. Should be with an o) Then there is Scott Laughrey (with an a - get it) who is not necessarily one person, but perhaps a group of people/agency/bot who I am starting to believe actually is part of the 9-11 conspiracy / neocon conspiracy / disinformation campaign that is desperately trying to discredit the real Scott Loughrey and throw the public off of the trail that reveals their guilt. My advice to all Good and True citzens who are trying to investigate the Truth: do some more digging related to Scott Loughrey / Laughrey. There is some treasure under those rocks... Here's an key webpage to this mystery: News Junkie Scott's Blog on Baltimore Indymedia aka 911 Hoax. Follow the links. It's hard to tell what's going on here. Perhaps someone else can help figure it out. But this is for sure, here is one gem from the guilty party: "This has been a test of the Emergency Loopy-Leftist Broadcast System. Had this been an actual loopy-leftist alert, you would have been invited to Scott's mother's basement to sing along with Scott and Alice on the first few bars from "Cumberland Blues" off of the Workingman's Dead LP. This concludes this test of the Emergency Loopy-Leftist Broadcast System. " source - the bottom of this page from 8/10/05 of the mystery blog Posted by: still caught | May 29, 2006 10:36 AM so Scott, Namron, which one of you gets paid more? Posted by: ? | May 29, 2006 10:32 AM just a tip buddy, if you want people to believe that you ae a 9/11 activist and not a dis-info agent, you might wanna drop the corny phrase "really cool progressives". i dont know what your trying to prove with that bullsh*t. Posted by: . | May 29, 2006 10:31 AM Scott, you are a disinfo agent. you spout all this bull about holograms and "really cool progressives" like a moron. we see right through you. 9/11 was an inside job. but not becuase of "holograms" and bullsh*t like you want to spew. Posted by: still caught | May 29, 2006 10:29 AM CAUGHT -- I'm here to encourage people not to fall for your faulty logic. After I post this you better hurry up and post again. It is dangerous to you to leave your views for others to scrutinize. It is impossible to lose an argument when you're free to imagine false things about what your opponent is saying. Should you ever have the guts to specifically challenge my points this would be an interesting conversation. Until that magical day arrives, you will remain a sheeple, Rove-ite, parasitic ninny. Posted by: Scott Laughrey | May 29, 2006 10:23 AM really cool progressives? and you expect people to fall for that? disinfo is usually not that easy to spot. you make it too easy man. Posted by: HAHA | May 29, 2006 10:19 AM stop stealing my name. im trying to cover the governments ass here. its not easy to shill for the corporate media/government like this. the official story of 9/11 has ZERO problems with it.please stop stealing my name.i work hard for my money..... Posted by: Namron | May 29, 2006 10:18 AM To the obviously FAKE post using my name at 10:09 a.m.: You are obviously a plant by Homeland Security as part of a COINTELPRO black bag psy-ops operation. Hundreds of really cool progressives like me and Noam Chomsky are all on to the tricks played by Bush and company and most certainly can repeat the progressive mantra of Bush Lies and People Dies. The corporate controlled media won't give us the serious recognition we deserve, so we are flocking to Internet chat boards to hear our collective voices talk about really cool things like how Bush's war for oil in Iraq is illegal and other really cool things like how A.N.S.W.E.R. and MoveOn.org are pretty transparent fronts for the communist/socialist movement in the U.S. It is impossible to lose an argument when you're free to imagine false things about what your opponent is saying. Should you ever want to specifically address the facts I have presented, I might consider this a dialogue. If not, it is incorrect to assume I will have a debate with a Halliburton propaganda envoy. Peace. - Scott Laughrey Posted by: Scott Laughrey | May 29, 2006 10:17 AM I see that "Conspiracy Smasher" finally used his "real" pseudonym in the comments of the Post article. Then there's Namron, who ever since he showed up there have been several other distractors (all probably him) posting as well, such as Mary C. Scott, Rev. C. Solomon, Archimedes, Scott Laughrey, and a few others I probably missed. For example, one post of disinfo: Bush based his illegal war for oil in Iraq in part on the official propaganda of 9/11. I am surprised you could not see that, unless the corporate controlled media already indoctrinates you. The really cool progressives do not accept the corporate controlled media propaganda of 19 hijackers and jet airplanes. There are many really cool progressive Web sites that show it was squib charges and holograms used on 9/11. The Web Fairy and me question authority and use Internet chat boards to show others that the 72 dpi images we use certainly disprove the months of detailed study by engineers from the National Science Foundation. As long as we keep up with our really cool postings to let the world know the truth, I would have to assume that we will in fact stop the illegal war in Iraq, have Rummy and Bush and Cheney arrested as war criminals, force Halliburton to give all of their illegal war profits to the Free Mumia Abu-Jamal fund, and overturn the marijuana laws in the U.S. He makes it seem like he is a 9/11 researcher ("Truther", etc.), but his "many really cool progressive Web sites that show it was squib charges and holograms used on 9/11" statements make it clear to anyone who really pays attention that his post is satire. Then just go look at some of his other posts that don't give it away, to see that he's succeeding at his job of PAID Distraction, Deception, and Disinformation. These people will show up any time there is a comments section on a major article, because they know that's where more real truth comes out than the actual articles. They like to try to take away our power of influence on the internet by muddying the waters. I don't know how to deal with them when you can't moderate the comments. benthere | Homepage | 05.28.06 - 4:24 am | # Posted by: caught | May 29, 2006 10:16 AM I do love it when others parody me... Just shows that fact cannot be attacked with anything other than ignorant rantings of ignorant cynics... Still waiting for someone to take me up on my challenge - name me one fact concerning he 9/11 attacks that has not been explained through fact, logic, or reason. Posted by: Namron | May 29, 2006 10:16 AM my government/corporate media would never hide anything from me. ignorance is bliss baby, and im blissful as hell. Posted by: Namron | May 29, 2006 10:10 AM am i clever? does anyone think im funny yet? why is nobody paying attention to me? am i funny yet? Posted by: Scott Laughrey | May 29, 2006 10:09 AM I am happy to see other members of the angry, bitter left chime in with us really cool progressives and let the truth be told that Bush Lies and People Dies and that Karl Rove is the puppeteer while smirking Bush is the puppet. If not for Internet chat boards, the really cool progressives might not have a voice to compete with the jingoistic flag-waving of the corporate controlled media. The corporate controlled media and its propaganda do not bind us. The corporate controlled media, after all, are the ones who gave us the propaganda on 9/11 that it was 19 hijackers and jet airplanes. The really cool progressives like me and the Web Fairy question authority and have intellectual discussion on the fact that it was squib charges and holograms used on 9/11. Why has Indy Media not allowed the truth to be told about 9/11? Are they part of the conspiracy? You can look at the Web Fairy's really cool progressive Web site and see for a fact it was squib charges that were used to destroy the WTC. I have the most censored blog on the Internet. Indy Media censors my really cool 9-11 blog. I am banned on the Baltimore Sun board under my one name so I have many others I use there. And now I am sure that Homeland Security will soon mount a black bag psy-ops COINTELRO operation against me and the other really cool progressives. There's a lot more going on in the 9/11 cover-up than meets the eye. People who buy every word that the corporate-controlled media says should go buy George Orwell's 1984 and practice up; it won't be long before the hopelessly indoctrinated manage to get the clocks to thirteen here. Peace. - Scott Laughrey Posted by: Scott Laughrey | May 29, 2006 09:25 AM If you want some real truth about 9/11 and who's responsible, check out this podcast: We don't cover disinformation like the crap Arkin spouts here. Only hard evidence. And the hard evidence alone, if you can get past your government paycheck ARKIN, is absolutely DAMNING. If you don't have an iPod, don't worry -- it's just an MP3 file you can play in iTunes or Windows Media Player. We have a lot to do, folks. Posted by: Wake UP! | May 29, 2006 09:05 AM what is meant by controlled airspace? what's the difference between terminal and enroute? do you need a clearance to work for the FAA, and under what circumstances... how do they get weather information? I would like you to understand something, you don't serve this administration, you serve your country, and I suggest that you start acting like it and quit pandering... and why didn't the Attorney General take an oath when he testified before congress about the NSA wiretapping? he wanted to be able to lie with out commiting perjury.... and why didn't the oil executives that testified before congress not get sworn in? they wanted to be able to lie without commiting perjury? and how much did the retiring CEO of Exxon get as a _bonus_ $380 MILLION DOLLARS? lieing, sabotaging, gutless wonders in the agencies letting our country be sold to the highest bidder... Posted by: ps. | May 28, 2006 10:09 PM is it possible that it was planned? has anything like it ever been done before? how many men were killed at pearl harbor? how many people died by handguns last year? how many people had their lives ruined by outsourcing or factories moving overseas? did bush send the National Guard overseas, when he in fact joined that organization to avoid war time duty in combat? why was the National Guard formed? what would be gained by sending the National Guard overseas if there had been a coup by the people in power, that was not representative of the voting population? have there ever, in recent history, been so many accusations of voter fraud or so much evidence of them? Posted by: let me ask you this... | May 28, 2006 10:02 PM the issue to me is what was and does PNAC exist and are we doing pretty much what it suggests? I would imagine that the government could pretty much prove what they wanted to if they tried hard enough and so much why did Saddam attack Kuwiat? wanta go head to head? Posted by: oh, that's sweet... | May 28, 2006 09:57 PM what are they init for? apparently, they let the cloven hoofed one do what he wants to with _your_ money. perhaps they should ask why Tom Delay was allowed to keep his seat after having violated his oath of office and Why Pelosi and Hastert said nothing about that? seperation of church and state, attempting to control the Judiciary system through control of the funding process/congress... I didn't hear that mentioned. and where else do you get the leader of a country, is this paraguay, nicaragua, or El Salbador'? stepping in and excusing his cronies from acquiring money illegally and literally it aint friggin America, I feel like it's 1948 in a small hot town in Louisiana and boss hawg is calling down the numbers to his boys inthe congresssssssss and theya doin what he say... where else do you have a president intervening to make sure an old friend doesn't get arrested for a crime he did? why, HE DOESN'T WANT THE SAME THING HAPPENING TO HIM......... you watch my back, I got yours, we'll work together to loot America... doesn't matter that Jefferson didn't pay taxes on it? Or that there was a videotape of it? Or that that is "business as usual" around the Bush Whitehouse... you can almost hear the STINK coming off the place the howl of the Attorney generalisimo asking for all the little pedros to be given the jobs of your out-of-work tradespeople and factory workers....blue collar used to make up 56% of the MIDDLE CLASS think working retail is middle class? maybe if you have three jobs... Posted by: and the beat keeps on....laaa dee daaaa dee doh! | May 28, 2006 09:50 PM "I used to work for the FAA".... I doubt it. A single engine airplane crashed into the Whitehouse during Clinton's first term... Planes violating DC airspace has not been an unusual occurance for decades... When I used to live in DC they would always mention two or three a year in the local nightly news... As for those who have yet to take me up on my challenge of submitting just one issue which has not been logically and reasonably addressed regarding 9/11.... I do notice that you are quite adept at childish rantings.... Well... I suppose you have to be good at something.... Posted by: Namron | May 28, 2006 09:50 PM there's no friggin way that those planes got into our airspace and out of control... especially in friggin Washington DC, which is the epicenter of multiple systems of control.... the plane that supposedly, fell on the Pentagon would have been shot down almost immediately.... just fly your single engine out of flight path and see what happens... I'm sure that they have surface to air missles that would take you out.... 12 MILLION ILLEGAl ALIENS in FIVE YEARS.... any one of whom could have been a terrorist... we are not, and have never been protected from a terrorist assault.... more people than that were killed with handguns last year... are we declaring a war against handgun manufacturers? no we passed laws exempting them from punitive actions via lawsuit.... it's all about the money. and you're not getting any of it, you're not part of the tribe and your citizenship rights are being stripped from you on a daily basis as well as your jobs being given to foreign people, outsourcing, illegal immigration, internationalization of American companies with _no American employees_ but they can sell _as_if_they_were_American_ you'll all be working for Wal_Mart before the Next 20 Years pass... good luck and good night. Posted by: I used to work for the FAA.... | May 28, 2006 09:31 PM I can see you've no nuts in your bag... or "cojones," as the spainish speaking, your mother say... you're too busy sucking on a long pink one from the JCS office....off your knees pink boy.... you're ruining it for the rest of us... Posted by: speaking of nutbags...Narmrod... | May 28, 2006 09:21 PM to understand why we're in Iraq... it has to do with the fact that is has the 2nd (second) largest oil reserves in the world... that is a lot of money. when you combine it with the United Arab Emirates, Kuwiat, and Saudi Arabia... all of those groups have been US allies since the end of WWII, when they were given the rights to profit from those oil rights by the British and United States... Iran was a democracy until the CIA toppled it and got the Shah of Iran back in power...we ended a democracy when it was to our advantage... Negroponte is a Bush Sr. man, been with him for many years....they boy, George W. Bush isn't that smart...but he does what daddy sayz... Project for a New American Century, was formed in 1997....it calls for pre emptive strikes in order to control the world and resources... Dick Cheyney, Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Scooter Libby, Paul Wolfowitz (the Architect of the PNAC ideology) and about 14 other important purported Americans have signed the Statement of Principles... basically it lays out a strategy of intervention in those states that it considers dangerous... about three years before George W. Bush was elected it lays out a plan for preemptive strikes against other world powers.... there is no 9/11 CONSPIRACY, there is a 9/11 plan....and it's online, check it out... and while you're at it google... and see how close they are to we created a false flag attack using our allies, who we trained on US soil....with CIA involvement.... 17 people from other countries flying those planes...supposedly...we have no proof but we do know that the people supposed to be on board if they weren't flying remotely were with the exception of two one Lebanese one Egyptian.. were of Saudi Arabian and United Arab Emirates.... our CIA funded Al Queerda, before they became right and my name is rumplestiltskin.... they haven't become renegades, they still cut a tape for us everytime the president the dickless wonder of the western world when it comes to putting his a-ss on the line...needs a tape Posted by: it doesn't take a genius.. | May 28, 2006 09:16 PM I'm honored to see that my posts of fact are sufficiently threatening to nutbags that they seem forced to fake my posts... for what it's worth - I do work hard fopr my money... but my job has nothing to do with my posts.... Off to feed my Saskwatch with Jimmy Hoffa.... Posted by: Namron | May 28, 2006 07:09 PM i work hard for my money....... Posted by: Namron | May 28, 2006 03:32 PM Posted by: Namron | May 28, 2006 03:17 PM Some people hear galloping and automatically think of a herd of Zebras instead of a herd of horses.... If you want to hear from professionally qualified engineers and even the very head structural engineer who designed the WTC, Leslie E. Robertson (do the conspiracy theorists actually think he would help destroy his own building?), this documentary video does a good job of providing a workable theory about how the WTC towers fell. See 9/11 - The Fall of the World Trade Center. Unfortunately you can only view this video through Real Player. You can also read the transcript here. I'm off to lunch now... Can't keep Amelia Earhart waiting - she has such a temper.... Posted by: Namron.... | May 28, 2006 03:13 PM "Though 9/11truth.org and the blogosphere continues to rail against the mainstream media for ignoring their issue and their cause, the only gratifying element of the story is the restraint so far shown by the media in ignoring the thinly masked craziness and the Internet hype" "...the only gratifying element of the story is the restraint so far shown by the media in ignoring the thinly masked craziness and the Internet hype" It pleases you that certain stories are not covered? You are an admirable journalist. Posted by: nada | May 28, 2006 03:04 PM Posted by: Jon Gold | May 28, 2006 03:04 PM Posted by: Jon Gold | May 28, 2006 03:03 PM Posted by: Jon Gold | May 28, 2006 03:02 PM Nothing has changed, bin Laden ahs remained consistant with his greivances, he still mentions Israel ( what it has done to Palestine) "... the Mujahideen saw the black gang of thugs in the White House hiding the Truth, and their stupid and foolish leader, who is elected and supported by his people, denying reality and proclaiming that we (the Mujahideen) were striking them because we were jealous of them (the Americans), whereas the reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries." -Osama Bin Laden , February 14 , 2003 Mainstream media has left you in the dark. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGAoRrBoPRM http://representativepress.blogspot.com/ Posted by: Tom Murphy | May 28, 2006 02:09 PM And look what happens William when you take part in REAL journalism. 1. Hijacked truth? Read 1400 times. While the 9/11 Commission Report inquiry has its share of critics, Jonathan Gold's misgivings about the official findings go far beyond skepticism. In fact, the 33-year-old Plymouth Meeting resident is convinced the report is covering up Bush adm Posted by: Jon Gold | May 28, 2006 01:25 PM Posted by: Jon Gold | May 28, 2006 11:11 AM Arkin, shameful article. Attacking the straw man all the way. Wanna confront some of the real issues? Here are a few: Molten metal streaming out of WTC2 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11 Molten metal in the rubble Mayor Giuliani warned about collapse Posted by: Ace Baker | May 28, 2006 10:49 AM Seems to me this guy wrote this article to show the world that most people believe the story the white house is putting out. LOL Maybe now He'll start calling for a full investigation into the events leading up to, on, and after 9/11. This is the only way we'll get the full story. Posted by: sam | May 28, 2006 10:43 AM Has there ever been a larger group of conspiracy morons in one place than on this forum? How many Jew-hating, flying saucer believing, moon-landing rejecting, Bigfoot researchers do we have here anyway? Watch their idiotic "theories" get debunked on an hourly basis at the Conspiracy Smasher: Posted by: Terrence | May 28, 2006 10:25 AM The real Bin Laden never made any statement without mentioning Israel. Now how strange this all changed beginning with his alleged "confession" video, which was "authenticated" by footage of a downed US helicopter on the tape (hmm...who might have videotaped this) and the Nov 2004 "election speech". His election speech had no real message whatsoever, endorsing neither Bush nor Kerry - what a loonie he seemed to be in this video, while back in 1998 Osama still urged voting for a "patriotic government" in the U.S. The all-new Bin Laden running defense for Moussaoui is just a cheap excuse to spread the *other* message of this tape, that he personally ordered 19 hijackers on the alleged mission, in short, that the official version is TRUE. I wonder what Bin Laden can tell us about World Trade Center No.7 ? Did HE plant the explosives, or who else? Did HE order the teams of engineers into the Twin towers a week before their mysterious collapse "from fire" or who else? Posted by: Greg | May 28, 2006 09:34 AM We don't have much of a choice but to believe Bin Laden is still alive. His latest audiotape denies Moussaoui's involvement in 9-11. There were also plenty of visual sightings of Bin Laden, nicknamed the Sheikh, as he left Tora Borah. As for the planes flying around for over an hour I'm not surprised they flew for so long. There weren't prior to 9-11 many units on strip alert. Having fighter units on both coasts and along the borders sitting alert went away when the Wall went down. Ask yourself why the government is so concerned about being held legally responsible for 9-11? I can't help but wonder there are documents and people that show it was negligent in preventing this attack. A bigger question is was its negligence on purpose? This administration had already made up its mind prior to 9-11 to invade Iraq; unfortunately it would have been impossible to sell that idea to the American people. 9-11 was a windfall but Afghanistan went to smoothly and Bin Laden was surrounded too quickly. It appeared the war would be over before it started and the administration's real apple, Iraq, appeared out of reach. They allowed Bin Laden to escape and kept telling everyone there was a link between Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Then they talked about the WMDs and how Hussein could easily give them to Al Qaeda to use on us. Their most effective weapon was to question the patriotism of their critics. Be a doubting Thomas and be painted as unAmerican. Liberals and conservatives grudgingly ceded more power to the president because to not do so would have been political suicide. The only senator with stone balls, Senator Byrd, is made out to be a member of the lunatic fringe, a former member of the Klan, when he was a young man. What angers me about the administration is that Afghanistan could have been a success story, but it's not because we diverted resources from it to Iraq. Iraq wasn' a necessary war, but one of convenience. Hussein was contained. I can't help but look at the loss of American life fighting in both countries, sacrificed under the guise of securing our freedom, and you can see signs we're headed out the door, leaving NATO to hold the bag in Afghanistan (they'll exit a year after us) and letting the Shiites and Sunnis duke it out in Iraq. At the end of the day we'll have more instability and a failed nation state sitting on the world's second largest supply of oil, its immediate neighbor sitting on the world's largest. These guys in Washington have made a real mess. Americans are pragmatic; they are results oriented and we've seen zero results for dollars and lives spent in the 4 and a half years since 9-11. If anything we are increasing the ranks of radical Islam. Olmert from Israel comes over and gives a speech endorsed by President Bush. He talks about being forced to create new borders. What no one in the media focuses on is his reference to Samarra and Judea which are on the Eastern sides of the West Bank. They too will become part of Israel meaning less land for a future Palestine. Why is it so difficult for any American president to tell Israel it must withdraw to its pre 67 borders? Why is it so difficult for any American president to tell the Palestinians that they aren't going back but they can have a state? Why is it so difficult for any American president to level with the Palestinians and Arab world, tell them life is all about compromise, they can have a nation, but if they continue to war against Israel they are fair game for annihalation? I expect bold ideas from Washington, but all we get are old ideas that keep being recycled. There has to be a better way of governing than the two party system we currently have that is completely beholden to special interest groups, be they multinational conglomerates, agri business, Indian tribes, Israel first organizations, or the anti Castro harpies. Posted by: Robert | May 28, 2006 08:07 AM All of us really cool progressives who post here know that Bush Lies and People Dies. The only reason that Bush's illegal war for oil is able to continue is by the jingoistic flag waving of the corporate controlled media. The really cool progressives use the Internet to question authority and have intellectual discussion of topics that the corporate controlled media won't cover. I am somewhat of an expert on 9/11. I know from looking at some really cool progressive Web sites that it wasn't the propaganda that the corporate controlled media would have you believe of 19 hijackers and jet airplanes. I know of some really cool progressive sites that show how it was squib charges and holograms that destroyed the WTC. I can look at a 72 dpi image posted on a really cool progressive Web site and tell you exactly how steel is affected by burning jet fuel and the physics of an impact of 500-plus mph by a large object. That is what the Internet can do for us really cool progressives. I post over at the Baltimore Sun too. Come and try and debate me there and I will win every time with my knowledge on this subject. Ask for Scott (or Kenect2 or My Two Cents or MithrilKnight, or Frodo or a slew of other names I use there). There's a lot more going on in the 9/11 cover-up than meets the eye. People who buy every word that the corporate-controlled media says should go buy George Orwell's 1984 and practice up; it won't be long before the hopelessly indoctrinated manage to get the clocks to thirteen here. Peace. -- Scott Laughrey Posted by: Scott Laughrey | May 28, 2006 06:20 AM "The fact Bin Laden is alive and well makes one suspicious of the government's motives. Did they allow him to escape because the 'war' would have ended too soon?" I wouldn't regard it as a fact that bin Laden is alive. First (as you seem to indicate), it would have been easy for the U.S. military and intelligence agencies to capture him -- especially in 4,5 years' time. At the very least one can say with relative certainty that he is allowed to remain alive. However, what makes me believe he died or was killed years ago is this: He denied involvement in the attacks right after them. It was only in the obviously fake video allegedly found in Afghanistan in December 2001 that bin Laden seemed to confess being behind the attacks. I don't think anyone could seriously claim that the person on that tape is bin Laden. (Additionally, European scholars pointed out several problems in the White House translation of what the guy said.) And what about the recurring "audio appearances" of bin Laden (seemingly appearing when attention needs to be taken away from something else)? If the guy were really alive, why would he be sending out poor-quality recordings (with an FBI guy saying every time that there is "no reason" to doubt the authenticity)? Why wouldn't he have someone record a good-quality video of himself? Don't the terrorists have access to decent video equipment? Give me a break. All this makes me quite convinced that the real bin Laden died long ago (again, quite a common view here in Finland). Perhaps he needed to be killed, because of his denial of involvement in the attacks. Or perhaps he died of natural causes; he was already in a pretty bad condition as a result of his kidney disease in 2001. "Is there something out there that will connect the dots, show the government wasn't just benignly negligent in its duties, but malicious, inviting the attack it could have prevented because all along it needed a pretext for invading Iraq?" I used to think along those lines until I saw WTC 7 "collapsing" and learned that hijacked planes flew in U.S. airspace for 1 hour 50 minutes without being intercepted. For example, the plane that is said to have hit the Pentagon flew for 40 minutes toward it from Ohio border without being interrupted. Posted by: Vesa | May 28, 2006 05:23 AM This article does not adress one issue raised by the Scholars for 9-11 truth. NOT ONE. What about ther brace of (mostly conservative) scientists who have gone on record as saying the official story is IMPOSSIBLE? What about the brace of insiders that have come forward to say, "yeah, these guys had the motive, the means, and they're just that crazy", and we're talking CIA veterans and ex-air force here. Are they all left-wing pinko beatnik moonbats? Face it guys, no-one's buying anymore except the chimps, the orangutans, and the complicit. Posted by: Trout | May 28, 2006 12:14 AM I was watching CNN somewhere in Asia at the time of the controlled demolition of the twin towers. I am not a demolition expert, but the whole thing looked unusual, nay surreal! Buildings might burn but they just don't explode, pulverize, or collapse by themselves when they are made of steel and concrete- that's why they build them that way. Regrettably, I have shot a few watermelons in my youth (my best friend and I supervised by his father once wasted a few innocent otherwise delicious watermelons out of hubris). Sure enough watermelons explode when hit by a fast-moving object like a bullet. But surely the twin towers couldn't have been made of watermelons. Could they? After the first tower exploded, I did a quick calculation to visualize the amount of fuel that might have been spread over the floor(s) of the building. I rushed to the Internet and calculated the base area of the building from the information available; then I tried to estimate the amount of fuel that the strange plane might have been carrying before impact. I say the strange plane, because of the way it made a cork-screw motion a fraction of a second before it hit the building- it looked like a toy operated by remote-control. Incredibly, my original estimate was subsequently proven to be well within the acceptable margin of error. Having recently recalculated the initial figures, based on widely available estimates of the "Plane's" fuel load, and assuming (big assumption) no explosion had actually occurred outside the tower walls, I found that if the entire fuel load of the plane was spread evenly on one floor of the 110-story building it would make a shallow pool of fuel only 0.9 cm deep - less than the thickness of the average fiction book. How could a building explode in such a spectacular way? Watermelon! However, this wasn't as incredible as the discovery I made 5 years later. Next there was the war in Afghanistan, and then the Iraqi invasion. And both wars used 9/11 as a pretext. The gruesome news and pictures of the atrocities committed by our brave troops in Iraq compelled me to take a moral stance against the ongoing carnage. Either, you're a human being, or you are not. Human beings don't rape, torture, murder or commit genocide - nor allow others to commit such henious acts. Finally, in 2006 I made what was the most amazing discovery of all times: the suicide of building no 7 at the WTC. Thanks (!) to the news media like the Washington Post, I, the average politically literate Joe, hadn't discovered for nearly 5 years that a third building had collapsed in WTC on 9/11 for no apparent reason. Yes, I only found out about the poor building, No. 7 WTC, only after the real possibility of a new global war had spawned renewed concerns in me compelling me to find more information about 9/11. Boy not only they make 110-story buildings out of water melons in NY, but they make them so emotionally unstable they actually commit suicide! Posted by: A.N. Onymous | May 28, 2006 12:08 AM I hope that the American people are smart enough to change their media and demand new action on these crimes. We need to change everything to save this democracy. Posted by: Tahoma Activist | May 27, 2006 11:57 PM You don't have to believe in a Bush conspiracy to doubt the value of the 9/11 Commission's report. Its draft chapter on the FBI released online before the final document was an uninterrupted set of vaguenesses so extraordinary that I formed the opinion that its most reliable part was the list of the Commission employees who had researched and written it. I trusted them to get their own names right. Posted by: Lunino | May 27, 2006 11:14 PM " ... The Bin Laden family-George H.W. Bush one comes to mind here as it is often left out that Osama has been disowned by his father and that H.W. Bush isn't even President anymore." Mr. Bin Laden's father passed away a long time ago. The 'disowning' that you refer to is said to involve some of Mr. Bin Laden's family members, who are very much alive. The Bush family/associates and the ruling members of the House of Saud/associates are - 'friends.' IMHO, you should keep this in mind, at least until power within the House of Saud firmly changes hands (or is wrestled into/from the hands of one of the two different factions of the dynasty.) Why? Because IF AQ gets too close to the royal family under POTUS, the US/US troops will very likely work to defend/preserve the current dynasty in some way. 'Friendships' - like family ties, run deep. Posted by: redcat | May 27, 2006 11:00 PM You are lying and part of the pro-Bush cabal destorying this country. The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are over oil. There is no terrorist threat to the United States. Zarqawi and Bin Laden are creations of the Bush regime. Who cares if the undemocratic puppet governments in Iraq and Afghanistan succed? Most people in both countries support the resistance to the occupation anyway. Posted by: James Jerome | May 27, 2006 09:18 PM President Jefferson Davis cites, in his biography, "President Jefferson Davis in Prison",by Craven, his prediction that the country will eventually fall, due to the workforce. (Now, my father worked for General McArthur and I have proof of what he did). My father trained me on the civil war. President Davis stated that he tried to come to an agreement to get compensation for the slaves, (so they could get a salary and be fed, no matter how meager). Instead, President Lincoln deliberately set the slaves free, knowing that both them and the confederate soldiers would starve to death. President Lincoln's timing was on purpose. President Lincoln set the slaves free in the middle of a war. President Lincoln was a rascist. He once stated in a debate that if it were his way, he would have all the black people sent back to Africa. Now, the slaves fed the confederate soldiers. Now, President Davis stated that there was going to be major, major problem in the workforce, because you will now be mixing Irish people with people of different nationalites. President Jefferson Davis stated that the workforce would be a disaster. Different nationalities have different viewpoints on pay and work - and now the greed and the materialism (that Davis predicted) is going to destroy the United States of America. Finally, in Craven's book, Jefferson Davis was for President Lincoln as the least of all evils. President Jefferson Davis saw the new vice president (I believe the vice president may have killed Lincoln) as the ASSASSINATOR of the United States of America. Posted by: President Jefferson Davis | May 27, 2006 09:13 PM Has anyone ever heard someone say that they could have invaded Iraq without 9/11? I remember talking to Keith Phucas about that, and he made the argument that they were bad people during the 90's, etc... and that would have been a good enough reason to invade. However, what reasons did they use to sell the Iraq War? Weapons of Mass Destruction. Ties to Al-Qaeda. Ties to 9/11. If they had a good enough reason other than those things, than why didn't they use it? Why did they depend on fabrications and the tragedy of 9/11? Because that's what it was designed for. Posted by: They Could Have Invaded Iraq Without 9/11 | May 27, 2006 08:53 PM There's nothing mysterious about the collapse of THREE towers that day. They just simply collapsed. Just ignore the huge number of witnesses that saw/heard/felt explosions that day: "The captain of emergency medical services said "somewhere around the middle of the world trade center there was this orange and red flash coming out ... initially it was just one flash then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode ... and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides ... as far as could see these popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger going both up and down and then all around the building" (page 15 -- pdf file; Google's web version is here)" "Similiarly, the Assistant Fire Commissioner stated "I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they . . . blow up a building. . . ?" . In the same statement, the Assistant Commissioner recounts how a lieutenant firefighter he spoke with independently verified the flashes." Find it all here: http://sfgate.com/gate/pictures/2005/09/10/ga_karin_deshore.pdf http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Gregory_Stephen.txt Posted by: somebigguy | May 27, 2006 08:49 PM A thing can qualify as a "myth" even when the underlying facts are true; it is enough that the thing achieve an almost religious iconic status. 9/11 has done that. As bad as it was, just like after Pearl Harbor, or the Oklahoma Federal Building bombing, we still need our Constitution, we still need three brances of government (in balance), we still need to work together with the rest of the world, and we should not torture (we didn't in WWII and the stakes were actually higher). The trouble with the "myth" status is that SOME people think that 9/11 trumps all these other values, and it shouldn't, it doesn't. Posted by: John Norman | May 27, 2006 08:37 PM To say that something is a "myth" does not mean it is untrue. It is enough that the thing turns into an almost religious icon, as 9/11 has. As terrible as it was, just like after Pearl Harbor or the Oklahoma Federal Building bombing we need to be strong without defining ourselves and history by this one moment. We need our Constitution, for example, to continue, and we shouldn't go off attacking countries on flimsy excuses, we still need three branches of government, we shouldn't torture people (we didn't in WWII and the stakes were even higher). This is the myth status that 9/11 has achieved -- that some people want it to trump everything else, and that shouldn't be the case. Posted by: | May 27, 2006 08:26 PM While I do not believe that 9-11 was orchistrated by the FBI or the government I know without a doubt that this administration is using the active-denial non-lethal weapons technology under the disguise of surveillance. Anyone that wants the proof has only to listen to the many people that have been placed under this technology. You seem to have forgotten the Contell or MK Ultra programs. It is because of people like yourself that the victims of these unscrupulous agencies are able to violate people's constitutional rights. Maybe you shopuld sit in on the whistleblowers senate hearing regarding the black ops programs before you make such a broad statement and assume that only the people that act like there is nothing on are in the know. Before I would make such a statement as you have I think I would verify and break out of my shell and be more open minded. Your statements do not reflect an open mind. I may not agree with everything thta is printed regarding 9-11 but I do believe that the surveillance that is being done is illegal and that the citizens of this great country have fallen victim to testing without their consent. Should you doubt this ther are places that you can go to get information. www.directenergyharassment.blogspot.com Posted by: midnightlady | May 27, 2006 07:34 PM There are a few nut jobs out there, but I completely understand why people are skeptical about 9-11. I blame the Bush administration for causing that skepticism. Why wouldn't people be skeptical is a better question or why aren't there more skeptics are even better questions to address? People are disillusioned with the war on terror because it's been fought so poorly. I'll give you examples. The first that comes to mind is a speech President Bush gave at West Point. Four and a half years after 9-11, he can't specify who the enemy is in a public forum, radical Islam. He instead talks about a war on terror. Which war is that and exactly who is the enemy, because it's not ETA, IRA, Hezbollah, Hamas? Second reason for disillusionment and distrust. If Bin Laden is Public Enemy #1 and he is very much the face at the forefront of radical Islam why did we let him escape and why haven't we pressured Pakistan to either cough him up or do a gut check and go and get him? The fact Bin Laden is alive and well makes one suspicious of the government's motives. Did they allow him to escape because the 'war' would have ended too soon? With Bin Laden in custody or his head on a pole do you think the American public would have supported the invasion of Iraq? With regards to Iraq, most Americans see it for what it is, a waste of resources on the wrong target. Hussein was a tyrant but remember he was our tyrant. As to the enemy only an illiterate would conclude Al Qaeda is behind the insurgency in Iraq. Our enemy in Iraq isn't radical Islam but Baathists. What's completely hysterical is fundamentalist Muslims might end up taking over. The theocracy we feared we will end up making reality. Getting back to the failure to capture Bin Laden and faulty intelligence, don't you think both missteps should have led to a few firings? The president instead rewards George Tenet. Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice keep their jobs. Colin Powell we now know lied about the mobile bio labs. As to 9-11, why wouldn't Americans wonder if the administration knew? Has anyone adequately provided answers as to the Israeli moving men cheering as the towers went down or the Pakistani youth's classroom outburst when he pointed to the towers and said they will be gone next week? It's not just those two examples but this one that makes me wonder what the government isn't telling us? Why did we taxpayers pay on average over a million dollars to the families of those killed in 9-11? If you read the Senate bill regarding immigration there's a provision in it that extends those reparations to the families of undocumented workers killed in 9/11? What the f--- over? Nearly two hundred people died when the Murrah building was destroyed and their families didn't get squat. What Timothy McVeigh did was terrorism, but 19 people murder nearly 3,000 Americans and we give each of their families over a million dollars. There are strings attached to the money and that is they can't bring future action against the U.S. government for negligence. If 9-11 was an out of nowhere sucker punch, seen by the insurance industry along the lines of act of God, war, natural disaster, the government's response should have been the same, condolences for the family, and the same level of help given to families who lose loved ones every day via the survivor programs under Social Security. Ask yourself this, why are we treating those killed as a result of 9-11 in a class all their own? The lives of servicemen killed in Iraq or Afghanistan are only worth 250,000 dollars and that is through a payroll funded insurance program. I don't for a second believe we went out and recruited 19 men to kill 3000 Americans, but I am skeptical about how this administration used 9-11 to push its own agenda forward and I am disillusioned that we've had so little success in combating radical Islam. Success should be measured in fewer 'suiciders' as Bush calls them, not more. If the administration is being honest with us, why don't they call this a war against radical Islam and restrict our enemy only to those who are pursuing radical Islam? Why do we include groups like Hezbollah or Hamas which one might not like, but one can at least argue are groups solely advocating the destruction of Israel? Why did the administration allow Bin Laden to escape? Why didn't the president punish George Tenet? Most compelling of all, why is the government so intent on preventing the families of 9-11 from suing it? Is there something out there that will connect the dots, show the government wasn't just benignly negligent in its duties, but malicious, inviting the attack it could have prevented because all along it needed a pretext for invading Iraq? Posted by: Robert | May 27, 2006 06:53 PM Hahaha Could you possibly be the son of Mary Scott of Texas? Posted by: Ken M | May 27, 2006 06:51 PM Thank you for asking, where's the Reverend? I had to go off and help some people who wanted to be helped! I will repeat my own theory regarding what begun on 911, and why with all of America's technology, radar, advanced weapons systems and its technologically advanced military, that the fleas were so successful on 911. This will be the 3rd time. Read the book of Exodus, chapters 3 through 13. Contained in those scriptures you will find that God had enough of Pharaoh's arrogance, particularly the 400 year enslavement and oppression of God's people, for the people and the world (is the Lord's) belonged to,and belongs to God today, not Pharaoah or the USA. So God raised up Moses and Aaron, and sent them to tell Pharaoh to let his son go. Pharaoh refused, so God dispatched warnings to Pharaoh, to let my people go. Pharaoh mocked and asked, who is God that I should obey his voice? I hear the same question being asked on a regular basis by too many in America today. So in order to demonstrate to America, (I mean Pharaoh), just how weak his army and defenses really were, God dispatched armies, of fleas, lice, locusts and frogs, and the army and all of its technology wasn't of any value. God also caused atmospheric and oceanic anomalies to occur, followe by diseases that effected both humans and beast. But when when Pharaoh's heart could not be softened, God slew the Firstborn in Egypt. America has already experienced a lot of what Egypt experienced, when Egypt was a great intercontinental power. Can you recall, in addition to the 9-11 flies that hit us, all of the other anomalies and plagues that America has been hit with lately? Ah, I know that you folks don't believe in this kind of thing, and even worse like the people in the Bible you feel that people that say that they are prophets of God are a bunch of religous nuts. As a matter of fact, I read that Ezekiel, if he were hear today, would be considered a DSMIV, Paranoid Shiz. I would go into more detail, but I don't think you could grasp what I am saying. But as I am often want to do, I will remind you and other Americans that just as the Angel of the Lord also appeared and spoke directly with the Virgin Mary, he appeared and spoke on several occasions directly with Hagar about Abraham's other descendant, who he drove away, just as his other descendants often do today. However, there were promises made by God to her, that applied to her descendants, and I suspect that any nation, even today, that would attempt to alter God's promises might find themselves fighting against God! PS: In the end the fleas won out after all, and so did God's prophets - every time! Posted by: Rev. C. Solomon | May 27, 2006 06:16 PM "My own guess is that there was simply really shoddy construction [in WTC 7] due to union and mob corruption, but I haven't heard any 9/11 apologist offer any evidence about this." This would, then, be one more of the incredible coincidences of 9/11. WTC 7 just happened to be really badly built (although it housed the Mayor's Emergency Command Center), so it just suddenly dropped into its footprint without any structural resistance. Jason, do you understand what I mean by "structural resistance"? Let me explain, just in case. Unless the law of conservation of momentum is broken, every floor and all support structures of a building slow down a collapse. Even if we were to believe the official investigators' aguments that suggest that a "global" collapse is almost a universal consequence of even a single floor collapsing in a highrise, there is no way WTC 7 could have collapsed to the ground within a second of free fall time as a result of office fires and some asymmetric debris damage (which the surrounding highrises also suffered). Note that free fall means falling in a vacuum, i.e. without air resistance. When one takes air resistance into account, one can indeed say without real exaggeration that the 47-storey WTC 7 fell without any structural resistance. That is simply not possible except in a controlled demolition. Have you actually viewed these videos of WTC 7 collapsing? A word of clarification. I really do not *want* to believe any of the alternative conspiracy theories. But I just *cannot* believe the official conspiracy theory, because the holes in it are too many and too big. One of the holes is the assumption that skyscrapers behave like a house of cards. My common sense alone says they don't. And they never have -- outside 9/11. Posted by: Vesa | May 27, 2006 06:13 PM Posted by: Conspiracy Smasher | May 27, 2006 06:11 PM I think the question should be "Why should we believe anything that the Bush Crime Family is involved in" Never has one womb (Barbara's) created so much worldwide destruction. Did you know, Marvin is one of the principals for the security company that protected the World Trade Center complex the morning of 911? If you don't - why not - surely the Washington Post reported this? Posted by: bozo | May 27, 2006 05:59 PM Wow, the nut-bags really came out for this one! And by nut-bags of course I'm referring to the freaks who buy the 9/11 commission's cover-up. Your brain's can't comprehend the mind-numbing simplicity of Karl Rove. Or the brain-squashing evil of Dick Cheney. Posted by: Timmy Jenkins | May 27, 2006 05:51 PM Ken M. is a good little gullible soldier. they love em like you Ken. stay ignorant. Posted by: HAHAHA | May 27, 2006 05:49 PM Oh, I saved my email diary. Now, if it was on the Comcast.net, then I probably lost it. I lost my password to it and if I sent my Dear FBI letter on the Comcast account, then it is lost. But, I have a complete copy of my Verizon.net diary with all the letters to FERC, Pentagon, etc. Posted by: Mary Scott | May 27, 2006 05:42 PM I admit the truth: I admit that after 911, it occurred to me that the two weeks, my Egyptian Roommate stayed with me (she could not speak English), was suspicious. I did not go to the FBI and one of my coworkers told me not to. Now, after I figured out that my email was being monitored, I did write a Dear FBI letter and talk about it. That was (I believe), before that Mueller FBI person was in charge. I don't keep track of the FBI, but I don't think he was in charge. I used to write email (verizon.net), when I lived in Alexandria, and send the email to myself. I knew that everybody read it. Oh, my father worked for General McArthur. Posted by: Mary C. Scott | May 27, 2006 05:39 PM The most serious weakness of the 9/11 facts is that such series of acts with their targets reached must have a backing, a few times larger than the participations inside the planes. Why hasn´t anybody of that part of the operation been caught, identified in any place at any time? Posted by: PJJ, Copenhagen | May 27, 2006 05:33 PM "When two of the worlds largest man-made structures come crashing down, all that force will shake the foundations of the surrounding buildings (like WTC7). This can damage the structural integrity of the buildings, causing them to collapse as well" The collapses of the South and North Tower resulted in shaking with the magnitude of 2.1 and 2.3 on the Richter scale, respectively. Not even the official explanations suggest that this could have weakened the structural integrity of nearby buildings, let alone to cause a skyscraper to totally collapse at the speed of free fall. Perhaps you could approach NIST with this explanation? They might profit from it in their endless investigation into the destruction of WTC 7. Perhaps they haven't come to think that something like this might actually pass for an acceptable explanation for some people. "Any time someone challenges the precepts, data, or 'facts' of the conspiracy theory, the challenge can be automatically dismissed by the theorists saying 'See? You're part of the conspiracy!' " Although I don't buy the official conspiracy theory, I don't automatically dismiss anything on those grounds. I think this is more often the case: if someone doubts the official explanation, he or she is often automatically labelled a "conspiracy theorist" (or a "conspirary nut"), implying that he or she doesn't need to be taken seriously. "I sense that Mr. Arkin's automatic rejection of more theorists' e-mails come not from a closed mind, but after years of experience attempting to bring some sense and a critical eye to the theorists." What a summary statement. So all theorists are alike. On the other hand, as I implied earlier, if an editor is not interested in the easily verified fact that the 9/11 Commission lied about the whereabouts of Vice-President Cheney on 9/11, he can hardly be regarded as someone capable of bringing a "critical eye to the theorists". He should first learn to be critical in both directions. Posted by: Vesa | May 27, 2006 05:30 PM As posted by No "It is so easy to target a group, single them out, paint them as some evil enemy with some sort of unknown motive, and defile them without providing any substance whatsoever "....Some sort of unknown motive"??? America will surely lose the war to Islamic fundementalists because when 42% of Americans believe there has been a cover up and a large proportion of them sympathise with these physocopaths, then what real hope is there? You would expect this type of hate from the Europeans, especially the French or the Germans, but America's own believing that America is the villian? ..that is really scarey and it just proves that the suicide of America (and the West) is well underway. Posted by: Ken M. | May 27, 2006 05:18 PM BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA. i vote this the most hilarious post of the whole friggin board."lots and lots of force" brought it down huh?BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA. Posted by: Chris | May 27, 2006 10:54 AM Yes, lots and lots of force. When two of the worlds largest man-made structures come crashing down, all that force will shake the foundations of the surrounding buildings (like WTC7). This can damage the structural integrity of the buildings, causing them to collapse as well. Earthquakes cause buildings to collapse for the same reason. It's a very simple concept. Now, why can't you understand it? Or maybe you just don't want to understand it. Posted by: Mark | May 27, 2006 01:07 PM oh, i dont know, maybe because i watched the tape of it falling and im not a complete moron? you still have the funniest post of the day by the way. Posted by: | May 27, 2006 05:14 PM Do people have a right to be curious about 911? Or is their curiosity a sign of stupidity or wackiness? Are there no unanswered questions about 911? Do people have right to wonder about the anomalies listed by Griffin? Or are we just supposed to ignore them, because to wonder about them means we're stupid, crazy or unpatriotic? Are people instead supposed to believe without question an administration and business/media establishment that lies and covers up consistently. I haven't yet made up my mind about 911, and fear of looking stupid and crazy is not going to make me make it up any faster. Posted by: bg1 | May 27, 2006 05:00 PM Namron is absolutely right here, as there are no good fats that point out any type of a conspiracy, not to mention the logical errors of the Anti-Bush/Anti-Government crowd. Not that I am a Bush person myself, but this constant ranting and continual ad hominem attacking of the man only make his detractors, some of whom offer legitimate criticism, look like children. The same can be said for these 9/11 conspiracy people, who like the Pearl Harbor and JFK conspiracy folks use the ignorance of the general public to give credibility to their case. Simply look at the rhetoric they use, asking questions they assume most people don't know and then using that ignorance to try and convince people they are right. All of the conspiracy theorists on this blog use the exact same tactic. All of their posts simply ask questions, some of which are impossible to verifiably answer, then they slickly use innuendo and play to American's ingrained suspicion of government in order to "prove" their point. The few that try to offer any information commit the logical offense of facts without context, or worse, fabricated information. Now I personally think that the majority of these bad-fact users are not dubious or dishonest, but I do think that they have fallen victim to the tactics of the first bunch of theorists I mentioned. The worst out of all of the conspiracy folks are the "prove me wrong" bunch. This type have the entire debate completely backwards. The events of 9/11 have been documented extensively and as thoroughly as possible up to this point and the burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of the accusers, not the accused. If you folks truly think that there is more out there, you prove it. Make sure however that if you are going to insinuate government involvement or conspiracy that you have actual facts and documentation, not tangential business links between marginally involved groups or individuals. The Bin Laden family-George H.W. Bush one comes to mind here as it is often left out that Osama has been disowned by his father and that H.W. Bush isn't even President anymore. Also, please make sure that your innundoes are at least logical and are not quasi-factual non sequiters, as the Orwell State-governmental incompetence argument is, since they can't be both omnipotent and inept. Lastly, do try to remember that in argument civility and reason ultimately win the day, not semantics and theatrical presentation. Posted by: Archimedes | May 27, 2006 04:46 PM People who buy every word that the rightards here say should go buy George Orwell's 1984 and practice up; it won't be long before the hopelessly indoctrinated manage to get the clocks to thirteen here. Sometimes I wonder why the Repugs don't all move to China. You oppose democracy so much you must all be very unhappy here. You need to come to the Baltimore Sun bulletin board and find me. Ask for Scott (or Kenect2 or My Two Cents or MithrilKnight, or Frodo or a slew of other names I use there). I would win any debate with any of you hands down and you still have not answered my theory about the squib charges set by the cronies of the Bush Evil Crime Family who started an illegal war and are war criminals and war profiteers. Posted by: Scott Laughrey | May 27, 2006 04:44 PM To all of you who make silly, baseless, uneducated statements in regard to those seeking 911 truth, such as "wow, the nuts all came out" "tin hats" "conspiracy theorists" etc., your idiocy reveals itself. You give no basis or references for your statements, but just hit and run like little school girls. It's like me calling you a bunch of spineless bootlickers. What does that accomplish? For those who can think for themselves and can handle the truth, research: physics911.net and st911.org. Posted by: Alex | May 27, 2006 04:42 PM Raisa Gorbachev once (in her visit to the U.S.) put down this country by stating that it was "Brother against Brother". She proved it by giving the Civil War as an example. Jesus Christ stated in Luke 11:17 that "A HOUSE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND" But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth. It took me 40 years to get my sleep disorder diagnosed, only to have my FERC coworkers tell me that they are going to see me "Bankrupted". Now, everywhere I go, people tell me that they are going to sue me and have me murdered (Dallas, Texas). I believe that I will be destroyed, soon. Obviously, God allowed 911. This is the most horrible and wicked nation in the world. This is not a free country. It is a fraudulent one and the American People do not deserve to be seen as good people. I tried so hard to make it through Texas A&M University, to get out of Texas. Then, I was ruined at FERC, when G. Bush took over. Now, I am being put to death by the state of Texas. Now, I know that I am going to heaven, but I did not deserve this death. If God allowed this, it was to show the world that Raisa Gorbachev was right. I believe that one day that the U.S. will be an inferior world power and that glory will go to the other countries. I believe that I will be dead, soon. Posted by: Mary C. Scott | May 27, 2006 04:41 PM Posted by: jp | May 27, 2006 04:30 PM Posted by: curious | May 27, 2006 04:13 PM Wow! I see this article brought the nutjobs out... Thanks for the laugh! Posted by: Chris | May 27, 2006 04:01 PM Everyone likes to say Hitler did this and Hitler did that. But the truth is Hitler did very little. He was a world class ahole, but the evil actually done, from the death camps to World War Two, was all done by citizens who were afraid to question if what they were told by their government was the truth or not, and who because they did not want to admit to themselves that they were afraid to question the government, refused to see the truth behind the Reichstag Fire, refused to see the invasion by Poland was a staged fake, and followed Hitler into national disaster. ~ Michael Rivero Posted by: Over and Over Again | May 27, 2006 03:54 PM Bush based his illegal war for oil in Iraq in part on the official propaganda of 9/11. I am surprised you could not see that, unless the corporate controlled media already indoctrinates you. The really cool progressives do not accept the corporate controlled media propaganda of 19 hijackers and jet airplanes. There are many really cool progressive Web sites that show it was squib charges and holograms used on 9/11. The Web Fairy and me question authority and use Internet chat boards to show others that the 72 dpi images we use certainly disprove the months of detailed study by engineers from the National Science Foundation. As long as we keep up with our really cool postings to let the world know the truth, I would have to assume that we will in fact stop the illegal war in Iraq, have Rummy and Bush and Cheney arrested as war criminals, force Halliburton to give all of their illegal war profits to the Free Mumia Abu-Jamal fund, and overturn the marijuana laws in the U.S. Posted by: Scott Laughrey | May 27, 2006 03:23 PM WARNING - great... now there is a conspiracy if anyone presents factual evidence of what really happened rather than relying on adolescent rantings? So I am a shill. Now it is up to me to prove what I am not. WARNING - you are a kangaroo. Prove me wrong. Posted by: Namron | May 27, 2006 03:15 PM I respect your writing--usually--and enjoy this blog, but this column is frankly horrible journalism. I'm not a 9/11 conspiricist, but I have to admit, they do raise some real, verifiable questions which you simply don't address. The whole post feels like a sarcastic rant with no substance. I know you are capable of better, please write a 9/11 column about facts, take on the nuts and provide a clear articulation of the official view that will satisfy an intellegent skeptical reader. At least address the wtc 7 issue, I find it the most troubling--as I understand it, the story is that it collapsed from fire. But I've heard such a thing has never happend to a steel girder building, and several engeneers are on record saying it's impossible. My own guess is that there was simply really shoddy construction due to union and mob corruption, but I haven't heard any 9/11 apologist offer any evidence about this. Posted by: jason | May 27, 2006 03:12 PM Alex2 - check out these sources.... Carpenter, Dave. "Option Exchange Probing Reports of Unusual Trading Before Attacks." The Associated Press. 18 September 2001. Schoolman, Judith. "Probe of Wild Market Swings in Terror-Tied Stocks." [New York] Daily News. 20 September 2001 (p. 6). Toedtman, James and Charles Zehren. "Profiting from Terror?" Newsday. 19 September 2001 (p. W39). The put option conspiracy theory is nonsense... Posted by: Namron | May 27, 2006 03:07 PM WARNING: Namron is a shill. Don't trust any posts since he/she arrived to be real, unique people. Any number of them may be Namron. We get people like him/her regularly on 9/11 blogs/forums. Who knows who they are or what their purpose is. Distract, Deceive, Disinform? Posted by: warning | May 27, 2006 03:02 PM I find this entire debate to be factually disingenuous and hardly involving an honest search for the "truth." Of course it probably can't be denied that there are still holes in our knowledge about what happened that day. But it is still not even five years after the event, hardly enough time to begin a serious historically-minded analysis. It is simply a fact about our current political atmosphere that a government, under any administration, would not want to be complicit in revealing their own missteps and failures, regardless of whether this is the right thing to do (which it probably is considering the magnitude of the national security threat we face). The Bush Administration has obviously showed this tendency in the management of the Iraq war. The explanations for 9/11 presented by so-called truth seekers on this board are laughable and conspiratorial simply because they fix the facts around their own preconceived notions in the same way many have accused the president of fixing intelligence before the invasion of Iraq. Having spent some time reading these sites and watching some of the documentaries produced by these people, it appears to me that the 9/11 conspiracy arguments are based on pure supposition by people who do not have the expertise to draw the conclusions they do. Sitting on your computer at home and comparing pictures of the building collapses and concluding that they look a lot like a controlled implosion is not genuine research or analysis. Of course there are experts on such things that support these types of explanations, but, as far as I can tell, they are far outnumbered by the equally, if not more, qualified technicians and engineers who have developed a completely rational explanation for the collapses, backed up by solid evidence that takes into account many of the supposed abnormalities pointed out by the truth-seekers. Lists of bizarre coincidences are not evidence, but are more of a sign of a runaway imagination. Anyone who believes a government bureaucracy as large and complex as our's could pull off such conspiracy need to look no further than the numerous errors and leaks connected to the war in Iraq to conclude that even if our government wanted to, it could not pull something off on this scale without someone finding out. I think the recent United 93 movie accurately depicts the very real confusion on that day between these organizations that can more than account for the delays in action and seeming non-response to an attack on the country. As much as some 9/11 conspiracy theorists want to believe the US government is vicious and capable enough to do what they claim it did, I think it is akin to believing the conspiracy theory presented in something like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It is as bigoted and unrealistic to believe Jews are seeking to control the world as it to believe the US government has laid out the same goals. The burden of proof to support such assertions is much greater than anything present in current shady inferences of 9/11 government conspiracy theories, and I feel fully justified in disregarding the 9/11 truth movement as long as their pursuit of this so-called truth is defined by a narrow and paranoid worldview as opposed to a genuine desire to present the full picture of what happen that day, regardless of what the facts show. Indeed, that these 9/11 conspiracy theories relegate the role of violent Islamist religious fundamentalism to almost nothing, if they mention it at all, turns them from serious analysts into jokesters. Yet, it is for this reason I felt strongly enough after reading the comments on Mr. Arkin's piece to respond; these jokesters can have a very negative effect on healthy debate about the safety of our nation. The country is facing a serious threat from Islamist terrorism (Islamo-facism as some like to call it). We should be debating what 9/11 tells us about facing this threat as opposed to discussing whether or not Dick Cheney knew Flight 77 was going to hit the Pentagon. Any one who has read serious works on this threat, as opposed to being caught in the groupthink of the 9/11 conspiracy blogosphere, will know that there was a clear pattern of al-Qaeda attempts throughout the 1990s to attack the US on the scale of 9/11. A work I recently read that did a fantastic job of tracing the history and development of this organization and its threatening orientation towards the US was Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon's The Age of Sacred Terror. Hardened conspiracy theorists out there should read this book, or one that similarly analyzes the terrorist threat to this country, before declaring George Bush launched 9/11 so he could steal Middle Eastern oil; Bush and the derided neocons did not invent Islamist terrorism, it is very real. There is a legitimate and very important debate to be had on how to face this threat; one which I believe should criticize the president's strategy in many ways. But, continually seeking to live in a world where George Bush is more dangerous than Osama bin Laden, relatively speaking, is a perilous denial of reality. Go ahead and assert that we do not have all the facts on the collapse of WTC 7, you would probably be right. And the country deserves to know, and probably will as more time passes, the full facts about September 11. Just don't pretend that al-Qaeda doesn't exist and the evil US government is out to take over the world. It is this sort of black and white thinking that has partially led us astray thus far since 9/11. I simply want fact-based policy and debate, and the 9/11 truth movement presented here, in my opinion, is as reality-challenged as the Bush Administration. Posted by: Dan K | May 27, 2006 02:57 PM Those who would use the phrase "conspiracy theorists" as a bludgeon seem to forget that the official version of what happened is a conspiracy theory. Posted by: ZMan | May 27, 2006 02:45 PM You brought the worms out. This is a great response though, congratulations. The conspiracy theorists are very busy. They look at a lot of nonsense which they feel is somehow our job to DISprove, while they can not prove anything, just fabricate more pretty novels about bombs in the WTC. I suggest you go back to the trial of WTC1993 bombings and find the testimony of the building engineer, Robertson I believe. All over the news networks he said something to the extent: This bomb was not large enough to bring down the towers, in fact a bomb of this type can not. The only way to bring down the towers IS TO FLY A FULLY LOADED JETLINER INTO IT. FBI was not happy about this. Cats out of the bag my friends. Mr. Arkin, please find the article on this, ca 1995. About the rest of the stuff, I can not comment on (financial dealings, foreward knowledge etc.) Cheers Posted by: delirium | May 27, 2006 02:41 PM WASHINGTON POST, PLEASE DONE'T SELLOUT HUMANITY, PLEASE HELP INVESTIGATE 9/11!! Posted by: Please Investigate 9/11 | May 27, 2006 02:36 PM I told you that my apt. was under surveillance. Please understand that I began an email hobby, after I figured out that my coworkers and managers at FERC read my email on a daily basis. I have a record of it. I also complained in my apt. One time after complaining, I went to an Art store at Bailey's crossroad and evidently an agent followed me in there and stated that they had been listening to 'IT'. He stated that I was not allowed to spend my salary on my artwork. I believe that George Bush was evicting me from FERC, before 911. George Bush has a hatred towards me. He wanted to undo the work that President Clinton did for me. President Clinton made me a "brain" through high grades at the local colleges. President Bush ordered my managers and coworkers to demorolize me and destroy me. Then, you had 911. After that, there was a major assault on my premises. They told me at work that they were going to "put me down" on the job and send me to a "mental" chamber. They told me that they were going to go into my apartment and rob me of all of my paintings. They already stole my great grandmothers original photograph (Sarah Avant Eanes) and the latest photograph of my grandfather Ed Scott. I learned from another source that FERC believes that they owned me and still do. On January 1, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. Doesn't that law apply to me????? Mary C. Scott (214)265-8563 P.O. Box 601556 Dallas, TX 75360 Posted by: Mary C. Scott | May 27, 2006 02:21 PM Posted by: Alex2 | May 27, 2006 02:20 PM Posted by: William M. Arkin = Good 1930's German | May 27, 2006 02:19 PM To Namron, who just posted a link to a NIST report it must be pointed out that NIST (National Institute for Standards and Technology) has NOT produced a final report on their theories as to what brought WTC #7 down at 5:25PM on September 11th. Already, this report has been delayed twice. While the rest of their report on WTC 1 & 2 is complete the NIST head of the project has said publicly that they are having a difficult time getting a handle on what happened with WTC 7. Personally I found the forenic audio and video evidence compiled at 911eyewitness.com to be very compelling and strongly suggestive of controlled demolition. That said I am not an expert in architectural engineering. Meanwhile the experts at NIST appeared to be stumped on the question of WTC 7. Let's all keep a close watch for upcoming news from NIST and put their report under intense scrutiny. The lastest I've heard is that they have postponed release of the report until after the midterm elections. Posted by: open minded scrutiny | May 27, 2006 02:14 PM "And this is 21st centruy America, not 1930s Germany. Yes, I vehemently oppose those who are IMO are working outside the law to listen to our phonecalls etc., but really, we do not have any SA marching down the streets or SS skulking in the shadows." Yes, but the SS and the Brown Shirts didn't appear right away. The Nazi Party and Hitler had to consolidate power, and condition the German public first. Otherwise they would have never accepted all those police state measures for "security". The Reichstag fire is what gave the most important initial political leverage to the Nazis and Hitler. The attacks of Sep 11th, I'm afraid to say, are eerily like the Reichstag fire of 1933's Germany. The Germans who blindly followed the official narrative on that (it was blamed on a lone Communist nut "Marianus Van Der Lubbe"), greatly facilitated the rise of Hitler and the beginning of the second world war, purely through not being sceptical and responsible enough citizens. Now there is evidence that the rouge elements within government, not the whole US government, at the very least made it impossible for those planes to be shot down. That is TREASON!! The media are corporately dominated, and those same cooperate interests are making trillions from the "war on terror". Now the corporations didn't carry out the attacks, but they are part of the criminal power structure that did, and they are covering it up through media blackout. Osama Bin Laden is just like Emanuel Goldstein from George Orwell's 1984, if you've ever read that? He's the perfect "Outside Enemy", who's always on the run, taunting the people of "Oceania" (The Country 1984 is set in) with videotapes. You never find out in the book if Goldstein is genuine or not. But Osama bin laden was a CIA employee, and his family have extremely close links to the Bush family! So I apologies for being suspicious, but a REAL investigation is needed! Posted by: William M. Arkin = Good 1930's German | May 27, 2006 02:10 PM 1- If the conspiracy theorists are wrong - prove them wrong, point by point. Otherwise, the article represents a clear slam - which isn't helpful to anyone. 2 - " ... Kerik would turn the citizen's movement into just another constituency, a special interest that needed to be dealt with but one marginalized rather than revered." You are correct, IMHO. That 'special interest' should have been revered versus 'marginalized' at the time, as you imply. In fact, it should be revered even now. But, has anything changed since that time with regard to the 'handling' of citizen's movements? I think not. Placate - is still the recommended method of control. Have you considered that the conspiracy theorists may represent a significant portion of all that remains of the 'citizen's movement' that sprung up after 9/11? Where did all those other concerned citizens (non-conspiracy theorists) go? What does their disappearance say about the country and its citizen's attitudes toward government? And, since you did note the disappearance/fading voices of other American citizens (non-conspiracy theorists) who were (and are) concerned about the "largest governmental failure in history," perhaps you could suggest what steps individuals could take with regard to assisting in the improvement of our national security? Or, is that arena still considered to be 'men's work' whereby the citizenry should simply 'step out' of the debate? Whom should we approach with our concerns? Would we then be considered to be a special interest group? What type of reaction would said citizens receive? Are we not simply starting and ending - at the same failed place? 3 - You seem to be genuinely surprised that any (sane) American citizen could believe that their government would execute a 'plan' resulting in the events of 9/11. Flash, please. The people - conspiracy theorists or not - no longer believe in the inherent integrity of the US government - and some apparently believe that it would kill - its own people. IMHO, that is the most revealing and most critical issue at stake in this debate. Perhaps you should credit the actions of the current, and former, administration(s), for this perception - before you criticize the American people for believing - what they have seen. Posted by: redcat | May 27, 2006 02:05 PM Posted by: Namron | May 27, 2006 01:55 PM It is really quite simple. Let the US government or the WashPost publish a detailed peer-reviewed physics based explanation of how the towers were brought down without controlled demolition, then I'll stop teaching and promoting the 9/11 truth. Until then I will continue to regard anyone who accepts the official story is either a moron (hello Arkin) or a moral coward. Posted by: Le Jackel | May 27, 2006 01:44 PM My brother asked me: "Do you know how many people it would take to coordinate a 9/11 conspiracy?" Posted by: learntoswim | May 27, 2006 01:41 PM Mary C. Scott, go see you psychiatrist, you are delusional. Posted by: JoMama | May 27, 2006 01:40 PM Regarding the ridiculous story about put options and fact.... I used to work for a European Investment bank and I no longer work for them. But I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, not "ALL" doubt", that there was no curious options activity.... The link you provide has a heading that states that some put options went "unclaimed". Impossible!!!! It is LITERALLY impossible for these options to go unclaimed because they have to be custodied by a broker dealer at time of purchase! Further, who was on the other side of theses trades?! If someone bought put options or even sold stock short, there had to be someone selling them the put options or loaning them the stock to short! THIS IS A 100% CERTAINTY! Those who were on the other side of the trade would now be broke! You don't think they would hgave filed a MASSIVE lawsuit accusing "insider trading"???!!!!!! I do wish I could provide you with our report.... but is was never public - but it did jive with the SEC and FSA reports.... Remember - we were looking for "out of the norm" options volume. There was none found by us or the SEC or FSA.... Posted by: Namron | May 27, 2006 01:33 PM BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA. i vote this the most hilarious post of the whole friggin board."lots and lots of force" brought it down huh?BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA. Posted by: Chris | May 27, 2006 10:54 AM Yes, lots and lots of force. When two of the worlds largest man-made structures come crashing down, all that force will shake the foundations of the surrounding buildings (like WTC7). This can damage the structural integrity of the buildings, causing them to collapse as well. Earthquakes cause buildings to collapse for the same reason. It's a very simple concept. Now, why can't you understand it? Or maybe you just don't want to understand it. Posted by: Mark | May 27, 2006 01:07 PM Posted by: Jon Gold | May 27, 2006 01:01 PM I appologize in advance if this issue has already been addressed, as I haven't taken the time to read all the comments, but I've asked the question several times since reading the 9/11 Commission Report and still don't have an answer. What is the role of Secretary Rumsfeld in time of an attack on the United States and what should be his proximity to the levers of power while we are under attack? He was playing Ambulance Man in the parking lot of the Pentagon. How did he know that there was no one-two punch or a triple threat of attack other than the homocide flyers and he could relax and rescue those crawling from the wreckage? As well, what of the nut case that attacked Senator Daschele exactly one month later? Why has that investigation turned up no one? Together with the 9/11 attack and the anthrax, it seems a clever devious one-two plot to gain imperial power by scaring the be-Jesus out of everyone and causing us to lay down like sheep. This could only have been accomplished by the likes of Richard Cheney and the bone he's had to pick with the Ameican people for decades. Posted by: Buffalohunter | May 27, 2006 01:00 PM Arkin - I follow the media closely and not just the American sites. I am pretty well informed of the worlds events. And this is 21st centruy America, not 1930s Germany. Yes, I vehemently oppose those who are IMO are working outside the law to listen to our phonecalls etc., but really, we do not have any SA marching down the streets or SS skulking in the shadows. Posted by: Ashet | May 27, 2006 12:53 PM Posted by: rational realist | May 27, 2006 12:48 PM William M. Arkin you are a liar and spinner of deceipt as evidenced by your vain attempt at smearing the sponsors of the second Zogby poll on these questions. That's right the 2nd such poll. Here is the first done in NY State in 2004. http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855 You wrote regarding a Zogby press release regarding this more recent poll that: "It pointed out that Mr. Kubiak was not a "poll co-author"..." Yet if one reads that release one finds that Zogby said no such thing. Yes, they had final say in the wording but I can tell you from direct experience of being involved in the first Zogby poll that Mr. Kubiak did draft the questions and I have no doubt that he had a direct hand in this poll as well. Though the final edit was by Zogby Mr. Kubiak would in fact remain the effective co-author. You have succeeded in placing yourself in growing company of those so called journalists and columnists seemingly only capable of smear and spin instead of dealing substantively with the evidence, circumstantial and otherwise, that directly undermines the official account for the attacks and demands we look beyond the 19 arabs and Al-Qeada for some level of involvement or complicity in the attacks of 9/11. According to fmr. Senator Graham and Sen. Shelby there were foreign sponsors (plural) of the attacks. Why in god's name would the government keep such information from the families and from the world by classifying 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry? Why would the 9/11 Commission insist that the question of who funded the attacks is ultimately of "little practical significance"? These are their words. Clearly, Mr. Arkin you have no interest whatsoever in the truth here. You are deceiptful and irresponsible in this feable minded attempt to avoid honest discussion of why it is so many people in this country do not accept the official story on 9/11 and would support a real investigation. Posted by: Kyle F. Hence | May 27, 2006 12:42 PM I lost my job, because of 9-11. I had already sent previous email to the Post. Now, my life in Texas is threatened. I already told you that a Nermein Ibrahim stayed in my apt. two weeks, about 1/2 year, before the attacks. A man put me down for taking her shopping near the Pentagon. I was forced to run away from my $80,000 job at FERC (they were going to put me down at work and destroy my body). A man in upper management said that he was sorry about the New York Plane wreck, but that he was going to punish me and own me. I was going to lose complete loss of my body. Now, I am trapped in Dallas, Texas and I have no way out. George Bush owns the police. The Pentagon knew in advance about the 9-11, because my apartment was under surveillance. I was a political appointee (related to Con Gen John Gordon, Sen. Hugh Scott, Varina Howell Davis, etc.) I did not find out about this, until later. N. Ibrahim made constant calls to her husband or boyfriend (Arabic) in Egypt for two weeks. The Pentagon fortified themselves, so they would not be destroyed. Please get me out of Dallas, before Texas carries out their promise to destroy me for life. This is not fair. M.C.S. (214)265-8563 P.O. Box 601556 Dallas, TX 75360 Posted by: Mary C.Scott | May 27, 2006 12:30 PM Ashet wrote (May 27, 2006 10:46 AM): "If this did happen, then somewhere someone who is 'in the know' would have been so wracked with guilt that they would have come forward with proof." Agreed. Or one of the insiders would have leaked it to a significant other, who would have confided to her mother or would have gone to the press upon being dumped. One or more insiders would have left the truth in a safe deposit box to be opened after the insider's death. People don't keep secrets forever. The more people in on the secret, the sooner it will leak, especially when there's money or fame to gain. It's called reality, folks. Posted by: ps | May 27, 2006 12:29 PM Please bookmark the following sites: http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/ www.wsws.org www.onlinejournal.com www.takingaim.info otherside123.blogspot.com CIA, MI6 Gave bin Laden Al-Qaeda Training Camp In 1995 WMR has obtained a confidential "France Only" report of the French intelligence service, Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieure (DGSE), that states that the CIA and Britain's MI-6 maintained effective control of an important Al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan as late as 1995, fully two years after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, an attack that was launched with the help of Sudanese intelligence officers loyal to Osama Bin Laden. The CIA and MI-6 permitted control of training operations at Darunta, an "Arab Afghan" base located near the camp of Osama Bin Laden and used to manufacture explosives and chemical weapons and train in their use, to pass to the control of Ibn Cheikh, a Libyan leader of Al Qaeda. The DGSE report, dated January 9, 2001, is classified "Defense Confidential" and "National (French) Use Only" states, "Besides the Maghreb enclave, the training at Darunta, which, for approximately 2 months, mainly involved the manufacture and the use of the explosives by terrorists. This training, initially provided at the camp of Khalden, in Paktia, was transferred during 1995, on the order of Ibn Cheikh, to Darunta, in order to slide [the training] from the control of the security services of certain countries, in particular the United States and the United Kingdom." Classified French DGSE intelligence report: Al Qaeda training camp passed from control of CIA to Bin Laden in 1995. The report continues by stating that in 1998, the training was expanded to include the use of C-4 plastic explosives and different types of detonators (electric, acid, etc.). Training also included the use of homemade explosives (like improvised explosive devices killing so many in Iraq today) and poisons such as arsenic, cyanide, gas, diamond powder, nicotine, and ricin. After Al Qaeda took control of Darunta from the CIA and MI-6, the camp was used to train Al Qaeda operatives to launch a series of deadly attacks, including the November 19, 1995 attack on the Egyptian embassy in Islamabad, the 1998 attacks on the US embassy in Nairobi, the abortive Dec. 31, 1999 "Millennium" attack on Los Angeles International Airport by Algerian Ahmed Ressam, and the attack on the USS Cole. In 1995, James Woolsey left as CIA Director and was replaced by John Deutch. Deutch's deputy was George Tenet, who previously served in Bill Clinton's National Security Council. The National Security Adviser was Tony Lake. George Tenet The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) was chaired by Larry Combest of Lubbock, Texas and 1995 was the year Porter Goss joined the CIA oversight committee. On November 12, 2002, only a week after winning his 10th term, Combest suddenly announced his resignation from the House. Goss took over the HPSCI gavel from Combest in 1997, after serving only two years on the committee. In 1995, the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was Arlen Specter, a person whose fingerprints, like those of Goss, have been all over shady intelligence operations since the early 1960s. CIA intelligence analyst Michael Scheuer formed the CIA's Bin Laden Unit in 1996. Two significant items emerge from the DGSE report. One is the fact that the CIA and MI-6 were dealing with a Libyan Al Qaeda member at the same time Libyan leader Muammar el Qaddafi had declared war on Al Qaeda. Unlike the United States, Libya issued an Interpol arrest warrant for Bin Laden on March 16, 1998. With this treasure trove of proof of U.S. (and British) support for Al Qaeda, Qaddafi had the U.S. and the neo-cons over the barrel. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Bush administration now considers Qaddafi (once branded as terrorist number one) to be a good friend. Interpol arrest warrant for Bin Laden. The other item is the training of Ahmed Ressam at Darunta. Bill Clinton's National Security Adviser Sandy Berger was charged with removing classified documents from the National Archives concerning the Ressam bombing plot. The question remains -- what were in these documents and did they have anything to do with the CIA's fingerprints on the Darunta camp? Posted by: che | May 27, 2006 12:15 PM There are some truly nutty folks, here. And Arkin, if you thought Kerik was a good choice for Homeland Security you're one of them. Posted by: PattyMacDaddy | May 27, 2006 12:14 PM Posted by: Alex2 | May 27, 2006 12:05 PM Posted by: Reg | May 27, 2006 12:04 PM Namron, you have it about right. Don't take these people seriously, they don't deserve it. Their nonsensical "theories" are a source of humor, nothing more. Posted by: JoMama | May 27, 2006 12:04 PM For that person who just used my "name".... State one fact that is not supported by logic and reason. Posted by: Namron | May 27, 2006 11:59 AM elements in my government would NEVER lie or hide anything. my corporate media(which i trust oh so much) would NEVER hide anything. baaaaaaaaaa, ignorance is bliss. baaaaaaaaaa. i cant wrap my feeble little mind around false falg attacks. if CNN or Time magazine doesnt report on it, it didnt happen. it simply didnt happen. baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.i trust my corporate media and corrupt government 100%.BAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Posted by: Namron | May 27, 2006 11:57 AM One of my favorite quotations (by who? anyone?) is: "Conspiracy theories are for those who want to think for themselves -- but never learned how." The suggestion that the events of 9/11 will not receive serious critical examination without the work of the various conspiracy theorists is particularly amusing. Cheers all, Posted by: Bemused Spectator | May 27, 2006 11:53 AM Tom Writes - "knowing that Bushco committed 911" Posted by: Namron | May 27, 2006 11:52 AM "...the fact that it was squib charges and holograms used on 9/11...." Stop it! You're killing me!!!! Posted by: Namron | May 27, 2006 11:51 AM I saw nothing at all written in this column by Mr. Arkin to dissuade me from knowing that Bushco committed 911. That is because I am an engineering physicist, not a political nebbish flack writing typically lame blame deflection and blame redirection pieces like this one by Mr. Arkin. The logic and rhetoric behind this column by Mr. Arkin is sadly lacking and patently pathetic. In this column, Mr. Arkin wrote nothing at all of import. Posted by: Tom | May 27, 2006 11:51 AM Posted by: curious | May 27, 2006 11:50 AM Posted by: Namron | May 27, 2006 11:49 AM This is just another part of the "matrix" of deceit that the Bush regime has used to further its illegal war for oil in Iraq. The Internet allows us really cool progressives to question authority. Really cool progressives like me and the Web Fairy question authority and have intellectual discussion on the fact that it was squib charges and holograms used on 9/11, not the propaganda put out by the corporate controlled media of 19 hijackers and jet airplanes. I am somewhat of an expert on 9/11. I can look at a 72 dpi image on a really cool progressive Web site and tell you more than any aerospace or civil engineer what really happened. There's a lot more going on in the 9/11 cover-up than meets the eye. People who buy every word that the corporate-controlled media says should go buy George Orwell's 1984 and practice up; it won't be long before the hopelessly indoctrinated manage to get the clocks to thirteen here. Peace. - Scott Laughrey Posted by: Scott Laughrey | May 27, 2006 11:47 AM It seems a bit trite to try and argue with conspiracy theorists. Conveniently for them, negatives are rhetorically impossible to disprove. How does one prove that there is no conspiracy? Conspiracy theorists have always argued some pretty absurd theories, from Pearl Harbor, to JFK to 9/11. In the end, an unstated racism reveals itself in the misguided belief that no bunch of ignorant "camel jockeys" couldn't possibly be smart enough to pull this off with a minimum of funding. Oh no, the US government must have been incompetent. This notion is just plain silly, and dangerous in repeating the same mistakes of the past. While mistakes were obviously made, the conspiracy theorists have little interest in improving the process, and correct short-comings and are simply driven by a political ideology meant at undermining a wartime leader, rather than engaging in thoughtful and constructive criticism. It's also telling that while they're quite willing to offer the oft legitimate criticism, they're completely unwilling to acknowledge any kind of success in the War on Terror. Prior to the Bush administration Al Qaeda had hit US soil on average of every 2-3 years (Khobar Tower Barracks, US Embassies in Africa and the USS Cole and finally 9/11). Each non-response only encouraged further aggression, escalating the problem to its tragic conclusion on a clear September day. Since that day, almost 5 years later, still not an attack, that must be worth something in the eyes of the honest observer, if not the conspiracy fringe. It's also quite absurd to blame any one particular politician (read Bush) for the failures of US policy that took place since the end of the Cold War. To blame it all on the Bush administration is not only pathologically dishonest, but dangeously stupid. Posted by: John Randolph | May 27, 2006 11:44 AM Posted by: Namron | May 27, 2006 11:36 AM cc - let me get this straight.... anythiong that points to the W administration being involved is going to be classified; therefore we will never know the truth... therefore the W adminsitration must be guilty until they can prove that they do not have what we do not know exists? Is this right? Posted by: Namron | May 27, 2006 11:35 AM Hey Chris - as a moron who believes the official version of 9/11.... I challenge you to post one fact that suppoerts anything other than what was printed in the Congressional report on 9/11... go ahead.... PS Have you ever read anything other than conspiracy theory bull hockey? Posted by: Namron | May 27, 2006 11:33 AM what sort of genius does it take to see that anything that points to the Bush administration (certainly any Republican) being responsible for 9/11 in any way, shape or form, is going to become classified? Even if they could pin it on the Clinton administration, it will be by denying the existence of any current intelligent asset that could have helped to stop it. Any intelligence asset that might come up with anything like this, will become classified as "an critical asset necessary for the protection of the US and its allies"? and to further probe the situation will become "an attempt to undermine the stability that the western world has enjoyed since 9/11"? A way to "embolden our enemies"? And the so-called "truth-seekers" "enemies of freedom"? this whole idea is hopeless. Posted by: cc | May 27, 2006 11:32 AM Sorry I do not have time to educate you on all the ways the consirpacy theorists on 100% wrong (see link below if you really want the truth), but I have to get to lunch with my friends - Amelia Earhardt and Jimmy Hoffa... We are planning to break out all the space aliens we have imprisoned in the Nevada desert... Posted by: Namron | May 27, 2006 11:29 AM I see this article has brought the nuts out of the woodwork! Posted by: A Normal Person | May 27, 2006 11:26 AM "It's obviously a sad day in America when the people have to tell the Press what's going on in this country." but that day came long ago. which is why blogs are so popular today. because it is so obvious that you cannot trust people who are supposedly employed to do something, to actually do it, especially if there is little or no oversight or performance-based evaluation of their work or if the ones who do the oversight are happy with their lack of productivity. Enough people were swayed by the fear of gay marriage to vote for Bush again, so, clearly, as President, that is the most important thing for him to do. He can fail at everything else, as long as he keeps gays from being able to legally marry, he's done the job the American public have asked for him to do. What is a journalists' job, and who determines whether he is doing his job well, or not? Well, it seems to me that there are a whole lot of journalists out there writing stories, and, most of them are paid by other journalists or former journalists, and, most of them are evaluated by other journalists. they care about getting our clicks, not our opinions on their stories. Posted by: cc | May 27, 2006 11:25 AM I can only speak for myself, but as soon as I saw the second tower being struck, I said. "America's going to war in the Middle East". False flag. Fake Airplanes. It was so obvious. Having studied it for 5 years nothing has changed my mind. The USA is a rogue nation and deserves nothing less than it's leaders and media tykes to be tried and hanged after a short trial in Nuremburg. Posted by: Brian - Dundalk Ireland | May 27, 2006 11:18 AM how are we ever going to get the government to perform a truly independent and objective, penetrating analysis of 9/11? to truly get to the bottom of it? It's hopeless, dead in the water. So is this going to be a witch hunt? then, who do we want to hang? Posted by: cc | May 27, 2006 11:18 AM ...of course there's been a cover-up. It's not a cover-up of the Goverment being *involved* in 9/11, but it is a matter of covering up the fact that the Goverment was *responsible* for 9/11. Unless you believe what Bush, Rice et all were saying, that Bin Laden was responsible for it, and only bin Laden, and if it hadn't been for bin Laden, 9/11 would never have happened. That wasn't what they were saying during the Moussaui trial (noted distance of the President) when they were saying that Moussai was responsible for 9/11. The dance is to stay as far away from responsibility for 9/11 as possible, while claiming the need for as much authority as they can get, to prevent another 9/11. This is the problem with trying to use ignorance or lack of sufficient authority as excuses for failure. The stupid people who will buy into those excuses, are also stupid enough to come up with lots of OTHER stupid reasons why it happened. Posted by: cc | May 27, 2006 11:16 AM Those who question 9/11 are not only stupid, they are out and out morons. You don't need to do "research" to know it. They don't have any evidence they just claim "anomolies" prove thier idiotic views. Most deserve to be in a mental institution. Islamic terrorists killed alot of a Americans. It wasn't the CIA! Posted by: JoMama | May 27, 2006 11:16 AM The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conducted an exhaustive, rigorous three-year technical building and fire safety investigation of the collapses of the WTC Towers. The agency examined in the laboratory hundreds of pieces of steel recovered from the WTC towers; cataloged and analyzed thousands of still photos and videos from 9/11; conducted scientifically strict laboratory fire simulations to determine the impact of jet-fuel initiated fires on WTC structures and office environments; modeled the impact of a 767 jet and the fires on the Towers with the most sophisticated computer simulations of its kind in the world; and listened to first-hand descriptions of the events of 9/11 from WTC survivors, first-responders involved with the rescue efforts that day, and family members who were in contact with persons who died in the collapses. The agency's conclusion -- based on this scientifically sound methodology -- was that the impacts of the planes plus the massive amounts of debris that they caused dislodged much of the fireproofing protecting critical steel in the buildings from heat. The exposed steel in the core columns weakened, pulled on the floor trusses connecting them to the outside (perimeter) columns and in turn, pulled on the perimeter columns and caused them to lose their load-bearing capabilities. When enough of the perimeter columns were compromised, the buildings collapsed. Many photographs and videos just before the collapse of both towers show the perimeter columns "bowing inward" and proving that the floor trusses were pulling on them. One can see this inward bowing progress across the face of the towers (as the load is shifted from column to column in a desperate attempt to hold off the weight of the upper floors) until the load can be shifted no longer. NIST's report -- consisting of 43 documents and some 10,000 pages of scientific fact, not speculation -- is available for anyone to examine at the agency's dedicated Web site on the WTC investigation, http://wtc.nist.gov. The American public should be grateful for the excellent work of the men and women at NIST who spent three years to get the real answers about why the Towers collapsed. More importantly, they are now using the valuable lessons learned from this tragedy about building construction, maintenance, emergency operations and occupant evacuation to promote 30 recommendations for improving building and occupant safety in the future. The efforts of this highly dedicated group of federal scientists and engineers could be the key to saving many lives in years to come. Mr. Arkin also is to be congratulated for taking a public stand against the extremely vocal "9/11 truth" movements. He is correct -- there were no bombs, there were no missiles and there was no conspiracy -- except the one that al Qaeda used to plan and execute the attacks on 9/11. Posted by: Real Truth Believer | May 27, 2006 11:16 AM Posted by: Namron | May 27, 2006 11:06 AM "I ask you, when has the US Government ever been able to hold a secret for any amount of time? The secret prisons and wiretapping of phonecalls leaks illustrate that we are a country of open government at our core, and we are fundamentally incapable of holding a secret this size for that long." ^ And I agree, a true free press couldn't be cowed into silence. But do we have a true free press? Think about it! Has the mass media covered that Zogby poll? No they haven't, instead by shear coincidence of course, a new "Bin Laden Tape" was given to them, totally burying any talk of the new Zoby poll, and reinforcing the official line in the process. Now "Ashet", have you actually researched 9/11? It doesn't appear that way. So you have a choice, do you behave like a "good 1930's German" in the same way as this true patriotic inspiration "William M. Arkin". Or do you actually research 9/11, come to an educated conclusion, and then decided weather or not you want to stand with those also calling for a truly independent investigation? Posted by: William M. Arkin = Good 1930's German | May 27, 2006 11:01 AM i cant believe how many gullible boot-lickers here believe the government/corporate medias "official conspiracy theory" regarding 9/11. you ignorant people that readily believe whatever your government/corporate media tells you make me fear for the future of this country.do some f*cking reasearch you pathetic lemmings. Posted by: Chris | May 27, 2006 10:59 AM The 9/11 Story That Got Away By Rory O'Connor and William Scott Malone, AlterNet. Posted May 18, 2006. In 2001, an anonymous White House source leaked top-secret NSA intelligence to reporter Judith Miller that Al Qaida was planning a major attack on the United States. But the story never made it into the paper. "The people in the counter-terrorism (CT) office were very worried about attacks here in the United States, and that was, it struck me, another debate in the intelligence community. Because a lot of intelligence people did not believe that Al Qaida had the ability to strike within the United States. The CT people thought they were wrong. But I got the sense at that time that the counter-terrorism people in the White House were viewed as extremist on these views. "Everyone in Washington was very spun-up in the CT world at that time. I think everybody knew that an attack was coming -- everyone who followed this. But you know you can only 'cry wolf' within a newspaper or, I imagine, within an intelligence agency, so many times before people start saying there he goes -- or there she goes -- again! "Even that weekend, there was lot else going on. There was always a lot going on at the White House, so to a certain extent, there was that kind of 'cry wolf' problem. But I got the sense that part of the reason that I was being told of what was going on was that the people in counter-terrorism were trying to get the word to the president or the senior officials through the press, because they were not able to get listened to themselves. Posted by: Happy | May 27, 2006 10:54 AM No, I believe that for the people pandering this stuff they are totally appropriate. And I didn't say they fell ON WTC7. They fell next to it. With lots of force. Lots and lots of force. Causing WTC7 to collapse. Posted by: Mark | May 27, 2006 01:07 AM BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA. i vote this the most hilarious post of the whole friggin board."lots and lots of force" brought it down huh?BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA. Posted by: Chris | May 27, 2006 10:54 AM Posted by: AC | May 27, 2006 10:51 AM I ask you, when has the US Government ever been able to hold a secret for any amount of time? The secret prisons and wiretapping of phonecalls leaks illustrate that we are a country of open government at our core, and we are fundamentally incapable of holding a secret this size for that long. If this did happen, then somewhere someone who is 'in the know' would have been so wracked with guilt that they would have come forward with proof. So where is the proof? There was more proof on the existence of WMDs in Iraq and we all know how that turned out. What a bunch of idiots. Posted by: Ashet | May 27, 2006 10:46 AM "How do they stand to benefit from this besides finding out the whole truth and nothing but the truth?" They benefit the same way that OBL benfitted from attacking us (and I am speaking of ALL his attacks - especially the ones pre-dating 9/11). These people get off on creating conspiracy and having a following - nisguided as they may be.... One could use your sentiment to validate those that still claim we have aliens captured in the Nevada desert....... Posted by: Namron | May 27, 2006 10:39 AM I am mortified by the number of people that beleieve 9/11 had some sort of US government involvement.... But there is a problem with this... These same people claim that W had all the information he needed to stop the attack. IF W was involved in the attacks, would it not be logical that he also would have left no paper trail? Would he not have created a situation where there was no pre-attack intelligence? If I were W and I helped the 9/11 attacks I would make sure that there was no paper trail!!!!!! One cannot have it both ways! People say that there are still a lot of unanswered questions. NO there are NOT! There is not a single unanswered question that has not been adressed by experts inside and outside of the government! Posted by: Namron | May 27, 2006 10:34 AM I've had many, many questions that have yet to be answered or even fully investigated. Posted by: Subway Serenade | May 27, 2006 10:26 AM What's so difficult? 9/11 was an inside job, accept it, investigate, punish the guilty, contemplate on how disturbingly easy the cover-up was, rest. Then deal with all the other current problems. Posted by: truther#18765432 | May 27, 2006 10:11 AM Arkin: There are way too many unanswered questions and fishy facts involved with 9/11 for you to so glibly cast the whole "myth" aside, unanswered questions and all. It feels like you're protesting a little too much. Interesting. I'm not saying I'm 100% convinced of administration malfaesance. But I AM saying that the whole thing seems pretty strange and definitely warrants a new investigation. Another observation: you contend that the 9/11 'conspiracy theorists' also exploit 9/11 for their own gain. This is extremely misleading sir. How do they stand to benefit from this besides finding out the whole truth and nothing but the truth? They're not getting rich and consolidating unprecedented amounts of power off the mantra, "This is a post-911 world." But your good buddy George W sure has. Posted by: Alex Smith | May 27, 2006 10:07 AM According to some guy in here some profited from 9/11 through the use of stock options and short sales.... That was certainly the rumor in the days following the attacks.... It was also invesitigated by the SEC and almost every securities regulatory body in the world.... Unfortunately for the conspiracy theorists such as Mazza, these trades were not out of the "norm"... There was no heavy short selling or put option buying.... How do I know? I (an American) was the head of equity options trading for a major investment bank in London during the attacks. We took it on ourselves to investigate the volumes.... We found exactly what the SEC and FSA found - THERE WAS NO UNUSUAL TRADING OR SHORT SELLING PRIOR TO THE 9/11 ATTACKS!!!!!!!! Anyone who says different - please point to ANY evidence! I have seen all these copnspiracy theorists and what they are doing to our country. They pick their evidence, back it up with the exception rather than the rule, use expert opinion out of context, and use street logic where expert opinion crushes their case. Hundreds of people saw a plane hit the Pentagon yet we still here theories about a missile. We here talk of explosives in the twin towers - anyone ever hear a transformer blow up? How many transformers or air conditioning units exploded in the fire before the collapse ? Yet people want to ignore what is realistic and pursue what is fantastic. This is tearing out country apart and it is NOT the government that is doing it; it is mean spirited, selfish, delusional elistists! Posted by: Namron | May 27, 2006 10:07 AM Thanks for starting this line of discussion. I've never allowed myself to think at depth about what happened on 9/11 because it was all too painful. But, after reading your column and the responses to it, I must admit that those who question the official version of what occurred on 9/11 are on to something. They raise questions that deserve full public scrutiny and answer. In writing a column to dismiss "the conspiracists", you've inadvertantly given them great credence in my eyes. Thanks for the public service Posted by: Dan | May 27, 2006 09:54 AM If you want to see another "9/11 truth" scholar and scientist proven wrong, read the comments at my video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGAoRrBoPRM I have debunked "controlled demolition" http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.html so they start making things up. The latest guy tells me he has done "analysis" and "calculations" from looking at the diagrams in a report. He arrives at a figure of 3% for the total vertical load the exterior columns bore. I read the report and arrive at 50%: "the external columns are so designed that the stresses, and therefore the strains, produced in them by vertical loads ARE EQUAL to those produced in core columns." 50% is equal to 50%. Posted by: Tom Murphy | May 27, 2006 09:48 AM Bill, I am no apologist for the conspiracists and 9-11 rejectionists, but can you not see why so many Americans would buy into the idea that a coverup was involved in the 9-11 investigation? Boy, I sure can. Look. The two 9-11 commissioners--one democrat and one republican--were hard pressed to come up with a final report that satisfied two unalterably opposed constituencies: Bush's republican Congressional supporters who wanted to limit the investigation to the intelligence agencies developement of pre-9-11 intelligence; and the Congressional democrats who wanted to broaden the investigation into what the White House did with this intelligence. The compromise solution gave something to both sides but ultimately led to a scenario that was flkat out guaranteed to give the appearance that the commission was covering up the White House failure to react to this pre-9-11 intelligence. Consequently, what came out was a Majority and a Minority report, both of which were spun in ways meant to protect each's particular political narrative of the conclusions reached. There is an old joke that says: "I may be crazy but I am not stupid." Only a complete idiot would fail to see that both the Majority and Minority reports are true. They can't be. George W. Bush either failed to take the pre-9-11 intelligence seriously or he acted approipriately. He either failed to heed the warnings from previous Clinton administration officials about Bin Laden, or he acted with appropriate alarm. One cannot look at what George W. Bush actually did in the early months of his Presidency when confronted with all of this intelligence and counsel from those familiar with Bin Laden's activities, and conclude--as did the Congressional republicans--that he acted appropriately. The public knows this. Yes, there may be some crazies among them that take all of that and run with all manner of looney conspiracy theories. But, the majority of them--as attested to by Zogby's poll--know well the smell of a dead rat. It is that smell that moves them toward the conclusion that a certain amount of ass covering was involved in the commission's report. Posted by: Jaxas | May 27, 2006 09:42 AM Herein lies the fundamental problems in addressing the concerns of "conspiracies," imagined or real: Any time someone challenges the precepts, data, or "facts" of the conspiracy theory, the challenge can be automatically dismissed by the theorists saying "See? You're part of the conspiracy!" It is also, in a fundamentally philosophical sense, impossible to prove a negative (for example, that Bush 43 had no foreknowledge of the attacks, or that there were no puddles of molten metal in the WTC wreckage). Therefore, in the shortest way to phrase it, you can't win. Zealous conspiracy theorists can't even accept compromise, except as necessary to live a semblance of a "normal" life or to keep from slipping into dysfunctional paranoia/delusion. Even scanning the entirity of Loch Ness with sonar and finding neither a large creature nor anywhere near enough foodstuff to feed such a large creature isn't enough to put the kibosh on the "Loch Ness Monster"--try dealing with a theory that can't be confined to one lake. I sense that Mr. Arkin's automatic rejection of more theorists' e-mails come not from a closed mind, but after years of experience attempting to bring some sense and a critical eye to the theorists. After a while, trying to satisfy or correct conspiracy theorists is like trying to teach a pig to sing opera--it wastes your time and annoys the hell out of the pig. Posted by: Skeptic | May 27, 2006 09:37 AM John wrote: "In case you don't realize Mr Arkin, there is a spam campaign against you by the Looser Groupies and the 911blogger" It's not a "spam campaign". It's this crazy thing called the internet. People will link to blogs from other blogs. You're hearing from some of the 70+ million (just in America alone) that agree that 9/11 requires further investigation. Posted by: notspam | May 27, 2006 09:11 AM I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I've grown less and less upset with them as the years have gone on. After 9-11, Bush was given a pass for all the evidence leading up to 9-11 showing that an attack was imminent. "Fair enough," I thought. "It was hard to gauge the nature of the threat and none of us really knew what we were dealing with until the towers were hit." Then, however, Bush began to use the 9-11 attacks for political advantage when he went after Iraq, and he even went into an election claiming he was the reason we weren't attacked again. If that weren't bad enough, many Bush supporters had the temerity to suggest 9-11 was Clinton's fault! "That's it," I thought. "If the Bushies want to use 9-11 as a political tool (and they most certainly did), the gloves are off." You may say "two wrongs don't make a right" and you may be right in that statement. However, they do make fair politics. "Conspiracy theorists: Go For It!" Posted by: mh | May 27, 2006 09:04 AM The minute I heard of the millions in security stocks that were sold right before the attack (very early on, before I knew anything about 9/11 Truth Orgs.) and then after when I found out who headed security for the WTC and the airlines, I smelled a rat and it's name did not sound Middle Eastern. I think a person has to ask why were election results ever questioned in the first place, (first time I can remember.) Why were they stolen? They had to be for a pretty big reason. Something was in the planning. Knowing now all the lies and the destruction done by the Bush administration, only a person with incredible blindness would accept the official story without further investigation, thereby discrediting all the lives that were taken on that day Posted by: Rick Burrows | May 27, 2006 08:58 AM Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? By Steven E. Jones Department of Physics and Astronomy Brigham Young University In this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus impact damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I present evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government. Posted by: Bob | May 27, 2006 08:52 AM Y. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC, By Elaine Jarvik, Deseret Morning News The physics of 9/11 -- including how fast and symmetrically one of the World Trade Center buildings fell -- prove that official explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor. In fact, it's likely that there were "pre-positioned explosives" in all three buildings at ground zero, says Steven E. Jones. In a paper posted online Tuesday and accepted for peer-reviewed publication next year, Jones adds his voice to those of previous skeptics, including the authors of the Web site www.wtc7.net, whose research Jones quotes. Jones' article can be found at . Posted by: Bob | May 27, 2006 08:49 AM "I mean, Moussaoui was in jail during the attacks and to hear the Government lawyer, you would think that he did it all.Just a tought." If that's what you "heard" from the government lawyers about Moussaoui then I'm certainly not going to listen to you about other important matters, because you clearly don't understand the English language. They said no such thing. Posted by: Libertio | May 27, 2006 08:35 AM Legitimate concerns over what happened? Barely contained paranoia is more like it. I find it incredible that his so called "truth" movement dismisses outright any facts which don't give creedence to it's hollywood-esque theory on what "really" happened. Especially when said facts are much more detailed and thorough than any "evidence" these fringe folks have yet come up with. Their argument doesn't even stack up logically. An unexplained event proves nothing and points to nothing. Ignorance proves nothing. Posted by: Archimedes | May 27, 2006 08:29 AM Mainstream media is to blame for the American public's confusion. These 9/11 conspiracy theories are not propperly debunked because doing so would include exposing the lies told by pundits and politicians about WHY we were attacked on 9/11. All these lies serve to suppress the motives for 911, which have been stated cleary for years as in the '93 letter the terrorists sent the NYT: "This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region." The conspiracy theories AND the lies told by Bush and others must be challanged. I deal with ALL of it in my video, "Facts the "9/11 Skeptics" don't want you to see" see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGAoRrBoPRM Posted by: Tom Murphy | May 27, 2006 08:29 AM I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but you don't have to be one to be sickened at the conspiracy to sweep under the rug the Bush administration's nearly criminal negligence relating to warnings of al Qaeda attacks on US soil. The negligence is best symbolized by the non-reaction to the August 2001 presidential briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack inside the US". The nonchalence with which the PDB was treated was not adequately addressed by the 9/11 Commission, and failure to fully dissect that response was a major hole in the final report. The real scandal was Bush's utter refusal to take the al Qaeda threat seriously -- until it became a useful event around which to expand political power. Posted by: Rose Young | May 27, 2006 08:28 AM Come on Arkin. You don't address ANY facts in this smear piece. What about WTC 7? Molten and flowing metal under the destroyed towers in NY? Why must you fulminate against something without citing any facts? Posted by: rob | May 27, 2006 08:11 AM So far as conspiracies go, they are ubiquitous. Everyone is in agreement that the 9/11 attacks were the result of a conspiracy. But those who are genuinely knowledgeable and care about the truth reject fallacious conspiracy theories, such as the U.S. government's lying, self-serving, a-historical, a-factual, and provably false official fairy tale conspiracy theory concerning the 9/11 attacks. More than four times the amount of non-combatants have been systematically murdered for purely ideological reasons by their own governments within the past century than were killed in that same time-span from wars. From 1900 to 1923, various Turkish regimes killed from 3,500,000 to over 4,300,000 of its own Armenians, Greeks, Nestorians, and other Christians. Communist governments have murdered over 110 million of their own subjects since 1917. And Germany murdered some 16 million of it own subjects in the past century. (The preceding figures are from Prof. Rudolph Joseph Rummel's website at http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ .) All totaled, neither the private-sector crime which government is largely responsible for promoting and causing or even the wars committed by governments upon the subjects of other governments come anywhere close to the crimes government is directly responsible for committing against its own citizens--certainly not in amount of numbers. Without a doubt, the most dangerous presence to ever exist throughout history has always been the people's very own government. Needless to say, all of these government mass-slaughters were conspiracies--massive conspiracies, at that. One can make a conclusive case proving the U.S. government staged the 9/11 attacks even without any physicalist inquiry into the plane crashes or collapsed buildings (even though the case for that is conclusive), i.e., via historical inquiry into the public record in conjunction with deductive reasoning. For massive amounts of hardcore documentation on government-staged terrorism, see the below post by me: "Documentation on Government-Staged Terrorism," September 30, 2005: Posted by: James Redford | May 27, 2006 07:57 AM Legitimate concerns over what happened? Barely contained paranoia is more like it. I find it incredible that his so called "truth" movement dismisses outright any facts which don't give creedence to it's hollywood-esque theory on what "really" happened. Especially when said facts are much more detailed and thorough than any "evidence" these fringe folks have yet come up with. Their argument doesn't even stack up logically. An unexplained event proves nothing and points to nothing. Ignorance proves nothing. Posted by: Archimedes | May 27, 2006 07:41 AM Posted by: grunk | May 27, 2006 07:37 AM Oh, now I understand, Arkin hits delete when he sees something that shatters his illusions, and "normal" people are the ones who agree with him. Move along, nothing to see... Posted by: Bill | May 27, 2006 07:26 AM Business as usual -- 9/11 and the fall of America By Jerry Mazza Online Journal Associate Editor Email this article Printer friendly page Under the guise of business as usual, consider the huge improprieties in the securities markets that went unnoticed before and immediately after 9/11/2001, contributing to the attacks' awful success and America's subsequent decline. I'm talking about the insider trading behind the "put and call options" scandals that allowed certain individuals to pull in huge profits. Stated as simply as possible, put options were used on stocks that would be hurt by the attack, and call options were used on stocks that would benefit. In the put case you're betting on a fall in the price of stocks; in the call case, you're betting on a rise in the price of a stock. Put options were made on the struck airlines, insurance companies and banks pre-and-through-9/11, as if someone had foreknowledge something bad was going to happen to bring down the price of the stocks. A 9-11 Research report on Insider Trading headlines the tale: "Pre-9/11 Put Options on Companies Hurt by Attack Indicates Foreknowledge." There were huge surges in the purchase of put options on stocks of the two airlines, specifically United and American, used and abused in the attack. In fact, American and United Airlines, each with two planes that disappeared that day, as early as September 6, were experiencing dramatic spikes in put options on days when their stock prices were stable. Bloomberg News reported put options on the airlines soared to an unbelievable high, 285 times their average. What's of interest is that in the time preceding 9/11 nobody noticed or bothered to connect dots in this buying/selling trend. It was "business as usual" while some group conducted a huge insider trading strike that ultimately ravaged the airlines financially, damaged America, killed 2,749 people, and proved very profitable to the perps, in the short and long run. Who was at the controls watching? Or were those at the controls part of the problem? When the market opened after the attacks, United Airlines stock fell a whopping 42 percent from $30.82 to $17.50 a share. American Airline's stock fell from $20.70 to $18 per share. And millions were made by the scurrilous for personal profit or to finance the ops. More than three days before the events that flattened the World Trade Center and damaged a sparsely occupied, recently fortified sector of the Pentagon, there was more than 25 times the previous average daily trading in a Morgan Stanley put option that made money when the giant financial institution shares fell below $45. Of course, Morgan Stanley had occupied 22 floors of the North Tower. Its stock dropped 13 percent when the market reopened. Nearby Merrill Lynch's stock dropped ll.5 percent The Bank of America on the 81st floor of the North Tower, the third largest US bank, showed a five times increase in put option trading on the Thursday and Friday before the attack, more than 5,900 contracts that would pay when the stock fell below $60 a share. What's more, there were huge surges in purchase of put options on stocks of reinsurance companies slated to cough up billions to cover losses from the attack, i.e., Munich Re in Germany and the AXA Group in France. Do you really think it was those bozos with box cutters that worked this out, Osama in his cave? Or could it possibly be some sophisticated homegrown types, connected to our Company? Perhaps it's no surprise, but Raytheon, maker of Patriot and Tomahawk missiles, watched its stock take off after the attacks. Purchases of call options contracts on Raytheon stock increased sixfold on September 10, 2001. The Raytheon option contracts made money, if shares were more than $25 each. The price zoomed up nearly 37 percent to $34.04 during the first week after post 9/11 trading. Parenthetically, Raytheon had also been hit with millions of dollars in fines for padding costs of equipment it sold to the US military. Raytheon also has a hush-hush subsidiary, E-Systems, whose clients include the CIA and NSA, the latter about to make a hostile takeover of the other. And speaking of winners, include the five-year US Treasury Notes. They were bought in unusually high volume before the attack. The buyers realized sizable increases in the Notes' value after the attack. But this is business as usual again. Some things go up and some go down--with a little help from happenstance and its perpetrators. Not surprisingly, this generated suspicion then an inquiry. What it all meant was something else. After the attacks, the SEC sent a list of the following securities firms around the world in search of information on them: American Airlines, United Airlines, Continental Airlines, Northwest Airlines, Southwest Airlines, US Airways airlines, Martin, Boeing, Lockheed Martin Corp., AIG, American Express Corp, American International Group, AMR Corporation, AXA SA, Bank of America Corp, Bank of New York Corp, Bank One Corp, Cigna Group, CNA Financial, Carnival Corp, Chubb Group, John Hancock Financial Services, Hercules Inc., L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc., LTV Corporation, Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc., MetLife, Progressive Corp., General Motors, Raytheon, W.R. Grace, Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Lone Star Technologies, American Express, the Citigroup Inc., Royal & Sun Alliance, Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., Vornado Reality Trust, Morgan Stanley, Dean Witter & Co., XL Capital Ltd., and Bear Stearns. This list came out of an SEC Secret Probe of companies used by a group of speculators who were Israeli citizens and who sold "short" these stocks, which could be expected to fall in value as an outcome of the impending attacks. The speculators operated out of Toronto, Canada, and Frankfurt, Germany, stock exchanges and their profits were stated to be "in the millions of dollars." An interesting quote from this article tells us, "It is widely known that the CIA uses the Promis software to routinely monitor stock trades as a possible warning sign of a terrorist attack or suspicious economic behavior. A week after the Sept.11 attacks, the London Times reported that the CIA had asked regulators for the Financial Services Authority in London to investigate the suspicious sales of millions of shares of stock just prior to the terrorist acts. It was hoped the business paper trail might lead to the terrorists." So, after the fact, this huge number of trades finally rang a bell at the CIA. Hmmm. And then . . . Another interesting fact came from an October 19, 2001, San Francisco Chronicle article that the SEC, after a long silence, took the unprecedented action of deputizing hundreds of private officials in this investigation. Lest you think this posse of high-level private sector players would get the bad guys, think again. As former LAPD Detective, author of Crossing the Rubicon, Michael Ruppert points out, "What happens when you deputize someone in a national security or criminal investigation is that you make it illegal for them to disclose publicly what they know. Smart move. In effect, they become government agents and are controlled by government regulations rather than their own conscience. "In fact, they can be thrown in jail without a hearing if they talk publicly. I have seen this implied threat time and again with federal investigations, intelligence agents, and even members of the United States Congress who are bound so tightly by secrecy oaths and agreements that they are not even able to disclose criminal activities inside the government for fear of incarceration." In short, the posse was bound and gagged. Then, as Ruppert noted, the story was quietly buried in a 9/30/2001 New York Times article, claiming "benign explanations are turning up" in the SEC investigation. The activity in put options was blamed on "market pessimism," but it didn't explain why the airlines stock prices didn't mirror the same market pessimism. Also, the fact that above the millions made in these transactions, some $2.5 million of the put options were unclaimed after 9/11. Somebody got cold feet. Obviously the purchasers knew they were part of a criminal conspiracy and didn't want to get caught red-handed picking up the profits at that point. <>Ruppert Points to CIA Top Brass At the Here In Reality site, there is an article titled "Suppressed Details of Criminal Insider Trading Lead Directly into the CIA's Highest Ranks." Equally important is its sub-headed "CIA Executive Director 'Buzzy' Krongard managed firm that handled 'PUT' options on United Airline Stock." The piece is written again by Michael Ruppert. In his own inimitable police report prose, he wrote, "Until 1997 A.B. 'Buzzy' Krongard had been Chairman of the investment bank A.B. Brown. A.B. Brown was acquired by Banker's Trust in 1997. Krongard then became, as part of the merger, Vice Chairman of Banker's Trust-AB Brown, one of 20 major U.S. banks named by Senator Carl Levin this year as being connected to money laundering. "Krongard's last position at Banker's Trust (BT) was to oversee 'private client relations.' In this capacity he had direct hands-on relations with some of the wealthiest people in the world in a kind of specialized banking operation that has been identified by the U.S. Senate and other investigators as being closely connected to the laundering of drug money. "Krongard joined the CIA in 1998 as counsel to CIA Director George Tenet. He was promoted to CIA Executive Director by President Bush in March of this year [2001]. BT was acquired by Deutsche Bank in 1999. The combined firm is the single largest bank in Europe. And, as we shall see, Deutsche Bank played several key roles in events connected to the September 11 attacks." In fact, Deutsche Bank was heavily involved in the 9/11 "put options" transactions. The Deutsche bank building still stands today at the WTC site, heavily veiled behind a black metal screen, perhaps in shame, about to be torn down, and not by controlled demolition. That may remind too many people of Towers 1, 2, 6, and 7. The CIA, the Brokers and Banks This unholy "business as usual" nexus of Wall Street brokers, banks and the CIA, includes additional key players from government, as Ruppert points out: John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles were designers of the CIA. Allen met with Nazi leaders as station chief in Berne, Switzerland, and tended to their investments. He was also CIA chief, fired by President John F.Kennedy for the "Bay of Pigs" fiasco. John Foster Dulles was Secretary of State under Eisenhower. Both Dulles brothers were lawyers in Wall Street's most powerful law firm, Sullivan, Cromwell. Politics, the CIA and Wall Street, some trifecta. Ronald Reagan's CIA director, Bill Casey, an OSS vet, was chief weasel during the Iran-Contra years. Under Nixon, he was chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Profession: Wall Street lawyer, stockbroker. The former Stock Exchange VP, David Doherty, was also a retired General counsel of the CIA. George HW Bush, president from 1989 to 1993, CIA Director for 13 months from '76-7, is now a highly paid consultant to the Carlyle Group, in which he shared joint investments with the bin Laden family. Carlyle is also one of the nation's top defense contractors. Buzzy Krongard, former executive director of the CIA, was formerly chairman of the investment bank A.B. Brown, a former vice chairman of Banker's Trust. John Deutch, retired CIA director, was a Citigroup board member (said bank documented repeatedly for laundering drug money, buying in 2001 Mexican drug-money launderer, Banamax). Nora Slatkin, retired CIA executive director was a Citibank board member. The redoubtable Maurice "Hank" Greenburg, former CEO of AIG insurance, still manages from a distance one of the world's largest capital investment pools, and was actually offered up as possible CIA director, and was exposed by Michael Ruppert as having longstanding connections to CIA drug trafficking and covert operations. Also, AIG stock managed to bounce back extremely well since the 9/11 attacks. And so on. The rest is history, the century's biggest story, with business as usual doing its thing, including insider trading, money laundering, even terrorist funding as a way of life and death. And 9/11 triggering the fall of America from democracy into a theocratic police state manipulated by money managers and multi-national corporate honchos. Having gotten away with mass murder, it was just a hop, skip and a jump for our present Bush Boyz to Afghanistan, Iraq, and next stop, Iran, and then what? Your guess is as good as mine, but probably not as good as Ruppert's, who's telling folks these days to buy gold as a hedge against the dying dollar and head for a secure place in the hinterlands. I don't know if that answers the question of survival for people living from paycheck to paycheck, on fixed incomes, in credit card debt, or struggling to hold on to their savings and/or portfolios. For the rest, the rich, the filthy rich and even richer, the "have-mores" as W fondly calls them, the point is moot. Bush and the Republicans will take care of them. And if not George, could it be Jeb as once there was George Herbert Walker, who put his arm around Clinton, and so on. For those folks, there will be tax cuts abounding, an ever increasing upward mobility, perhaps into the Rapture with their cuckoo Conservative Christian allies. For the rest of us, well, you get the picture. Monkey business as usual. It's a killer. Perhaps something really unusual needs to happen to the usual and its monkeys to change it all. Somebody yell out, "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore," like the visionary newsman Howard Beale in Paddy Chayefsky's great 1976 screenplay Network. Link to the whole monologue. It'll fire you up. And who knows, you, yes you, out there in cyberspace, the next Tom Paine or Tom Jefferson, FDR, JFK, MLK, Mr. Anonymous, could be the spark of something new, to lead the justice brigade to knock on the doors of power and tell business as usual where to go. Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer residing in New York. Reach him at gvmaz@verizon.net. Posted by: che | May 27, 2006 07:21 AM Shame on you Arkin! How dare you dishonor the lives lost in this horrific tradegy by belittling people with legitimate concerns based on the steady stream of lies from GW Inc. I wonder if Goebbels's spin on the Reichstadt fire in Germany which Hitler used to suspend the civil rights and liberties of the general population was that those who suggested Hitler himself did it were members of the tin foil hat crowd? Sound familiar? That's what you're insinuating. History repeats itself Arkin. Before you go shooting off your mouth again ask yourself if this isn't one of those times you should consider opening your mind instead of your mouth. Again I say, Shame on You! Posted by: John | May 27, 2006 06:49 AM Does Mr Arkin really think the 9/11 Commission told the *truth*? What about the fact that Minister of Transportation Norman Mineta told in his detailed testimony to the 9/11 Commission that Vice-President Cheney was in the White House command bunker at 9:25, talking with his subordinate about the plane approaching Washington? Cheney's presence there at that time is confirmed by other sources as well. What did the 9/11 Commission do? It completely disregarded this evidence and said that Cheney arrived at the command bunker at 9:58 at the earliest and claimed that the strike against the Pentagon came as a surprise. Mineta's testimony can be found in the transcript on the 9/11 Commission archives, yet the above-mentioned part has been strangely cut from its video archive. What is going on here? In the same way, the Commission did not mention that a third skyscraper collapsed that day as a result of the attack. Isn't it the duty of the free Western media to *investigate* such contradictions? To do their best to find out what really happened? The U.S. mainstream media have exhibited *no* criticism *at all* to the official story, instead labelling anyone who asks any questions a "conspiracy theorist" (as if the official explanation were not a conspiracy theory). What is the matter with the U.S. media? As my Swedish neighbour wrote, it's time for you Americans to wake up. Posted by: Vesa | May 27, 2006 06:17 AM Posted by: Andrew Lowe Watson | May 27, 2006 05:19 AM All governments by definition are conspiracies and conspiracies private and public happen all the time. There are hundreds if not thousands of conspiracy cases in court right now. Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling committed conspiracy and they didn't even know it. That conspiracy is on the front page of all the newspapers today. I think it is proven totally that the Bush administration conspired to go to war with Iraq before 911. Of course Europeans were justifiably terrified, the US has and is going around the world starting and threatening wars in every press release. Have you ever thought about why a lot of people are afraid and hate the USA? If you count the number of people the USA has killed in the third world since World War Two, its around six million people. The USA has matched the holocaust in their lust for material wealth and global empire. I'll give you an example, imagine growing up with family members and loved ones being killed constantly. Nobody's got to tell them to hate Americans, they hate the USA instinctively. That's the mindset we have to change. Are we going to change that by having a forever war against the third world or are we going to make things better. Are we going to continue to be the bullies of the world until everyone starts throwing nukes around, or are we going to work towards peace and reconciliation? Technology does not go in reverse, unless you count when the church ruled the world, remember what we call that? The dark ages. And if there is not a change for the better what will happen when everyone has nukes. It's your choice, continue on a path of hate and killing or a path of peace and harmony. To deny that the Bush administration did not have war plans before 911 is pretty out there in my opinion. The crimes of the U.S. throughout the world have been systematic, constant, clinical, remorseless, and fully documented but nobody cares to talk about them. ~ Harold Pinter We always obeyed the law. Isn't that what you do in America? Even if you don't agree with a law personally, you still obey it. Otherwise life would be chaos. ~ Gertrude Scholtz-Klink, explaining Nazi policy To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. ~ Abraham Lincoln I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes. The moral effect should be good and it would spread a lively terror. ~ Winston Churchill commenting on the British use of poison gas against the Iraqis after World War I Throughout the world, on any given day, a man, woman or child is likely to be displaced, tortured, killed or disappeared, at the hands of governments or armed political groups. More often than not, the United States shares the blame. ~ Amnesty International, in its annual report on U.S. Military aid and human rights, 1996 I dream that someday the United States will be on the side of the peasants in some civil war. I dream that we will be the ones who will help the poor overthrow the rich, who will talk about land reform and education and health facilities for everyone, and that when the Red Cross or Amnesty International comes to count the bodies and take the testimony of women raped, that our side won't be the heavies. ~ Richard Cohen Posted by: just stop and think about it for a minute | May 27, 2006 05:13 AM Mr Arkin , I missed your article about the FEMA internment camps - 800 of them at the last count - which are being built all over the USA. Who did you say they were for? Those who support terrorism? What, people who support GOVERNMENT terrorism? Posted by: Andrew Lowe Watson | May 27, 2006 05:10 AM Josef Goebbels was a great guy. William Arkin is a true patriot. Osama Bin Laden is dead. Which one of these is true? Posted by: Andrew Lowe Watson | May 27, 2006 04:57 AM If you would refer to evidence rather than exploiting the emotional effects of 9/11, you might be able to make a coherent point. But please, appeal to rednecks, soccer moms, and sheeple, and those of us with eyes to see and minds to think will regard you as another pathetic link in the chain of fools. Posted by: Thinker | May 27, 2006 04:56 AM I have worked in government most of my life, Military and Civilian. I think what most of you don't understand is there's no way in hell you could form a mass conspiracy in the US gov't. By definition a conspiracy is the intentions or actions of two or more people to commit a crime, and then you would need another conspiracy to cover up the first one. And you would have to be certain that both would work, there's no chance for risk on something this large, you could destabilize the world markets, anything was possible in the days following 9/11. I think people tend to forget that. Maybe India tries to surprise Pakistan and reclaim disputed parts of Kashmir, Israel might launch major offensives against Palestine, further destabilizing the middle east, it was really a tense moment it world history, Europeans were terrified that we were so united and outraged the we were going start multiple wars on multiple fronts, including Europe. I was living in the middle east at the time of 9/11 there were celebrations when we got the news, gunfire in the air, parties at clubs, etc. these people hate you and your way of life, and are willing to die to kill you. I'll give you an example that Americans can understand. Imagine if a child in the twenties or thirties was raised solely on the Klu Klux Klan material until he was 18-25, never has contact with other races and then is told to go kill an African-American by the head Klansmen, he would do it without much thought and wouldn't have any remorse once it was over. That's the mindset we are fighting against; this war won't be won on the battle field, but in the minds of the peoples. To say that the bush admin single handedly did this is pretty out there in my opinion. Posted by: John B | May 27, 2006 04:31 AM Posted by: Mario | May 27, 2006 04:00 AM Thank God for the 9-11 Truth movement. People please do your own research and make your own mind up. There is unrefutable evidence that our govement was involved in the attacks. We have been lied to. Wake up America!! Posted by: Joe A. | May 27, 2006 03:53 AM Posted by: John | May 27, 2006 03:52 AM If conspiracy theory is correct than it is safe to assume that Bin Ladin get tipped every time American or Pakistani forces approach him.I mean after all how did he escape Tora Bora. Also, if Bush wanted to really get him, why send 10,000 troops to Afghanistan, and 130,000 to Iraq? One more thing:did the justice department prosecute Moussaoui as a consolation price and a venting venue for people's feelings, so people would stop asking, when are you gonna catch BL? I mean, Moussaoui was in jail during the attacks and to hear the Government lawyer, you would think that he did it all.Just a tought. Posted by: Mario | May 27, 2006 03:50 AM Posted by: curious | May 27, 2006 03:43 AM Posted by: curious | May 27, 2006 03:15 AM Dear Editor, In the future, please print William Arkin's fine column on softer paper. Perforated if you can. Many thanks. Posted by: chafed | May 27, 2006 02:56 AM We need to tone down the recriminations on both sides of this one. I am one who distributes copies of Confronting the Evidence - Jimmy Walter's video [www.reopen911.org] which I believe shows the evidence objectively and lets us draw our own conclusions. Have empathy for those who are reluctant to admit even to themselves what they see and hear. Giving up the cherished beliefs of childhood regarding my government being the good guy in the world -- It has been very hard for me to let go of that one. Call me for support if you are committed to knowing just what happened -- not who or why, just the facts. cell phone 707 480 1911. James Posted by: James F Holwell | May 27, 2006 02:49 AM "Andy, did you know, that some months ago, Osama "Innocent guy who is the scapegoat of the vast evil dark conspiracy of American government guys trying to take over the planet" bin Laden stated with his very own tongue that he was the person responsible for planning, organizing, and financing the attack on the World Trade Center? Maybe aliens told him to say that." It was an audio tape. Why should I believe its authentic? And didn't Moussaoui say he was guilty and then right after the trial claim he was innocent? Your gonna need more proof than an audio tape that might or might not be Osama. Posted by: Andy White | May 27, 2006 02:46 AM This is so absurd. You Bushies are warped and insane. Those of you who believe him are being taken for a ride. Yea, I think we dynamited the WTC - passenger jets smashing full speed into the buildings and starting high temperature fires leading to structural failure just wouldn't do it, just because it has never happened before in history. -Whatever. Gee, how do you explain building seven collapsing? Oh, I don't know, just because the official investigators say that the two massive 110 story buildings collapsing right next to it had nothing to do with it. Get real. Yea, that wasn't a plane with peoples' loved ones in it that crashed into the Pentagon. It was a missile, Elvis, or aliens. -Whatever will confuse the public. Oh yea, and all those flight control guys were in on it just because they destroyed all the tapes! They were part of the whole big, evil conspiracy, and still the hundreds if not thousands of people required to keep the conspiracy under wraps have remained quiet, unlike D-Day in World War Two where only TENS or HUNDREDS of thousands kept a secret. How could anyone with a shred of common sense buy the ludicrous bunk the Bush adminstration and their misguided followers are selling? Clear-headed, logical Americans should not be mislead just because some immoral guy with an agenda wants to raise all kinds of stink. Posted by: Get Real | May 27, 2006 02:45 AM Trees are made of wood so sure they fall over. Building seven was only made of STEEL. Posted by: Cartoon Physics | May 27, 2006 02:39 AM Trees are made of wood so sure they fall over. Building seven was only made of STEEL. Posted by: Cartoon Physics | May 27, 2006 02:38 AM Posted by: Mark | May 27, 2006 02:13 AM Hold on there, stop trashing your fellow consiracists! Posted by: Mark | May 27, 2006 02:12 AM Ok, that's sufficient for me. Very well argued Mark. You official conspiracy theory defenders can sure formulate cogent, substantiated arguments. Posted by: jp | May 27, 2006 02:09 AM Yes to your previous question that is. As to your last statement. Not really believable at all. Posted by: Mark | May 27, 2006 02:03 AM Posted by: Mark | May 27, 2006 02:01 AM Mark, did you know that major European media reported that Osama was visited by a CIA agent in a hospital in July 2001 and cared for by an American doctor? Posted by: jp | May 27, 2006 02:00 AM rescind the ability that Negroponte was given to terminate pensions if any agents go public with what they know once they retire.... never in America history has such an order been given... let people talk, if you're not afraid, if this is all and who were the water gate burglars, former bay of pigs men, and was geo bush sr. ever involved in bay of pigs? or with cocaine and nicaragua/noriega/elsalvador/grenada/irancontragate? and didn't bush sr. hang out in florida and assist in the bay of pigs while working for the CIA....because uncle Walker lost some BIG MONEY when castro took over Cuba.... why do Saddam and Noriega feel like repitions of the same type of involvement... setting someone up for failure, using them to wipe your feet on after they've taken you so far and you need an enemy to justify your actions....give 'em a fancy name like "butcher of bagdhad," what do you call men who rape little girls witha machete? freedom fighters... yeah if you're a bush... Posted by: if there is no conspiracy.... | May 27, 2006 01:59 AM Posted by: jp | May 27, 2006 01:57 AM Andy, did you know, that some months ago, Osama "Innocent guy who is the scapegoat of the vast evil dark conspiracy of American government guys trying to take over the planet" bin Laden stated with his very own tongue that he was the person responsible for planning, organizing, and financing the attack on the World Trade Center? Maybe aliens told him to say that. Posted by: Mark | May 27, 2006 01:56 AM in a clear case of larceny by congress? because Hastert and Pelosi don't want someone walking in and finding money in their freezer? this country feels more like colombia south america....with drug lords in control... talk to the presidente' he's got war powers... never mind that WE ARE NOT AT WAR there is no reason for us to be there except terminal embarassment Posted by: and why is the president intervening | May 27, 2006 01:51 AM Its amazing some people think WTC 7's collapse was totally normal. I showed the video of the collapse to an engineering teacher at my school who knew nothing about it and he was speechless. To sum up what he said. No this is absolutely not normal, just not possible. Go to google video and watch these films. There is ample proof 9/11 was an inside job. And there is zero proof Osama did it. If were so wrong just prove it. Provide us with some links that shows Bin Laden was involved. Why can't one shred of evidence proving his guilt be provided? Posted by: Andy White | May 27, 2006 01:50 AM J, the visual evidence of what, exactly, is clear? Sure a building can come strait down. Let me explain to you how. The floors have cavities (i.e., air) between them. The floors above apply force to the floors below them through a concept called GRAVITY. When the lower structure supporting the upper floors fails, there is nothing but air (see above) between them to prevent the upper floors from collapsing into the lower floors. The building collapses in upon itself, strait down, due to this simple sequence of events. Trees do not have big air pockets like buildings do. Thus, when you chop a tree down, it fall over side-ways. Posted by: | May 27, 2006 01:49 AM out of the 12 to 20 Million illegals coming into the country.... that any of them could have been terrorists... there has been _no_ attempt to protect the United States from terrorists... I remember one INS agent that guards the Pacific coast of Oregon complaining because they eliminated two positions there just after 9/11...leaving one person to guard the entire Pacific Coast of Oregon....over 300 hundred unwatched miles... yes, you're right, this administration was deeply afraid... what do we need to protect ourselves from future terrorist attacks mister pretzident? "Well, folks you need to get you some plastic wrap and duct tape, that should do it." you don't need to be a genius to see the obvious.... joe schmo on the street can figure it out... the presidents not afraid, he knows who the terrorist are, and that acquiring a country with the second largest oil reserves in the world is good economic policy...especially if you're Saudia Arabia, Kuwiat, UAE and the United States oil invested.... I mean why shouldn't we believe someone whose father bought him an election because he couldn't have won it on merit? alcoholic, poor student, drug addict, why he couldn't even get a clearance to join the CIA... but now he controls Negroponte, or you could say his father does, that's who he belongs to. Posted by: it doesn't take the IQ of an | May 27, 2006 01:46 AM That's right Arkin - these stupid patriotic Americans - who the hell are they to judge guys like you? So what if the US government did manufacture a phony a 911 commission report to coverup the murder of 1,000's of New Yorkers? The insurance companies still had to pay Silverstein $$ billions - people dying on 911 - bunch of losers - they're dead and we're rich right? - too bad! Hey I'm with you Arkin - screw all the rock solid evidence that 911 was a criminal action (not an act of war) perpetrated by the Bush family crime syndicate - when are people gonna realize who's running things around here? Personally just like you buddy, I'm just sick of all this irrefutable, substantiated evidence available to anyone with an Internet connection - isn't there something you can do to stop all this damn 911 truth being spread? - it's really starting to make guys like you look really, really bad. Posted by: ®notepad | May 27, 2006 01:44 AM The official story is full of instances where the laws of physics are suspended; be it the collapse of the twin towers, wtc7, the crash of flight 93, or the pentagon strike. If trade the trade center buildings fell with a violent force next to wtc7, why would it in turn fall straight down into a neat pile? When you chop trees down, do they collapse straight down? Can you think of anything that can be hit on its side and forced to fall straight down into it's own footprint? What about something that can be hit near the top, as in wtc2, and forced to collapse ALL THE WAY TO THE GROUND at near freefall speed? No, I'm not a structural engineer. I can tell you this though: I'm not a doctor either; but I can sure as hell tell you when someone is choking. The visual evidence is that clear. Yet, we are the people who are crazy. What a joke. Posted by: J | May 27, 2006 01:37 AM You can have costly, lengthy, devisive congressional investigations 'till the cows come home and never "prove" a particuar version of events to everyone. Yes, it's important and legitimate to question the premises and conclusions in any investigative work. But the version of events in the 9/11 commission report and in the Popular Mechanics "debunking" (as you label it) article are infinitely more probable than the garbage I hear being thrown about. Posted by: | May 27, 2006 01:36 AM Who the heck does this Akrin guy think he is? "These are not typical Americans who just want better security and government and pray for successful prosecution of the war on terrorism. This is a purely partisan political and cynical anti-everything group looking to exploit 9/11, just as they accuse the administration of doing." OH REALY? 9/11 was a huge step towards fascism in this country, and thanks to morons like this Arkin fellow, liberty will die with thunderous applause. Posted by: Frank | May 27, 2006 01:35 AM The Ganaraska Think Tank, (Canada) noting the remarkable reaction discussion of 9/11 still evokes, would like to put every concerned citizen at ease and also sort out the conspiracy theories by exposing the only possible explanation for the traumatic attacks. It was aliens. The one expert scientific source no-one has consulted is the astronomers. Did any of the world's star-gazing scientists see any peculiar entities approaching the earth about the time the tragedy occurred? Remember, no astronomer has testified that he/she didn't see such a space vehicle. How many news organizations reported on the apparent airship, quite possibly, or even likely to have come from another planet, or even another dimension, that could have flown over the American Eastern Seaboard at the time of 9/11. It wasn't the spaceship that crashed into the effected buildings, it was the mind control devices the ship carried that took control of those piloting the airliners that in turn, as everyone knows, crashed into the twin-towers. The Ganaraska Think Tank, which holds it's sessions beside the tranquil Southern Ontario river of the same name, came to this startling conclusion by very carefully analyzing all the theories put forward, even the most improbable. It soon became clear that aliens in a space ship was the only plausible explanation. That of course begs the question, why did they do it? quite simple. Discrimination of the basis of colour. You see the aliens are purple and they hate anyone who is white, black, red or yellow. Which goes to prove, what turns around comes around, (or something like that) Posted by: ganaraska think tank | May 27, 2006 01:30 AM I was appalled and embarrassed when my best friend raised questions about the official story. To correct his misguided thinking, I went out and did my homework. I read The 9/11 Commission Report, the NIST reports, the county fire reports, and other official government documents, searching for proof to support the administration's version of events. The proof is not there, folks. Anyone who goes deeper than the Popular Mechanics "debunking" piece will learn that the American people have legitimate reasons to question the official story. Asking for another investigation is not crazy. On the contrary, it's the only responsible thing to do. Posted by: ConcernedCitizen | May 27, 2006 01:18 AM Insinuating someone is "afraid" to look at some "evidence" is a typical conspiracist thing to say when someone doesn't want to spend all his valuable time addressing the deluge of theories conspiracists throw out. I love evidence - when it's not a huge waste of time and when its learning about something useful in life. Posted by: Mark | May 27, 2006 01:16 AM I assumed a 9/11 cover-up from the beginning. However, over time I have realized that in order for our government to have been involved with the attacks, two impossible events would have to have taken place: 1. Our government would have to be competent enough to have pulled it off, and 2. Our government would have to have safeguarded the secret. Posted by: skeptical | May 27, 2006 01:11 AM No, I believe that for the people pandering this stuff they are totally appropriate. And I didn't say they fell ON WTC7. They fell next to it. With lots of force. Lots and lots of force. Causing WTC7 to collapse. Posted by: Mark | May 27, 2006 01:07 AM Mark, Your case would be stronger without the personal attacks. Your comment that the towers fell on WTC7 suggests you're too afraid to look at the evidence. Posted by: David 20895 | May 27, 2006 12:56 AM If you think so little of David Ray Griffin's work, why don't you take his 115 omissions and distortions of the Kean Commission list on the 911truth.org website and critique every point? Double triple quadruple dare with jimmies and a cherry on it. Posted by: David20895 | May 27, 2006 12:51 AM This is so absurd. You conspiracy guys are warped and insane. Those of you who believe them are being taken for a ride. Yea, I think they dynamited the WTC - passenger jets smashing full speed into the the buildings and starting high temperature fires leading to structural failure just wouldn't do it. -Whatever. Gee, how do you explain building seven collapsing? Oh, I don't know, maybe the two massive 110 story buildings collapsing right next to it had something to do with it. Get real. Yea, that wasn't a plane with peoples' loved ones in it that crashed into the Pentagon. It was a missile. -Whatever. Oh yea, and all those flight control guys were in on it! They were part of the whole big, evil conspiracy, and still the hundreds if not thousands of people required to keep the conspiracy under wraps have remained quiet. How could anyone with a shred of common sense buy the ludicrous bunk these conspiracy merchants and their misguided followers are selling? Clear-headed, logical Americans should not be mislead just because some immoral guy with an agenda wants to raise all kinds of stink. Posted by: Mark | May 27, 2006 12:43 AM The comments here are just great. LOL INTERNET!!! I mean, the administration cannot even lie convincingly about WMDs in Iraq but they manage a super-duper black op complete with missile strike on the Pentagon, a plane disappearing in mid-air, demolition charges on both WTC towers and whatnot? Confirmed by people doing research on Wikipedia? Riiight. Granted that the EPA has made an ass of itself but giving lower Manhattan a clean bill of health then again this *is* the Bush administration. Decency? We have heard of it. Next: Why the destruction of New Orleans was actually planned in advance to enrich Big Oil, what *really* happened to KAL 007 and why TWA 800 was *really* hit by a missile. Oh, the conspiracies. "Never Assume Malice When Stupidity Will Suffice" Posted by: El Tonno | May 27, 2006 12:41 AM My, my, are we getting to you, Mr. Arkin? Too bad you weren't in San Francisco April 3rd. You could have visited that dignified and respectable venue, the Commonwealth Club of California, to hear David Ray Griffin speaking on the errors and omissions of the 9/11 Commission. Nuts, are we? Posted by: | May 27, 2006 12:33 AM Sorry I post again I forgot 2 things. First we are do not hate you. I love Muffins and America so We are very sorry for your losses. These NY American people died are not going to be forgoten only if you do something about them. DO IT before is too late. Dont give up your freedom. We are with you for a better world without wars. Posted by: Chris | May 27, 2006 12:29 AM I do not want to say again the obvious. I am Greek living in Germany the last 7 years. The 80% of Europe do not believe the official story. And do not tell me please that we are democrats and we do it because we doing politics. Europe will not vote to your next elections. Open your eyes pearl harbor kenedy? How many more you want to wake up? Posted by: Chris | May 27, 2006 12:23 AM dz and then yizzo - dz - you're incorrect about me being a lefty, pushing "Incompetence" theory. I assert that Mr Bush is incompetent. The totality of his record in office is why i draw that inference. I didn't suggest that it was why the 9/11 attack was successful - even if he and Ms. Rice paid attention to the August warning about Al Quada wanting to strike the US, how does anyone narrow that down usefully? Yizzo - there's a form of inference called Bayesian inference - you guess based on the most likely data you have, including prior information - though the US response during the attack was ineffective (save those passengers over PA) it just doesn't make sense that the Bush Admin would let the attack go forward - the White House itself was at risk, and the World Trade Center was filled with republicans who used their deep pockets to help Bush/Cheney gain office. It hit the Pentagon, a bastion of conservative view. There's also work on catastrophic events - frequently when terrible human failures occur, there's a whole set of unlikely things that just fall into place at the wrong time. That there are numerous loose details being cited does not (thanks to Rev. Bayes) set aside that most hijackers were identified successfully, and that there are numerous eye-witness accounts of the planes hitting the WTC towers and the Pentagon. When you have hundreds of witnesses from all sorts of federal, state, and local levels providing information, there will be thousands of "facts" that don't line up correctly - because people get things wrong all the time - especially during traumatic events. I think our government whitewashed the investigation, but i blame the attack on Al Quada - too bad we're mucking around in Iraq instead of roasting Osama Bin Laden's nuts on a fire, which might have happened if we focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Posted by: Mill_of_Mn | May 27, 2006 12:18 AM One plausible explanation for the sheer numbers of non-beleivers is that this administration have been caught lying through its teeth time after time after time ..........tooooo many times? Posted by: Mario | May 27, 2006 12:10 AM Then come and talk to me. At the VERY least 9/11 was the WORST national security screw up in American history. (without even beginning to speak about the massive amounts of evidence implicating the George Bush war criminal administration in 9/11) Heads should be rolling because of this and there is nothing but promotions to be had for the people who blatantly and quite coincidentally botched their jobs on 9/11 when it cam to protecting our country. I guess they won't release the 2 other vantage points of the Pentagon strike that had a STREAMING view of the supposed 757 hitting the building because of national security, huh? The FBI confiscated the security cameras from the gas station and the hotel within minutes of the attack and they have never been released... Investigate 9/11... Posted by: Inside Job | May 27, 2006 12:10 AM Bottom line. There has been NO investigation of 9/11. The Kean Commission...delayed a full year by Bushco who wanted NO investigation at all....relied on the official version and only investigated the intel failures. They had no subpoena power and were terribly underfunded even in that pursuit. On June 2-4th, 9/11Truth.org is holding an international search for the truth in Chicago. Let's see if the WP covers the impressive arrray of academics and other researchers who will speak at this convention. Yeah, right. One of the featured speakers will be the editor of http://tvnewslies.org. He will be addressing the media complicity in the cover up and the total blackout of ANY discussion of the evidence unearthed by the independent 911 researchers. Come on down. Posted by: Reg | May 27, 2006 12:09 AM Mr. Arkin, your article is disgusting. Honestly research 9/11 as any human being should do, and then argue the evidence rather than resorting to pathetic ad hominem attacks. Posted by: J Raso | May 27, 2006 12:09 AM Mr. Arkin, your article is disgusting. Honestly research 9/11 as any human being should do, and then argue the evidence rather than resorting to pathetic ad hominem attacks. Posted by: | May 27, 2006 12:07 AM the problem with the author of this article is that he lost none of his loved ones on 9/11. those innocent victims of U.S. government terrorism deserve our respect, and the best way we can respect their sacrifice is to reveal the truth! Posted by: c conant | May 27, 2006 12:01 AM I would like to compliment you on this article. Excellent work. However, conspiracy nuts will not stop. In reality, if you take away from them the deaths og innocent civilians - they wil be extremely bored. People like conspiracies. Posted by: Roman | May 26, 2006 11:36 PM An obvious hit piece and crude attempt to smear anyone with valid questions who are just looking for real answers. The Keane report answers NOTHING yet Arkin believes that anyone who questions it is a selfish nut? Any wonder why more and more people are turning to alternative news? Well, at least he was kind enough to mention the Poll. Posted by: Steve B | May 26, 2006 11:34 PM Posted by: | May 26, 2006 11:30 PM For those who care and want to know the truth about 9/11- take a look at: "STRANGER THAN FICTION". Here is the link: Better yet, the finalized piece (in a book format) is a must read for everyone! Its available from major book stores. As one can see, this stuff is NOT an opinion. Look at the (verifiable facts) and judge it yourself. It would be helful to compare these facts with the government version of events! Posted by: | May 26, 2006 11:30 PM Mr. Arkin, the more you attack us with smears and no facts the stronger we get. There are a lot of us and more every day. We aren't going away. Posted by: James | May 26, 2006 11:20 PM Is William Arkin blind to the other innocent victims of 9/11 and the criminal lies also surrounding that issue? In clear urgency to reopen Wall Street, on Sept. 18th, Christie Todd Whitman announced the air as SAFE to breathe, condemning thousands of caring responders and area residents to suffer lingering respiratory health problems. World Trade Center Environmental Organization http://wtceo.org/ They Lied About 9/11's Toxic Air Federal Judge Slams Whitman and EPA http://wtceo.org/wtcenvironmentalorganizationjudgeslamswhitmanandepa.htm Posted by: Jan H | May 26, 2006 11:02 PM Mr. Arkin-- either you are in complete denial or you are a government shill. This piece of yours was pathetic, a pure hit piece. Shame on you. Anyone with any brains, who isn't a shill or isn't in denial, can see the large number of anomalies in 9/11 and realize that the only reasonable explanation is that it was a false flag covert operation that was meant to provoke war. Posted by: Alex Dent | May 26, 2006 10:57 PM Is William Arkin blind to the other innocent victims of 9/11, and the criminal lies also surrounding that issue? In clear urgency to reopen Wall Street, on Sept. 18th, Christie Todd Whitman announced the air as SAFE to breathe, condemning thousands of caring responders and area residents to suffer lingering respitory health problems. Especially over these last five years, millions of americans have witnessed or experienced firsthand, valid reasons to disbelieve anything coming from the government (and the corporate press). World Trade Center Environmental Organization http://wtceo.org/ They Lied About 9/11's Toxic Air Federal Judge Slams Whitman and EPA http://wtceo.org/wtcenvironmentalorganizationjudgeslamswhitmanandepa.htm Posted by: Jan | May 26, 2006 10:57 PM I suspect we will never know all the truth about the events leading up to the 9/11 disaster, but one truth is, since 1986 after passing legislation to secure our borders, no elected official in that 20 year period made any effort to enforce those laws, there may have been a few, but they were ineffectual. To the contrary, all that was done over 20 years was to take the teeth out of the law, and sanction any law enforcement that tried to uphold it. Check the Border Patrol,and Police reports through those years. All the office holders during those years are responsible, the sooner we remove them all and get a new batch the better. Whatever laws manage to get passed at this time will see little done again. It's an election year, remember what they have done, use your votes wisely, there may still be time to save what we know as the U.S.A. Posted by: Nancy Stefani | May 26, 2006 10:48 PM This story isn't honest. Its not even a good opinion piece. "Isn't the answer self evident?" I've never heard any responsible journalist suggest such a thing. Journalists are supposed to empower us to think for ourselves. This guy thinks his opinion is self evident. This story appears to be highly loaded with unfounded opinions, and to top it all off I find that he has insulted me personally. My ability to reason. My ethics and judgement. My curiosity. Who is this guy to insult so many genuinely concerned citizens. The significance of this poll can not be so easily dismissed, and this guy should go back to Langley. Posted by: Concerned Citizen | May 26, 2006 10:45 PM I am a documented victim of terrorist voice to skull weapon attacks against me. My name is Christopher R. Phillip (trowto@verizon.net), I am forced by terrorists to endure illegal human experimentation against me every night. These uncaught terrorists use implants inside of my skull - yes it is real and not science fiction, nor delusion - and because I am a victim of terrorist voice to skull weapon use, I state you are wrong. Want proof, type in the search phrase "voice to skull" in any internet search engine and start reading. Posted by: Christopher R. Phillip | May 26, 2006 10:43 PM this obviously struck a nerve for William Arkin, to me this shows that something inside of him is crying out, angry and confused. He's covering up his confusion with a classic ad honinem attack. i honestly think this scores points for the 911 truth movement. would not be surprised at all if his shock, and embarassment caused him to delete all the comments off this blog. Posted by: robbie | May 26, 2006 10:37 PM Posted by: DHS | May 26, 2006 10:35 PM This article smacks of desparation. All I see is someone trying to label people and hope the rest of the world follows suit. Is this the quality of reporting from the Washington Times? Surely you can do better. Posted by: T Hugh | May 26, 2006 10:03 PM Quote: Because the government (DOD, CIA, FBI) refuses to release all of the 9/11 Pentagon videotapes, many Conspiracy Theorists claim a missile hit the Pentagon on 9/11, NOT a 757! "Once upon a time Conspiracy Theorists insisted the world was round." (Tweakenbush, Internet message board) Posted by: hsk01945 | May 26, 2006 09:50 PM Nice shilling. But the truth is that Judicial Watch took credit for flight77.info's FOIA request by piggy-backing their lawsuit a few weeks before it received the tapes, fully ONE YEAR after flight77.info filed the lawsuit. Then Judicial Watch got all over the media saying they filed the suit to debunk conspiracy theories. What many who investigate 9/11 believe is that the video doesn't show or prove anything. It's terrible quality, was transferred between several different formats before it was released, and doesn't make clear what happened at all, other than there was a big red explosion at the pentagon. What they want is to see a high quality video of the attack, the type of thing the Freedom of Information Act was intended for. Posted by: benthere | May 26, 2006 09:58 PM You wrote: "For a moment, the 9/11 families -- and again I don't mean a specific set of families or any organization -- recognized that 9/11 was the largest governmental failure in history, that if "we" the people were going to have security we were going to have to involve ourselves." If you are going to speak for the 9/11 victims' families, you are *irresponsible* if you don't even survey their opinions on the calls for further investigation by organizations like 911truth.org. What you don't seem to understand is that the families are part of many of these organizations who are looking for answers. Well, either you don't understand it, or you are simply trying to spin your readers opinions by omitting that fact. Posted by: benthere | May 26, 2006 09:50 PM The Department of Defense just released a video purportedly showing a "plane" hitting the Pentagon on 9/11. Skeptics reject the video "evidence" as unclear, and further, allege a conspiracy. The DOD video (with each frame of the film curiously date stamped Sep 12, 2001) was taken from a gas station opposite the Pentagon. However, The DOD did not release other video evidence taken by security cameras from the rooftop of a nearby hotel, and video footage of the event recorded by the Maryland D.O.T highway surveillance cameras just opposite the cash site. The tapes of these security cameras which have unobstructed views of the area where the "plane" impacted, were confiscated by governmental officials within minutes following the crash. Because the government (DOD, CIA, FBI) refuses to release all of the 9/11 Pentagon videotapes, many Conspiracy Theorists claim a missile hit the Pentagon on 9/11, NOT a 757! "Once upon a time Conspiracy Theorists insisted the world was round." (Tweakenbush, Internet message board) Posted by: hsk01945 | May 26, 2006 09:50 PM What investigation supports your claims? The NIST report is based upon the analysis of only 236 pieces of steel...out of 200,000 tonnes from the World Trade Center alone. There is no official story, simply because it would be impossible to determine effects with any degree of accuracy with such evidence. The 9/11 truth movement has been very clever by isolating the anomalies that exist relating to the scientific aspect of the WTC collapse. These anomalies are the key to understanding this event. If your hypothesis cannot account for the anomalies that exist, then your hypothesis is flawed and requires revision. Read this and answer my simple question: Why did the steel melt? Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? By Steven E. Jones Department of Physics and Astronomy Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html Who is Professor Steven Jones? Posted by: Deep Thought | May 26, 2006 09:22 PM Those interested in some other interesting questions about what's gone on should check out Daniel Hopsicker's work at www.madcow.prod He has been living in Venice Florida since 911 doing his own research into Atta and company. Posted by: Todd Pruner | May 26, 2006 09:18 PM Ted Molczan, you wrote: "I am confident that if there was any truth to this alleged grand conspiracy, professional journalists would pursue it aggressively." Here's an example of a professional journalist with New York magazine pursuing it aggressively: Posted by: | May 26, 2006 09:07 PM Those who can't or won't think for themselves, or are too lazy to investigate the nagging questions about 9/11, are easy to spot. Watch them repeatedly use worn cliches in their vapid responses to 911 truth seekers, such as "tin hats" "conspiracy theorists" "I think' "I believe" without any basis for their silly grunts accept the corporate media and government version of events. For fun, see how many you can find in the following responses to this ridiculous article. For those who can think for yourselves: research st911.org, 911truth.org, 911blogger.com. Posted by: Alex | May 26, 2006 08:58 PM We can never seem to admit that an enemy came up with a good plan, and executed it well. (JFK Assassination, Pearl Harbor) Instead, it had to be a conspiracy by members of our own government that made such tragedies possible. It can't be that we weren't prepared due to, say, incompetence. If we were unprepared, it can only have been traitorous conspiracy. The disaster of 9/11/01 is just more of the same. Posted by: scott h. | May 26, 2006 08:55 PM what is really interesting here is not some cover-up but the enormous disillusionment that exists not just with the war in Iraq but also the fight against terrorism. Posted by: Rbsimon | May 26, 2006 08:35 PM Of course, you denounce everyone who questions the report as "crazy conspiracy nuts" or whatever. You dismiss the notion entirely without even bothering to investigate any of the claims thoroughly. You don't even bother to ask yourself why so many people have come to believe that the official report is mostly false. And yet, you are one of those who will feel the most betrayed when you realize our country has been betrayed from the inside. So why don't you at least look deeper into it if only to prove the conspiracy nuts wrong? Posted by: Nik | May 26, 2006 08:26 PM I'm a bit confused now. before I believed the official theory about 911. After reading this and the links to some of the data listed here, it is clear that there are some very disturbing questions that need to be answered. Any chance the Major media will look into these questions? Posted by: Confused | May 26, 2006 08:25 PM It has the look and feel of propaganda, and is not at all compelling. I am confident that if there was any truth to this alleged grand conspiracy, professional journalists would pursue it aggressively. Posted by: Ted Molczan | May 26, 2006 08:08 PM BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Ted, you actually trust the MSM? are you f*cking serious? Posted by: | May 26, 2006 08:19 PM Several months ago, a friend e-mailed me the URL of a video that he found "very compelling" and that I "must watch": It has the look and feel of propaganda, and is not at all compelling. I am confident that if there was any truth to this alleged grand conspiracy, professional journalists would pursue it aggressively. Posted by: Ted Molczan | May 26, 2006 08:08 PM 911blogger.com has boatloads more credibility than some assclown named Arkin who himself exploits 9/11 not only by selling a book about it, but by ignoring the disturbing questions that remained unanswered. Posted by: | May 26, 2006 07:53 PM Look Mr. Arkin, the government lied about Vietnam, and it lied about Iraq. Iraq exposed that we don't control the use of agressive weapons of our nation state even though we are a democracy. No one needs a lecture from a newspaper guy of things, as you were all shaking your pom poms for Bush for the past six years ignoring reality on the ground. Having lived through the phony Warren report, and seeing the absolute secrecy after 911, I have no reason to give the official explanation any credibilty at all. Fact is that our "nation state" is not driven in any meaningful way by the people, and hasn't been since Gore was prevented from taking the presidency. Only a series of calamities from the incompetency of the elite have given some life support to our ailing democracy. Instead of lampooning people who don't believe the government, you should spend your time cleaning up the Post, which prostituted itself through Woodward and others to get leaks from the gang at the White House. Posted by: zhenren | May 26, 2006 07:50 PM You said: "The 9/11 truth seekers...turn out to be exactly what I thought they were: predatory and devious, seekers of polarization and not light, abusive of the political system, contemptuous of anything that even resembles the "truth. [...] The organization itself exploits the 9/11 families and the American public's confusion" You mean like this? "Arkin's latest book -- Codenames: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs, and Operations in the 9/11 World -- was published in January 2005 by Steerforth Press." You surely don't consider yourself credible in accusing others of exploiting the victims of 9/11, do you? After all, you and your job benefit from its aftermath. You even took the name of 9/11 on for the title of your book that you *sell*. Here, let me help other readers understand the situation. Look for articles about the poll from the mainstream media on Google News by going to this link: Notice how this Military Analyst shill is the first to cover it in the MSM, and it's only in his blog? Not to mention he was too busy spinning the outcome of the poll to include all the details of what it contained: I know that what I say won't have much influence on what you believe about 9/11, but I ask that you don't listen to spinsters like this guy Anker, either. Just know that mainstream media like the Post are not giving you all the facts. They still haven't even begun to cover this story. Posted by: benthere | May 26, 2006 07:48 PM Not only was Kerik in the know on 9/11 (WTC Building #7 - NYC Office of Emergency Managment), but this article from TODAY details his ties to the mob! Grand jury eyes 9/11 hero Kerik Allegations of ethical lapses doomed Homeland Security nod NEW YORK (AP) -- Bernard Kerik once enjoyed a national reputation as a brash, self-made law enforcer. As police commissioner, he was at Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's side during the September 11, 2001, terror attacks. By late 2004, President Bush wanted him for homeland security chief. Kerik's fame faded after allegations of ethical lapses doomed his nomination. His troubles, however, have endured. A grand jury in the Bronx has been hearing testimony about a possible corruption case against Kerik involving reputed mob associates, alleged influence peddling and a questionable home-renovation project. The Bronx District Attorney's office refused this week to comment on speculation that the grand jury could soon charge Kerik with abusing his authority while a top city official, or to discuss any aspect of the case. But defense lawyers confirmed that their clients had testified during the past several weeks. Among the witnesses was Timothy Woods, a contractor who supervised a project to convert two apartments -- bought by Kerik in 1999 for $170,000 -- into one home. Kerik, who was commissioner of the city's Department of Correction when the work was done, sold the home for $460,000 in 2002 after real estate advertisements described it as a "gem" adorned with marble and granite. In a civil complaint filed last year, New Jersey authorities now working with the Bronx prosecutors alleged that most of the $240,000 renovation was secretly paid for by a construction firm in that state with ties to the Mafia, Interstate Industrial Corp. In return, Kerik allegedly vouched for Interstate with city regulators -- charges both he and the company's owners, Frank and Peter DiTommaso, vehemently deny. "Everything in that complaint was completely false," said the owners' attorney, Thomas Durkin Jr. The DiTommaso brothers, who gave grand jury testimony earlier this year, insist "there was never, never, never any conversation about Woods doing the work and Interstate paying for it," the lawyer said. Woods, who last spoke to prosecutors May 15, told a different story: According to his attorney, Kyle Watters, the contractor claimed Kerik paid only about $30,000 -- and that Interstate footed the rest of the bill. Because so much work was being done for so little, "the inference at least is that Kerik had to know" he was being underwritten, Watters said. But Kerik's attorney, Joseph Tacopina, said his client never struck a deal. "He paid every bill he ever got for the apartment," he said. "He committed no crime. He didn't attempt to influence anyone." Kerik's woes began almost immediately after the White House nominated him in December 2004 to replace Tom Ridge as head of the Department of Homeland Security. There were questions about his $6.2 million windfall from exercising stock options in a stun-gun company that did business with the government. There also were reports that during his 18-month tenure as police commissioner he had simultaneous extramarital affairs with two women, including the publisher of his memoir. Kerik cited immigration and tax issues over a former nanny as the reason for withdrawing his name only a week after his nomination. He later resigned from Giuliani's high-powered consulting firm and started his own security business doing work in Jordan and Dubai, United Arab Emirates. More problems surfaced in November, when the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement filed court papers seeking to revoke Interstate Industrial's license to work on casinos in Atlantic City. The papers cited testimony by mob turncoats that the DiTommaso brothers were associates of the Gambino organized crime family. The civil complaint also detailed Kerik's cozy relationship with an Interstate official. In 1999, he sent a series of e-mails to the official that "indicated his lack of sufficient funds to both purchase and renovate his new Bronx apartment," and "indicated he would provide information to Frank DiTommaso regarding New York City contracts," the papers said. Kerik later met with a regulator at the city's Trade Waste Commission, which was investigating Interstate, telling him was interested in "alleviating the agency's concerns" about the firm, the papers said. (The official has said he didn't believe Kerik improperly tried to influence him, Kerik's lawyer said.) The complaint said when the gaming division sought answers and documents from Kerik, he invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Posted by: Calvin Swift | May 26, 2006 07:40 PM Oh come on Arkin, don't be such a posturer and apologist for the post-9/11 world written in 1998 by Philip Zelikow and John Deutch via the CFR. The 9/11 Commission was a cruel joke played on the families; a far worse fiasco of nonsense and lies than even the Warren Commission and an embarassment to the United States. The official story of 9/11 is full of holes, problems, cover ups and lies and none of it stands up to scrutiny. Yes, it is a shocking and appaling proposition, but it strongly seems this was a coup that one part of the government wanted to happen, and not only wanted but made happen. How America deals with this over time I don't know, but it's going to have to. Posted by: jjjjj | May 26, 2006 07:24 PM Mr. Arkin, all I can say is that after reading innumerable posts here containing countless errors presented as "fact," I feel your pain. I've spent a couple of days dismantling the arguments of one of these conspiracy whackjobs on another board, and it amazed me that, as often as kept telling me to "do some research," when I checked his "sources" it turns out that none of them had done any objective research of their own. The 9/11 cultist community rehashes baseless rumors and flatout fantasies and then regurgitates them as fact. I'm no fan of Bush--the man has been a total disaster for this country and can justifiably be labeled a moron, IMO. But there is simply no preponderance of reputable facts to demonstrate any government complicity in the 9/11 attacks. Supposedly, support for these loony groups is gaining steam, but the evidence for that may be deceptive as well. The reason that there are far more pro-whacko vs. pro-factual sites (see http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html for a relatively rare example of the latter) is simply because most of us in the above-80-IQ-points community don't think we need to waste time creating Web sites to belabor the obvious. It's a phenomenon not unlike the rise of the Creationism in the absence of an aggressive promotion of common-sense evolutionary science. (I don't think it's coincidental that the demographics of both "true believer" groups are remarkably similar, either.) The paranoids are, online, more numerous and more vocal, but in the real world (do some of those folks even know what sunlight is?) their root-cellar nuttiness can't stand up to scrutiny. That's why the Post and other (forgive me) MSM are absolutely right in not bothering to pander to them with empty sensationalist stories--it's the modern-day equivalent of giving credence to people who believe in fairy folk. On the bright, after reading today's blog entries, I put in an order with my broker to buy 10,000 shares of Alcoa. I had no idea the demand for aluminum foil had grown so much. I'm gonna be rich, rich, rich! Thank you again, Mr. Arkin. Posted by: KR20852 | May 26, 2006 07:09 PM First of all, Arkin says he debunks 9/11 myths but he does nothing more than yell at people who don't believe the government's version of events. Gee, why would anybody not trust the Bush Administration to tell the truth? (Or the mainstream media, for that matter?) [scratches head] I wonder ... In any case, will you people stop falling into this guy's trap and arguing between swallowing every theory whole and accepting the government version of events on 9/11? The theories themselves aren't that important right now. What IS important is that there are many big, unanswered questions about what happened. If Arkin can answer these questions, I'll stop asking them. Until then, I'll ask them and if that means I'm a "pointy headed tin foil hat conspiracy theorist" or whatever lame insult makes you feel emotionally satisfied, then so be it. Posted by: Craig | May 26, 2006 07:08 PM "I saw/heard osama claim responsibility in one of his videos." Before that video he denied involvement, as this CNN page shows: By "one of his videos" you must be referring to the video allegedly found in December 2001 in a house in Afganistan, featuring the "fatty" bin Laden: Scroll to the middle of the page to compare that version of bin Laden to known photos of him. For the "confession tape" character to be bin Laden, he would have had to undergo more radical nose surgery than even Michael Jackson. The man's nose is considerably shorter (and wider) than the nose of bin Laden in the other photographs. In the confession video "bin Laden" is also writing with his right hand, yet FBI describes him as left-handed. Do you find that strange? I'm just saying that 1) first bin Laden emphatically denied involvement, and 2) the man in the "confession video" found months later cannot possibly be bin Laden. Again, even a child should be able to see that. Apparently, with authority-accepting adults, "anything goes". Now, how many people there are taking seriously the recurring bad-quality auditory "announcements" of the probably long-dead "bin Laden"? Posted by: Vesa | May 26, 2006 07:07 PM I think the conspiracy lovers are being totally disengenious to the 3000 people who died that day and have nothing but contempt for those that seek to pervert public opinion to their own political agendas. Why is it so hard for some people to accept the reality of what we all saw and felt that day ? Posted by: jharek from UK | May 26, 2006 07:06 PM The most shocking finding in that Zogby poll was not concerning the "9/11 coverup" question. Read the wording carefully - if you think or suspected that there may have been any *partisanship* on that committee (in Washington? Never!) and/or you think there was anything left *out* of the report (even if it was just to avoid embarrassment for some public figure), you had to answer "COVER UP". It doesn't exactly mean you think the CIA's ninjas were planting explosives in the Twin Tower elevator shafts on September 10th. This overshadows the real shocker of the poll. LESS THAN HALF of the public thinks the president might have exploited 9/11 for his political aims. I hadn't realized that many people were in a medical coma during the 2002-3 timeframe. Remember "9/11-Saddam-9/11-Iraq-9/11-Saddam-9/11-Iraq" Come on people, you can get it, I know you can. I'd like to know how many Americans still think Saddam attacked us. As of Election Day 2004, it was 40-something % (52% of Bush voters). Information Age, they call this. Give me the Dark Ages, please. At least they were humble in their ignorance back then. Posted by: B2O | May 26, 2006 07:06 PM Arkin, Your point about the underlying disbelief of all things official or governmental these days is well taken. My, my. Look what your blog brought out of the woodwork. Kind of ironic that these folks are running around spewing these conspiracy tales (calling them theories makes them sound rational or scientific) when the hot book and movie going around follow a similar tack about the Catholic Church. Anyway, I ping you when I think you are off-base, so I will tip my hat to you now when you have the guts to call a spade a spade despite the torrent of crap you will get for it. Posted by: beachhead | May 26, 2006 07:03 PM Wow, so William Arkin failed to address the dozens of FBI whistleblowers who have come forward, the countless 9/11 families and survivors who are demanding answers still refused to them, as well as the things which are FAR from "theories", but none the less show more foreknowlege than mere "incompetence". Then again, Arkin eludes to in his closing statements, that anyone questioning the war in Iraq is also a "tinfoil" hat wearing kook. Yes, Islamic extremism is definately a threat, and I do believe they planned and carried out the hijackings on 9/11, but you have to ask yourself, when does incompetence stop looking like incompetence, and more like some wanted it not to be prevented? Posted by: pockybot | May 26, 2006 07:03 PM The american people needs to wake up, don't let them get away with this.. Posted by: Gerger | May 26, 2006 06:54 PM Posted by: Awake | May 26, 2006 06:50 PM Posted by: C. Worthington | May 26, 2006 06:48 PM Posted by: reader | May 26, 2006 06:33 PM DON PAUL AND JIM HOFFMAN CHALLENGE NEW YORK TIMES' WRITERS JAMES GLANZ AND ERIC LIPTON TO DEBATE ON THE CRIMES OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 IN NEW YORK CITY On the occasion of the release of their new DVD, 9/11 Guilt / The Proof Is in Your Hands, Jim Hoffman and Don Paul, two of the most acclaimed writers on the subject of 2001's 'Attack on America', invite James Glantz and Eric Lipton, staff writers for The New York Times and authors of a 2003 book on the World Trade Center and its destruction to a debate on the facts and consequences of the 9/11/01 crimes in New York City. "We chose James Glantz and Eric Lipton for our invitation because their skills and prominence nicely represent the illusion-bearers in mass-media who have steadfastly covered up the obvious demolition of World Trade Center Building 7 and the Twin Towers," said Don Paul, whose presentation in the new DVD is titled 'Indicting Financiers behind the Crimes of 9/11/01'. "City in the Sky stands out for its use of inventive prose and silly anthropomorphisms to hide basic realties about the Twin Towers' structures and their explosive, symmetrical destruction," said Jim Hoffman, creator of the highly praised websites WTC7.net and 911Research.WTC7.net, "We hope Mr. Glantz and Mr. Lipton will join us in a discussion that could help to restore journalistic integrity in the United States." "We need our mass-media to at last expose the 'Big Lie' of 9/11/01 before more of such lies provide the 'pretext' for a war on Iran," Paul added. "We hope for a public debate before that war starts." http://wtc7.net/events/nyt/index.html Posted by: reader | May 26, 2006 06:30 PM Well, Maturin42, I'm a registered Democrat. I think the current administration is incompetent, dishonest, and dishonorable. And, I still don't buy the pointy-headed conspiracy stories. Go figure, huh? Posted by: BunnyMan | May 26, 2006 05:49 PM It was flight 93... get it right... Posted by: jljlkjjk | May 26, 2006 05:47 PM The idea that anyone who doubts the "official" account of a panel of insiders with deep conflicts of interest, shepherded by Phillip Zeilikow, Condi's partner in crime is a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist speaks for itself. That accusation generally comes from someone who is far more interested in defending a political point of view than learning the truth, wherever it lies. One thing I demand from 'official' explanations is that they comport with the evidence - all the evidence, and that they not be a transparent apology for an establishment fable that makes everyone into a hero, holds nobody accountable, and lets the administration completely off the hook. This article is what I have come to expect from the Washington Post. It's just sad. Posted by: Maturin42 | May 26, 2006 05:39 PM Excuse me - I saw planes fly into the twin towers. I read a transcript of the phone call between fight 90 passengers and their loved ones as the heros began their fight against the REAL terrorists. I saw/heard osama claim responsibility in one of his videos. It is simply disgusting to claim that the US Government had a hand in it. Those who would claim so need a dose of reality, and will likely vote for Hillary in '08, or Ralph Nadar.. Thus, guaranteeing a corrupt republican party's victory... thats how smart they are. Posted by: Long Beach, CA | May 26, 2006 05:20 PM Well, amused, um, Bush is still a dildo. Even if he had nothing to do with 9/11. Posted by: BunnyMan | May 26, 2006 05:19 PM Welcome - the Summer of Truth! Posted by: Iced Ink | May 26, 2006 05:18 PM Fools! It wasn't Theremite that was used to cut the columns on the WTC towers, it was VEGEMITE! Wake up! Time is running out! Posted by: BigD | May 26, 2006 05:16 PM Ha! I'm surprised these people are able to tie their own shoes. One could convince them that Bush is responsible for every bad thing that ever happened to them, including not getting a date to the prom. They make Bush look like a brain surgeon. Thanks for the laugh. Posted by: amused | May 26, 2006 05:14 PM Wow there are many many many kooks out there!!! Almost too many! ahem... Mr. Arkin, I hope the blood money you banked from this obvious propaganda piece is worth eternal damnation. The gig is up, half of the people that I talk to are finally waking up and that number is growing rapidly everyday! And I talk to A LOT of people regarding the topic of 9-11, and current washington/media corruption, lies, and deceit. Our little band of nut job conspiracy theorists has the mainstream media, the members of Congress, and this administration all in full retreat. So my advice to you Mr. Arkin would be to first WAKE UP! then digest all the info that has been posted on this site, Then Quit your job. Repent! Repeat if desired... Posted by: Tony | May 26, 2006 05:13 PM Posted by: walter | May 26, 2006 05:12 PM out of the 12 to 20 Million illegals coming into the country.... that any of them could have been terrorists... there has been _no_ attempt to protect the United States from terrorists... I remember one INS agent that guards the Pacific coast of Oregon complaining because they eliminated two positions there just after 9/11...leaving one person to guard the entire Pacific Coast of Oregon.... you don't need to be a genius to see the obvious.... joe schmo on the street can figure it out, just cause there's little weight behind it, media wise when an actor notices it, doesn't make it any less obvious.... attacking the actor equates to trying to invalidate a point by attacking character... Posted by: it doesn't take the IQ of an | May 26, 2006 05:11 PM Why is Arkin acting as a tool of the Zionist-Capitalist-Republican controlled MSM? It's obvious - he's crap, my aluminum foil hat fell off. Wait, what was I saying? Uh, um. Never mind. Have a pleasant weekend! Posted by: BunnyMan | May 26, 2006 05:06 PM It hasn't been a secret for 5 years, it just took that long for us to educate those who depend on the mainstream media to tell them what's really going on. No the difference between Sean Hannity and Charlie Sheen? None - They're both actors. Posted by: Domenick | May 26, 2006 05:04 PM Implies that only high school dropouts primarily believe the government was involved and invites you to read his blog about the movie Loose Change. But is BYU Prof Steven Jones a drop out? How about the Former head of the Star Wars Program Dr. Bowman? 27 year CIA Analyst Ray McGovern? Father of Reaganomics Paul Craig Roberts? FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds? And the list goes on. They can't be attack like Charlie Sheen was and the MSM and individuals (shills) like this guy simply ignore them. How about proving how "brainy" you truly are and debunk this: We'll be waiting. Put up or shut up time. Posted by: Domenick | May 26, 2006 05:01 PM suit your penchant for not wanting to discuss your enabling of the bush administration over at the FAA? comeon sit down, let's talk about what Posted by: how's that ajs? | May 26, 2006 05:00 PM "predatory and devious, seekers of polarization and not light, abusive of the political system, contemptuous of anything that even resembles the "truth."" Posted by: William | May 26, 2006 04:57 PM any one thing that I've said, just the simple fact that the to the suggestions that the 9/11 Commission made _to_ him, following the investigation of pre 9/11 conditions that would help to make the United States safe from terrorism, the 9/11 Commission, government funded, said to wit: (Bush's lack of addressing the problems that existed prior to 9/11 that made us vulnerable to terrorist activity....) "bordered on the criminal," why did geo w. bush make no response to their recommendations? he's not afraid of terrorists, he are the terrorists.... WE used to fund Al Queada, HE IS friends with the Saudis and the UAE... out of the 17 purported "arabic" "terroristas," probably agents of the CIA, but according to wikipedia, an online encyclopaedia, quoting the government sayz: all but 2 of them were UAE and SAUDI of origin.... and some have said that they were all trained to fly in the United States...somehow. what happened to that sassi Mousi guy, have they got a computer generated image of him working yet? Posted by: refute one thing that I've said | May 26, 2006 04:56 PM While I do see the 9/11 nutters leaving ponderously long rants on almost any blog with comments, I never see the actual bloggers write about it. So I don't know how much of the "blogosphere" is actually talking about it. Posted by: AJS | May 26, 2006 04:56 PM Some of these posters need to recognize--the longer you rant, the less likely it is that someone will read it. Brevity is the soul of...intelligence. Endless diatribes just get skipped over. Posted by: | May 26, 2006 04:49 PM I read these comments and get so downhearted about the state of education in the U.S. I'm sure these people are the same ones that believe every email/internet hoax. I'm also amazed at how many people seem to be experts on the laws of physics and structural engineering. You could do a full article that took every allegation, discuss what is true/false/known/unknown, and they would still believe what they want to believe (cause now you're part of the coverup conspiracy). If this government was so smart and effective that they could plan and execute "9/11" and keep the secret for five years, you must be talking about someone other than the bumblers who got us in over our heads in Iraq and couldn't get buses into New Orleans for a week. Posted by: ken | May 26, 2006 04:48 PM People with money are scared to acknowledge that it is a cover up, because if in fact it does become mainstream, say goodbye to the current American economy. Posted by: Paul | May 26, 2006 04:46 PM I believe the FAA tapes were collected, broken, and cut up into pieces and spread amongst several trashcans in the airport. don't beleive me right? there's about a hundred points to 9/11 that make no sense. so, here is a reference, do more searches if you want more: http://www.avweb.com/newswire/10_20a/briefs/187259-1.html quote: the audiotape was crushed in the hand of the unnamed FAA employee, then cut into small pieces and tossed into different trash cans around the ARTCC building. Posted by: believe it or not | May 26, 2006 04:46 PM One of the things I liked about the poll was when you got into the crosstabs. High school dropouts were most likely to believe in a government coverup; those with some college education were least likely to believe in the coverup. I a blogging Loose Change, the conspiracy nut documentary: Posted by: Brainster | May 26, 2006 04:44 PM perhaps they should ask why Tom Delay was allowed to keep his seat after having violated his oath of office and Why Pelosi and Hastert said nothing about that? seperation of church and state, attempting to control the Judiciary system through control of the funding process/congress... I didn't hear that mentioned. and where else do you get the leader of a country, is this paraguay, nicaragua, or El Salbador'? stepping in and excusing his cronies from acquiring money illegally and literally it aint friggin America, I feel like it's 1948 in a small hot town in Louisiana and boss hawg is calling down the numbers to his boys inthe congresssssssss and theya doin what he say... where else do you have a president intervening to make sure an old friend doesn't get arrested for a crime he did? why, HE DOESN'T WANT THE SAME THING HAPPENING TO HIM......... you watch my back, I got yours, we'll work together to loot America... doesn't matter that Jefferson didn't pay taxes on it? Or that there was a videotape of it? Or that that is "business as usual" around the Bush Whitehouse... you can almost hear the STINK coming off the place the howl of the Attorney generalisimo asking for all the little pedros to be given the jobs of your out-of-work tradespeople and factory workers....blue collar used to make up 56% of the MIDDLE CLASS think working retail is middle class? maybe if you have three jobs... Posted by: and the beat keeps on....laaa dee daaaa dee doh! | May 26, 2006 04:42 PM Where are the FAA tapes of that day? Posted by: Simple Question | May 26, 2006 04:38 PM You would think for how many times the Bush Administration has been caught lying about fake terror alerts, WMD's, Katrina, No one ever envisioning this type of attack, etc. That some people would be a little bit skeptical of their version of 9/11. But no, no matter how many times this Administration is caught lying, no matter how many people "step down" or are "replaced" no one dares question them in regards to 9/11. The day that brough us the Patriot Act, Domestic Spying, Random Searches in public (subways, airports), War in Afghanistan, War in Iraq, Potential war in Iran. Yeah the terrorists are a real threat. That's why they listen to your phone calls and read your emails and search you in public while leaving the border wide freaking open. Common sense, whatever happened to it? Posted by: Domenick | May 26, 2006 04:37 PM In your response to the Govt. not planting WMD's. You have to remember that other countries have sattelites as well and are watching everything that is going on. They would have shots of the Americans planting WMD's so it just wasn't possible to do that. Posted by: Paul | May 26, 2006 04:35 PM > >hit the Pentagon, what happened to that >plane? I've heard the conspiracy theory, > The 757 might have landed at any civilian or military airfield. The airspace monopoly makes this possible. Noone except the FAA and NORAD know what's going on in the skies, that's the problem. When these folks lie to us... Posted by: Greg | May 26, 2006 04:34 PM Never Delete. You may have received a partial truth. After all the goverment has tried to ruin you to Mr. Arkin for instance with their SPAM in your Blogs in attempt to discredit you. Sp4MP Army Veteran Jackson Michigan Posted by: Sp4MP | May 26, 2006 04:31 PM I find it mind-boggling that anyone could think our government could have manufactured 9/11. If the U.S. government could plot, execute, and cover-up the mass murder of thousands of people in our own country, don't you think they could have manufactured some credible evidence of WMDs in a distant country? Heck, we can't even get our retired generals to stop slamming Rumsfeld. Don't you think a 9/11 whistleblower or two might have shown up by now? Posted by: A Bell | May 26, 2006 04:30 PM i have read richard clarke's book thank you very much, in it he stated Cheney was in the PEOC before the Pentagon was hit, just as Norman Mineta testified - but the 9/11 commission rewrote his timeline to put him there after the Pentagon strike with not reference as to the source of that information.. he also said he was asked to find out how 9/11 could be tied to Iraq the very next day - one would think finding the enemy and ensuring another attack wasn't on the way would be priority #1, then again one would think securing the President would have been one that morning too. And for your information, that family member quote was from 9/11/2005 in NYC outside the United Nations - she was crying at how noone cared that about the coverup and how noone investigated her daughters death, and how Cheney and Bush took her name and used it to drag us into Iraq.. she knows about the coverup, a lot of family members do, perhaps on this 9/11 you'll here their stories for a change. Posted by: big city in the south | May 26, 2006 04:28 PM Over 40% of US citizens disagree with your point of view. Yes that is very Depressing is how you stated that? I am very sorry that people disagree with you. Anyone who disagrees with someone or has an opinion in America should be put in JAIL!!! Posted by: Matt | May 26, 2006 04:28 PM If, as some have argued, a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, what happened to that plane? I've heard the conspiracy theory, but have yet to hear how it works with the plane and its passengers that were supposedly flown into the Pentagon. Posted by: Curious | May 26, 2006 04:26 PM We would send up a pair of F-16 to confront a spy plane for the Russia in a second when the radar pick up those plane. Where are the air force planes in Sept 11 right after the first plane hit the tower? Where are the F-16s while the 3rd plane turned around and violating its fly plan? Posted by: F-16 | May 26, 2006 04:05 PM At least one group of 9/11 hijackers were reported to have purchased ONE WAY TICKETS IN CASH, and there might have been tickets similarly sold to other of the three groups. The airlines basically enabled this to happen by their own complicity. I would challenge anyone to tell me how often - if ever - they have or have even seen another passenger purchase a one-way ticket in cash. There is no need for complex conspiracy theories, how about a plain stupidity theory. Posted by: RC LOS ANGELES | May 26, 2006 04:05 PM The mainstream media loves extremes. On the one side there is the purity of a trustworthy government providing reasonable answers to all questions about what happened on 9/11. On the other hand there are devious predatory conspiracy theorists who want to destroy the country. That makes a good story, but like so much of "conventional wisdom" espoused by the Post and friends, it isn't true--even though in Colbert language it might have a degree of "truthiness." The thing about 9/11 is that there are unanswered questions. Many of these questions were posed by families of the victims. They have not been answered. Instead of pointing fingers and imagining a conspiracy of predatory conspiracy theorists stirring up the country, maybe the media should do its job--that is, to recognize a story and ask questions, to try to find truth. There are too many unanswered questions and these questions are significant and should be asked. A good example is the Pentagon video that was just released that was supposed to put all those Americans who have questions about what happened there to shame. The video? The exact same video that it already released earlier, just longer. I watched it many times and saw no plane. How can these questions be put to rest when the government doesn't want to answer them? WP: Do your job and stop blaming your readers for wanting information. Posted by: Craig | May 26, 2006 03:58 PM From big city ion the south quotes: >>From a family member whose daughter died on 9/11: "He used 9/11 to take us to war in Iraq - is one arab the same as another? HOW DARE THIS WORK IN AMERICA!"<< Typical how conspiracy theorists take good quotes out of context. "Against all enemies" answers your question about the administrations obsession with Iraq, read that book, its easy read and superclear. David Ray Griffin, however, whose work I have seen and read, yes, is talking total nonsense. I'd argue that David Ray Griffin talks 25% truth at best. Buyers beware. Posted by: | May 26, 2006 03:55 PM Mr. Arkin doesn't WANT the truth to come out because then the public will see what a smarmy liar he and his collegues are and he will be out of a job. Posted by: Person | May 26, 2006 03:48 PM What is going on in the minds of mainstream journalists? The 6.5-second symmetrical total collapse of WTC 7 within its footprint has still not been officially explained -- almost 5 years after its destruction. The material evidence had been destroyed by the time FEMA published its preliminary report in May 2002, a report that called for *further investigation*! NIST recently confessed that they have had "trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7." (Oh, really? With all that lack of material to investigate?) The "collapse" of WTC 7 -- -- has *every* characteristic of controlled demolition, and *none* of a natural collapse. This is confirmed by eyewitness testimony. An emergency worker who witnessed the collapse of WTC-7 was interviewed on 9/11. He described hearing what sounded like a "clap of thunder", followed by what looked like "a shockwave ripping through the building", with windows busting out, and "about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the [rest of] the building followed after that". As even my 14-year-old nephew understands (see my earlier post), buildings simply do not totally collapse without structural resistance. They do not collapse as if there was only *air* to slow them down. That just doesn't happen, because it *cannot* happen. Unless, of course, we are talking about controlled demolition. It's really quite simple. Posted by: Vesa | May 26, 2006 03:42 PM BTW...you forgot to mention what those numbers would be like if it actually got equal time in the Neo-Con Media...imagine...I would guess, 75% to 85% against the Decider Administration. Posted by: IggyD | May 26, 2006 03:40 PM The irony in trying to discuss 9/11 with the average joe is that they innevitably will believe they know more than you. I personally have dedicated 2 years of my life to 9/11 research and activism. I have not made one single penny, nor would I ever, however I have spent somewhere in the $3000 range in encouraging others to research 9/11. For Christmas this year I bought copies of Dr. David Ray Griffins' '9/11 Commission Report - Ommissions and Distortions' and gave them to all of my friends (along with normal presents). I urged them all to at least be aware of the information out there and why people like myself are so adamant to spark a national debate on the information - because we believe there is ample evidence to prove a coverup and government complicity. But, back to my initial point - those who stand against 9/11 skeptics are the same ones who always feel they have the higher education, or that they somehow know more than those that question 9/11, when in reality very few of them have ever read one single book on the subject matter. Stop with the useless rhetoric, admit to yourself you probably are somewhat uninformed, and for god sakes - READ A BOOK - or hell, why not 6 or 8 books - incase you haven't noticed, 9/11 was the turning point of our generation! BTW, the irony that those that said 'never forget' on 9/11 are the same ones who in fact never have read word one on the subject matter disgusts me. From a family member whose daughter died on 9/11: "He used 9/11 to take us to war in Iraq - is one arab the same as another? HOW DARE THIS WORK IN AMERICA!" Posted by: big city in the south | May 26, 2006 03:37 PM The truth is somewhere in the area between the conspiracist theory novelists (about bombs in WTC, no airplane etc) and the official story. We have had the administrations stories change a lot through its years, and why would someone stand against an investigation if there was nothing to conceal? Aug 6 memo? Emphasis on wrong priorities (Iraq, China)? Richard Clarkes book reveals a lot. Also, "911truth" is mostly hypernonsense. This site is much better informed> http://www.911myths.com/index.html Have a nice day ;-) Posted by: delirium | May 26, 2006 03:27 PM The Scholars for 911 Truth Petition! Only 98 signatures needed to make the magic 10,000 they've been waiting for. If you or anyone you know hasn't signed this please do it now! They're just asking for the release further evidence about 911. Just release ALL the evidence and prove these "crazy" conspiracy theorists wrong. Posted by: RP | May 26, 2006 03:11 PM Bill Arkin, explain to me why not one person was held accountable for the so-called ineptness. Not 1 military person was reprimanded for not following SOP's. Not 1 FAA person was reprimanded for not following SOP's. Why not 1 scientific model can duplicate what happen in the 3 towers (without leaving structural members out)? Even when they put the software at the most extremes allowed, it could not be duplicated. Pancake Theory at the speed of freefall; that is a laugh. Hey, how about the molten Steel in the sub-basements of all 3 towers 6 weeks later, with temperatures exceeding 1300 degrees. I asked a small amount of un-answered questions from the hundreds beings asked. You name call anyone asking them as purely partisan, yes you are correct. We see ourselves as TRUE Americans. Like our founding Fathers, they too were in the minority at first. We want our country back from the Neo-Con's that have taken our 1st and 4th Amendment Constitutional Rights, we want accountability, and we want true closure. Your continuance of not connecting the dots (A Bush/911 commission Term Use to explain 911) is truly absurd. It shows how partisan you are with this administration and their lies, secrecy, Spying on millions of Americans and the abomination of our Constitution. Go ahead and stick with the DECIDER while his ship sinks. Posted by: IggyD | May 26, 2006 03:08 PM William M. Arkin, you mention the recent Zogby poll which revealed "42% of the American public believe there is a 9/11 cover-up". That is more then the mass media managed to do and for that, at most, I commend you. But if you had a functioning brain you might have concluded that it was rather strange for the mass media, instead of covering that astonishing poll, to be lucky provided with a new "bin laden tape". And that "bin laden tape" aside from reinforcing the "official" notion of "OBL and his 19" (Which is still unproven by the way, despite the wars justified by it), was mighty convenient considering it came literally just a few days after the poll results were published. DON'T YOU FIND THAT A LITTLE SUSPICIOUS??? Clearly not, because you William M. Arkin, are just like all those good little 1930's Germans who rolled over while the Nazi party rose to power. Please actually research 9/11 before you attack those who have already, and have concluded that the Commission was a fraud, and that we need a new truly independent investigation! Posted by: William M. Arkin = Good 1930's German | May 26, 2006 03:07 PM Posted by: DoYourResearch | May 26, 2006 03:01 PM No one has offered theory except the govt... "The Pancake Theory". Posted by: DoYourResearch | May 26, 2006 02:58 PM The conspiracy people are fruit cakes who all told have the combined IQ of a gnat. They hate anyone but themselves and only want to hear their own voices. Hollywood actors have even less intelligence and will jump on any bandwagon if it gets them visibility. Posted by: John | May 26, 2006 02:57 PM The mother of all conspiracy theories is the one we´re told by the mainstream media - its a disgrace. What about debunking the evidence, or at least explain why the laws of physics took a day of on 9/11?. Posted by: Warmonger | May 26, 2006 02:56 PM Well, there come the conspiracy theorists. I looked through the comments posted prior to this one, and every single one of them has already been thoroughly debunked in many other venues. The truth IS out there, but it's not what these "truth" tellers say it is. Posted by: Homeland Stupidity | May 26, 2006 02:53 PM As one of those people that Mr. Arkin so easily dismisses, I respectful ask everyone to look at the evidence. There are several good books in print about 9/11 that I would recommend as required reading. One is "9/11 Synthetic Terror" by Webster Tarpley. Two other excellent books are by David Ray Griffin: "New Pearl Harbor", and "9/11 Commission: Ommissions and Distortions". For those of you who are as convinced that there's no reason to doubt the official story of 9/11, I comprehend the thought process, yet can't respect your lack of diligence in researching the facts. For those of you who want immediate evidence without having to buy a book, I would offer the following URL: http://www.geocities.com/killtown/wtc7.html The target link covers the extremely odd case of World Trade Center Bldg. 7 (wtc7), which has been essentially ignored by most of the media, and was in fact completely ignored by the 9/11 Commission Official Report. Posted by: Bill Giltner | May 26, 2006 02:30 PM WTC7 housed several government agencies such as the CIA, secret service, SEC, etc. WTC7 fell in a manner of a controlled demolition. The kean commission failed to address the collapsing of WTC7. NIST missed the deadline twice (or thrice) as to explaining why the WTC7 collapsed. Posted by: geggy | May 26, 2006 02:26 PM WTC7 housed several government agencies such as the CIA, secret service, SEC, etc. WTC7 fell in a manner of a controlled demolition. The kean commission failed to address the collapsing of WTC7. NIST missed the deadline twice (or thrice) as to explaining why the WTC7 collapsed. Posted by: | May 26, 2006 02:26 PM 1 undamaged passport of one of the perpetrators (Satam al-Suqami), surviving the fire and. 2 Not one of the perpetrators (19 in all) was caught on videotape before boarding. Atta was videotaped boarding a flight in Maine. 3 Put options sold for United Airlines and American Airlines prior to 9/11, purchased by a firm formerly run by the current CIA Director 4 Four Arab terrorists with minimal Cessna training in flying and navigating commercial jets 5 Not one pilot transmitting the 7-7-0-0 "hijacked plane" code to the ground controllers 6 Disposing of all of the steel girders before investigators could be put to work on the scene 7 Congressional Investigation panel would not have sufficient clearances more than a year and a half later 8 manifests given to reporters over full week after crash do not including a single name of the 19 Arabs mentioned 9 CIA Head of Station meeting with Osama bin Laden in an American Hospital in Dubai several times in June 2001 10 Brother of Osama bin Laden being a business partner of George W. Bush 11 President Bush issuing Executive Order 199-Eye demanding that all investigations of Osama bin Laden's relatives cease 12 FBI agents publicly complaining that their efforts to track and investigate Al Quaida agents in the US were being blocked 13 Jeb Bush activating the National Guard four days prior to the 9-11 attacks 14 Ranking Pentagon officials (according to Newsweek) canceling travel plans for morning of 11 September 2001 15 San Francisco's Mayor (Willie Brown) being warned on 10 September not to fly the next morning 16 Bin Laden family members being flown hastily out of the US while all commercial flights were "grounded." 17 Discrepancy of as many as 34 names between the published passenger lists and the official list of those killed on the four flights 18 Chance of even one cell phone being capable of even making the "handshake" required to make a call with a ground-based transponder 19 Chance of no preventive measures being taken by the US Government prior to 9-11 after receiving very specific warnings from own intelligence agencies, the German, French, Jordanian, Israeli, Russian, Britain's, Egyptian and Canadian governments 20 Bush Administration vigorously opposing Congressional Hearings that might investigate details relating to the attacks on 9-11 21 absolutely no one being reprimanded for the failures on 9-11. 22 President Bush Sr. met with the bin Laden family on behalf of the Carlisle Group 23 Fire Engineering stating that the investigations were "corrupted by political forces" and called the investigation sanctioned by FEMA a "half-baked farce". 24 Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle would assert that Cheney called him earlier in the day to urge him to avoid an inquiry into 9-11 25 NORAD (as of 9-11) having already planned an upcoming exercise involving a simultaneous hijacking scenario 26 The head of ISI Pakistani Intelligence, Mahmoud Ahmad funneling $100,000 to Mohammad Atta just prior to the attacks on 9-11, and why was he in Washington DC with CIA and FBI heads during the week of 911 27 Marvin Bush involvement with the security security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. He gave the order to have the bomb sniffing dogs removed before 9/11. security contracts for the WTC complex ended 9-11-01 28 The 9/11 commission report chaired by Thomas Kean, long-time conduit of CIA covert operations abroad, has serious Omissions and Inaccuracies 29 Bush mentioning "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." 30 Sn. Mark Dayton saying publicly that NORAD "covered up truth" and "lied to the American people" 31 Wrong timestamp on the 5 frames released of Pentagon strike 32 Tapes of interviews with air traffic controllers were destroyed. 33 Two employees of Odigo, the instant messaging service, received e-mail warnings of the attack two hours before the first assault on the WTC 34 No video of any of the 19 hijackers at any of the three originating airports of the four flights has been made public 35 At least six of the alleged hijackers have turned up alive since the attack. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm 36 Video recordings of pentagon strike from adjacent businesses were seized by the FBI 37 Only five frames of video have been released by the Pentagon, with a datestamp of 9/12 38 Several war game exercises were being conducted on 9/11/01, that would limit the ability of pilots and military commanders to respond to hijackings 39 Bush/Cheney only agree to testify without an oath, in private, without note-taking 40 why was FEMA in Manhatten on Sept.10,2001 41 On 9/11 A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing at Cleveland due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White. United identified the plane as Flight 93 42 How is it possible that the passengers made Cell Phone calles at 30 000ft? 43 obstruction of investigations into al Qaeda prior to 9-11, 44 The passport of one of the hijackers on Flight 11 was allegedly found in the rubble, 45 attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui's computer Posted by: Sunflower | May 26, 2006 02:23 PM Posted by: DoYourResearch | May 26, 2006 02:22 PM WTC 7 = the smoking gun. Why does the media REFUSE to address this? Posted by: Johnathan | May 26, 2006 02:20 PM Bush admin named the culprit, bin Laden, in same day of the attacks without any evidence to support that accusation. Al 19 hijackers were named within 3 days of 9/11 despite the name of the hijacker pilot of AA77, Hani Hanjour, was not on the passenger manifest. Several AA77 hijackers were on terrorist watch list and some were implicated in the USS cole bombing, how were they able to buy plane tickets online using their credit cards with their real names? Why were no red flag indicating they are on FBI's watch list shown in their record of the computer file? Posted by: geggy | May 26, 2006 02:18 PM You and the rest of the media who has a responsibilty to report with integrity and honesty, should be led away with the true criminals of 911. Amazing, it never occurred to you to take a closer more investigative look at the day's events. Let's look no further than WTC7. Why did the building fall again? So you are telling me this is the only skyscraper in history that wasn't hit by a plane, to fall in on itself after a fire. You are kidding me right? Start there and keep looking. The trail of blood doesn't lead to Afghanistan it goes straight to Pennsylvania Ave. Posted by: Demolition Crew | May 26, 2006 02:18 PM I think it's the flea brains in charge that are the most Dangerous... I was watching the video of Goss talking to President Bush as he was leaving office on Comedy Centrals Daily Show the other night... I had thought that bush was a dupe, was being taken advantage of by people smarter than him.... his dad's boyz from the Nixon years. but it was very apparent that he _had_ Goss disassemble the CIA as a way of hiding the information... even his appointment of Negroponte' , again, his father's man in Honduras.... who was given the power to take away the pension of any agency people who sorta tryin to make sure no one gets brave, just because they are not working for the government any more.... that's the kind a thing that makes yah want to have someone talk to this Negroponte guy and ask him, "are you a citizen, or do you always walk around with your tongue up the bush families butt?" can you get back to me on that? Posted by: Dear Rev... | May 26, 2006 02:14 PM From Sept 11, 2001 to May 17th, 2006. I bought every line of the Official Govt story. Since the newly released Pentagon Video, and my career in the aviation industry, i could not see how the white streak being highlighted in mainstream media was a 757. So that prompted me to do my research. It turns out there is what "appears" to be transport category airplane ahead of the "white streak" in the pentagon videos. Why Mainstream media is highlighting a white streak that appears to be fuel leaking from the wings (from hitting the light poles?) or a smoke trail from a blown engine in a 5 year old video that came from our govt and telling us it is definitive evidence of a 757, is beyond me. Perhaps to group all us nutjobs together? Hey Arkin - tell your mainstream buddys to find the real airplane and stop highlighting a smoke trail! Since then, i been doing research almost non-stop, i no longer take the govt story as gospel.. .and i want ANSWERS! Do your research people, and dont take ridicule from Mainstream media. Posted by: johndoex | May 26, 2006 02:06 PM The Reverend's Advanced Pelican Brief Theory Someone in the intelligence community should read the book of Exodus. Study what happened when a weaker nation came up against the most forbiddale army of their time, Pharoah's army. They did not have any weapons, so God sent the fleas, just like we experienced on 911, get it (fleas flew killed 3,000 and practically toppled our econmy). I suspect that the next time they will send the frogs (amphibious landing). The question is will we be ready? Posted by: Rev. C. Solomon | May 26, 2006 02:02 PM you have to wonder if they are not taking names... or trying to discredit by having us foaming at the mouth... whatever, by next week it'll be a different world. Posted by: actually... | May 26, 2006 01:56 PM This is typical of the mainstream media. They are so used to being spoon-fed information, that they can't research an issue for themselves. They are only good at shooting out one-liners and zingers. Don't worry, everybody knows there are only a few real journalists left, and they are not to be found at the Washington Post. Arkin couldn't properly investigate the inside of a tin can to find the tuna. Posted by: wick | May 26, 2006 01:56 PM we started a war with Spain, because we wanted one, when loading munitions onto the Maine battleship, they exploded it was blamed on the Spainish (where George Walker Bush's Uncle lost a large property known as a sugar plantation....West Indies Company) and Puerto Rico and some other islands general Sam Huston and some others were squatting on Mexican land, when they were forcibly removed.... that gave us Texas and California... remember "9/11" cost us only 3,500 lives and means that we get to acquire the second largest oil reserves in the world.... remember, 12,000 people died from hand guns in 2004 and we passed a law exempting gun manufacturers from lawsuit because your congress people know that you want your gun manufacturers to not be responsible for irresponsible behaviour by them.... because they are corporations and you're only people.... did they die in vain? they did, if you let them be used as a cover story for how it's alright to invade other countries and kill several hundred thousand....because it makes your presidents friends richer and gives them a more Posted by: it's simple | May 26, 2006 01:54 PM I never belived that our goverment had anything to do with 9-11. I have wondered if maybe they did'nt try that hard to prevent an attack. Maybe they figured if there was an attack they'd get an open ticket to persue the policies thay wanted. I presume even if this were the case that they had'nt imagined that such a horrible attack would have occured. Posted by: RS | May 26, 2006 01:52 PM "mind control victims whose lives have been ruined by directed energy weapons in space or the transmitters implanted in their teeth" ha! thanks for showing your stripes up front. were all just nuts and you're the voice of sanity. dream on. Posted by: annie robbins | May 26, 2006 01:50 PM I wonder how long it will be before William A. Arkin deletes these comments. He put forth a one-sided argument with absolutely no evidence to support his view, and appealing to schoolyard bully tactics, wherein he resorts to name calling and insults. We have been given fair warning. The mainstream media is full of idealogues such as Arkin, men with pens, but no clear sense of conscience or reality. Posted by: | May 26, 2006 01:46 PM any one thing that I've said, just the simple fact that the to the suggestions that they made following an investigation of 9/11 that would help to make the United States safe from terrorism, his non-response (Bush's) "bordered on the criminal," why did he make no response? he's not afraid of terrorists, he are them.... comeon little guy...make a smart remark... show me how stupid I am....come out Posted by: refute one thing that I've said | May 26, 2006 01:32 PM why are we in Iraq? for democracy and because we've been attacked? and how many illegal aliens have snuck across the border in the last 6 years? 12 to 20 MILLION of them you say? could any of them have been terrorists? who has the second largest oil reserves in the world? and how many times have we been there and what was the reason the first time? disingenuous, is not what I would call you, complicit would be my term. to put all of the people into the same bucket as_if they support the organization that you googled and looked up is tripe, you're a p-issant, lowlife media using clown.... fallicious reasoning, misleading is tacky and you want to talk about it openly... refute anything that I've said above, just think of me as the white rabbit in the Monty Python skit Quest For the Holy Grail.... thanks for opening the door to sweep you out... Posted by: hello mr smarmy... | May 26, 2006 01:26 PM perhaps they should ask why Tom Delay was allowed to keep his seat after having violated his oath of office and Why Pelosi and Hastert said nothing about that? seperation of church and state, attempting to control the Judiciary system through control of the funding process/congress... I didn't hear that mentioned. and where else do you get the leader of a country, is this paraguay, nicaragua, or El Salbador'? stepping in and excusing his cronies from acquiring money illegally and literally it aint friggin America, I feel like it's 1948 in a small hot town in Louisiana and boss hawg is calling down the numbers to his boys inthe congresssssssss and theya doin what he say... where else do you have a president intervening to make sure an old friend doesn't get arrested for a crime he did? why, HE DOESN'T WANT THE SAME THING HAPPENING TO HIM......... you watch my back, I got yours, we'll work together to loot America... doesn't matter that Jefferson didn't pay taxes on it? Or that there was a videotape of it? Or that that is "business as usual" around the Bush Whitehouse... you can almost hear the STINK coming off the place the howl of the Attorney generalisimo asking for all the little pedros to be given the jobs of your out-of-work tradespeople and factory workers....blue collar used to make up 56% of the MIDDLE CLASS think working retail is middle class? maybe if you have three jobs... Posted by: Interesting title... | May 26, 2006 01:19 PM Maybe Archimedes can "disprove" the "facts" posted right here in the "comment section" since no one in the "mainstream media" can "refute" this "evidence" or even take the "time" to "evaluate" it, "no"? Posted by: Domenick | May 26, 2006 01:14 PM 1 million points for Bill Arkin!! It's about time the 9/11 conspiracy theorists were labeled for what they are. Thankfully the MSM has ignored this ridiculous bunch of garbage and not set the parrots on it. Innuendo and imagined connections do not make a conspiracy by any stretch of the imagination. Posted by: Archimedes | May 26, 2006 01:07 PM Here's my Finnish perspective on WTC 7, which reflects a fairly common view here: Most of my colleagues and friends don't believe the so-called official story, and many cite WTC 7 as the most obvious reason. And read this: a few days ago my 14-year-old nephew, having e.g. viewed the "9-11 Eyewitness" documentary, emailed me as follows (obviously translated into English): "There doesn't seem to be any other alternative than controlled demolition, the building came down in vertical free fall and left a neat pile [of debris]". I have said that even a child could see that WTC 7 was brought down, and this confirmed it. :-) A colleague, in turn, yesterday stated quite succinctly that "And the 'collapse' of WTC 7 is just plain ridiculous." Do some people really believe that something like WTC 7 could really pass for a "natural collapse"? If so, all I can say... better luck next time! Posted by: Vesa | May 26, 2006 01:02 PM It's ok folks... if the media refuses to do their jobs, then we will have to do it for them. Instead of organizations like Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, CNBC, ABCNews, CBSNews, The Washington Post, etc... being "America's News Source", we'll just have to stop giving them our business, and do it ourselves. Posted by: Jon Gold | May 26, 2006 12:53 PM Posted by: Billl Smith | May 26, 2006 12:52 PM Saying that things got confused because the military was in the middle of pentagon exercises about airplanes attacking the US, is kinda like saying that I couldn't defend myself from someone throwing a rock at me while I was target practicing with my AK47. Posted by: I Don't Think So | May 26, 2006 12:51 PM Typical BS ad hominem attack by Arkin, who's apparently never looked at critically at a story by known liars and agencies that have conducted coups and assassinations and monitor peaceful activists. The comments here have a lot more insight than Arkin does. Posted by: Erik | May 26, 2006 12:51 PM Just goes to show you that the Post will hire any hack to write for them. Posted by: catlover | May 26, 2006 12:50 PM so typical of the mainstream media to not look at the evidence or try to answer any of the actual questions the 9/11 Truth Movement has but instead resort to name calling and such. truly disgusting... real reporters are a thing of the past i guess. Posted by: boast | May 26, 2006 12:49 PM Why Didn't The Secret Service Protect The President On 9/11? From the 9/11 Report, pages 38, 39. The President and the Vice President The President was seated in a classroom when, at 9:05, Andrew Card whispered to him: "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack." The President told us his instinct was to project calm, not to have the country see an excited reaction at a moment of crisis. The press was standing behind the children; he saw their phones and pagers start to ring. The President felt he should project strength and calm until he could better understand what was happening. 203 The President remained in the classroom for another five to seven minutes, while the children continued reading. He then returned to a holding room shortly before 9:15, where he was briefed by staff and saw television coverage. He next spoke to Vice President Cheney, Dr. Rice, New York Governor George Pataki, and FBI Director Robert Mueller. He decided to make a brief statement from the school before leaving for the airport. The Secret Service told us they were anxious to move the President to a safer location, but did not think it imperative for him to run out the door. 204 Not only did they not "run" him out the door, they didn't walk, crawl, or carry him out the door. If you believe what Andrew Card said, "America is under attack", then it's only logical to think that the President is a target. If the President is a "target", then, according to the Secret Service's website, it's their job to, "protect the President, the Vice President, (or other individuals next in order of succession to the Office of the President), the President-elect and Vice President-elect". Were they protecting the President of the United States, in a highly publicized location, as America was "under attack"? No. They did nothing. Why not? And why did the secret service act differently towards Cheney? He called President Bush in Florida and spoke with top aides. Then his door burst open. "My [Secret Service] agent all of a sudden materialized right beside me and said, 'Sir, we have to leave now.' He grabbed me and propelled me out of my office, down the hall, and into the underground shelter in the White House," Cheney said. In White House terminology, it is the PEOC, short for the Presidential Emergency Operations Center. Why did they protect Cheney and not Bush? And why do "none of the staffers who worked on this aspect of the investigation believe(d) Cheney's version of events?" It's their job to answer OUR questions, and we must hold them to it. Posted by: Jon Gold | May 26, 2006 12:38 PM In regards to Mill_of_Mn's incompetence theory: The incompetence theory is largely propogated by the left, it serves as an explanation for why the events happened while acknowledging they shouldn't have if we had had a competent leader, while at the same time explaining the coverup that followed (they covered up their incompetence, etc.). The incompetence theory has been written about numerous times (google 'incompetence theory 9/11') - it does not stand up. Usually the left accepts the incompetence theory because it helps seperate themselves from the 'crazies' - a label often used to label modern day patriots (remember, those that thought the Iraq war was pre-planned were crazy too!) Unfortunately, accepting the incompetence theory also means that the person has to ignore pieces of evidence which go beyond incompetence, while at the same time being a 'coincidence theorist'. One of my personal favorite 'coincidences' involves the 5-6 wargames going on that morning - including live fly hijacking excercises and them crashing into buildings - but if you really want to stay believing in the incompetence theory then here is a guide for you: The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11 http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html in my opinion 9/11 is exactly what happens when military strategists put their strategies for American dominance ahead of their compassion for humanity - and that is exactly where we stand today. Posted by: dz | May 26, 2006 12:26 PM It's interesting that while literally every single article written in the mainstream press attacks the truth movement and dismisses 9/11 skeptics as fringe lunatics, these stories generate so much feedback and interest. The mainstream media clearly has no clue as to what the general public thinks about this issue. Perhaps that's why it is slowly dying. Enjoy your job while it lasts, Mr. Arkin. Posted by: Sean | May 26, 2006 12:23 PM Without 9/11 would (america people buy) going into Afganistan and Iraq?? Serious thought here folks! They know a BIG event was necessary IN ORDER TO SELL IT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE (People I for one was emtionally charged up and so were many others) to go over there and the creation of this FICTIOUS SHADOW ENEMY was brillant because we can go where ever, when ever for EVER and EVER. That was the greatest part of the plan the SHadow Enemy. imho Brillant Plan by PNAC the plan that can last forever Posted by: JM | May 26, 2006 12:21 PM I think the main reasons there are so many 9/11 conspiracy theorists are: 1. Bush and Cheney lie to us each and every day, and all their staff do as well, so it's easy to believe they'd cover up something or have 9/11 be intentional. 2. People have a hard time believing Bush was such a coward and so out of it that he did nothing even with clear warnings. 3. The fake War in Iraq is such an obvious lie that people figure they probably lied about 9/11. Now, that said, I know 9/11 was planned by Osama and his crew. The shocking thing to me, ex-Army with some counter-terrorism ops experience, was how well trained they were - they did exactly what I would have done if that were my military objective, and they are obviously highly trained. Also, since a foster brother was in the Pentagon, my uncle was supposed to take a morning flight from Boston to the West coast and worked out of one of the two towers, and my brother would frequently be at the towers during work and lives 40 blocks from them, I took it kind of personally. They all lived, but none of them should have. Posted by: Will in Seattle | May 26, 2006 12:19 PM I just wish you were more interested in substantive debate on the issues raised by the actions of NSA, Hayden et al. rather than wasting time debunking conspiracy theories. You seem to prefer arguing with idiots. Posted by: Seth Edenbaum | May 26, 2006 12:15 PM The 9/11 cOmmission decided not to examine the financing of the attacks because it was a matter of "little practical significance." They also said that rolling up the existing finance network wouldn't help, because the financiers would use another method next time. But why should they if the existing network is left unexamined? Are we supposed to be more frightened of the dead than of their living enablers? Who is protecting the financiers? Why is Mahmud Ahmed still at large after the FBI told reporters he was one of them? What are the names of the others? Posted by: SourDove | May 26, 2006 12:15 PM Couldn't agree with you more. Unless there is some kind of smoking gun, like "al Qaeda was created by the CIA" or "bin Laden works for the CIA" is discovered, nothing will change. Unless there is something as absurd and over the top as that, the official 911 Theory will stand. Posted by: ExGOP | May 26, 2006 12:13 PM The Media is part of the Cover-up. Have you even read or heard a MAINSTREAM MEDIA outlet questioning or hinting that 9/11 was the biggest FALSE FLAG OPERATION ever to take place? The Media is needed to reinforcing the Official Story, and any reporter that has even attempted has been fired! (I.E. I believe A.J Hammer who had on Charlie Sheen when the movement got some attention was Canned recently, not 100 sure but He no longer is On AIr?? Why is that? imho Think outside the box folks Posted by: JM | May 26, 2006 11:47 AM I just want to thank Bin Laden for calling San Fransisco Mayor Willie Brown and John Ashcroft warning them not the fly. That was mighty nice of him. Mayor Brown wouldn't say specifically WHO called him, but since "There were NO warnings" we can assume Bin Laden called him from his cellphone. Posted by: Sammy | May 26, 2006 11:47 AM Just one gripe--by saying "the blogoshpere" you seem to imply that it is a coherent whole that agrees with the conspiracy theorists. It isn't and we don't... Posted by: bp32 | May 26, 2006 11:45 AM Mill of Mn You said: "No evidence suggests that they let this attack go forward, no matter how many web links exist to unfounded assertions of the easily-stirred conspiracy speculators." How do you explain: The secret service? The Patriot Act being made before 9/11 Plans to go to Iraq and Afghanistan on (and before) 9/11 9/11 Commission ignoring WTC 7 All together? You know if you add up all of the anomalies before, on and after 9/11....their are over 200+ All you need is ONE to prove complicity, and in order to believe the Official Story you have to make an exscuse, or coincidence for 200+ anomalies. How can anybody in a sound body and mind do this? Posted by: Yizzo | May 26, 2006 11:41 AM It is the human paradox! For example, right now people are talking about, was Jesus really married, who really shot Kennedy, Dr. King and J.R? With respect to the latter, I read where the producers of the show, Dallas, produced three cliff-hanger endings to wind up one of television's most unforgettable seasons (of course we saw only one of the closely guarded season ending scripts). Why was it so important to guard the ending of the show? The producers did not have much confidence in those individuals who were associated with the show to keep the ending secret until the show aired. They wanted to build up the suspense. In the real life dramas and cliff-hangars that we experience today, we don't always know what person, script or ending to believe. for we are accustomed to living in an atmosphere where lying, misdirection and willful deception (I did not sleep with that woman...) are farily common. I can remember the old expression, that a picture does not lie. Well that's not even true anymore. What is factual today is that we simply do not know which script, which person, or which scenario to believe. So what do we do? We simply come up with our own endings. For example, several years ago I attended some Experimental Theater in Menlo Park California. I don't remember the title of the play, however, I will never forget how the play ended. When the play should have ended, suddenly everything came to a screeching halt. The house lights came up and with that the producer/playwright/director appeared from behind the suddenly drawn curtains. We were waiting to hear that there was a fire or some other emergency, perhaps a cast member had suddenly taken ill. What's going on the audience thought, as we began to murmur to each other, and prepared to escape? The director/playwright/screenwriter just as suddenly sat down on the stage and begin to speak directly to the audience. He asked, how would you folks like for this play to end? What? How many of us have seen movies, plays or productions where we liked everything but the ending? No one ever asks us, how would we like for the play to end. After about ten minutes of audience participation and discussion, we agreed upon an ending that would satisfy the majority. Oh that life could be like that, huh? I don't know which ending the audience witnessed at the next performance, probably a differt ending, however, we saw the ending that we wanted to see, when a few minutes later the curtain opened and the play resumed. The skilled cast returned and gave us the extemporaneous ending that we asked wanted. I suspect that in real life and given the difficult events that we continue to experience in our lives today, that we simply come up with our own endings. Psychologists will tell you that it is a defense mechanism, i.e., when a person becomes overwhelmed because from fear or shock, it is not uncommon for the mind to create its own scenario or explanation, in order to defend itself. What you are discussing here is simply the human paradox, it is not new! And who knows, history might prove that all or part of what the 911 theorists believe, might turn out to be true. Hope not, but sometimes a picture turns out not to be telling the truth after all. Posted by: The Rev | May 26, 2006 11:30 AM Mr. Arkin is a lucky man. It must be blissful to be that ignorant. Or is he just trying to keep his job? Posted by: Chris | May 26, 2006 11:30 AM The investigations after the 9/11/01 attacks were orchestrated partisan theatre, designed to cover the buns of people responsible for the national defense rather than reveal all that went wrong to allow such a low-tech successful attack against two major cities. However, to go beyond that .. to suggest that US officials - Mr. Bush, or any one else, federal/state/local - knew the attack was coming and let it happen ... or actually had a hand in it - is simply not credible. I see Mr. Bush as incompetent. I fear Mr. Cheney suffers from a very dark and paranoid, yet self-centered and self-serving world view. Bush's national security advisor - Ms. Rice - was and is a political lightweight and synchophant. They get it wrong all the time ... but they're patriots at their core, cynically misguided and all, but still patriots. No evidence suggests that they let this attack go forward, no matter how many web links exist to unfounded assertions of the easily-stirred conspiracy speculators. aside - what's with Che, posting 4000 word pieces of other peoples' thinking? That's a bit much, eh? Posted by: Mill_of_Mn | May 26, 2006 11:26 AM What is this crap? BRING BACK AMERICAN IDOL!!!!!!! Posted by: averageJoe | May 26, 2006 11:21 AM seeing as how someone mentioned Germany.. Ever wonder how Nazi Germany got the way that it did? Well, oddly enough it came from an attack on the Reichstag building (google 'Reichstag fire') in which some evil communist burned down what was essentially their congressional building.. This attack was blamed on a communist, and used as a fear inducing attack to fuel the publics support for war - against the evil communists that were out to get them. the thing was, during the Neurenburg(sp?) trials one of Hitler's men admitted to setting the fire himself. there has been a lot written comparing the Reichstag to 9/11, the Enabling act and the Patriot act, Motherland security and homeland security, etc. etc. etc. Nazi Germany didn't happen overnight, but this presidents grandfather was found guilty of supporting the Nazi war machine - small world after all. Posted by: learnfromhistory | May 26, 2006 11:20 AM The people involved in finding the truth about 911, (thats means actually researching it, debating it and weighing the best evidence available(you should try that some time!)) are heros and patriots. They have put their lives, their money and the reputations on the line in order to bring the truth of 911 into the open. For when one finds this evidence points to the inolvement of our own government in these horrific crimes, than a true patriot would shout this from every street corner and use all of their resources to make the American people aware of the evidence and push for a real investigation that will bring those responsible to trial. Only a coward would ignore all the facts, attack the messengers, and threaten greater danger if any one actually looked honestly at their message. Mr. Arkin you are the one who is "taking advantage" of the pain and loss of 911 victims (just like our administration has done to start two wars and destroy our constitution.) I might add that the following people who believe there was a cover-up of 911, might take offense to your suggestion that this is simply a partician or election issue: CoL. Robert Bowman(former head of Star Wars during 2 (Dem. + Rep.) administrations. Paul Craig Roberts Republican ( father of Reaganomics and former Government economist) Morgan Reynolds Republican ( former chief labour economist under President George W. Bush) Steven Jones Republican (Brigham Young University physicist) Posted by: Damon Bean | May 26, 2006 11:10 AM Regarding the decent of the twin towers, setting aside the numerous eye and ear witness reports of explosions 9/11 Revisited (video), Were explosives used? http://youtube.com/watch?v=psP_9RE0V2I Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192 What I find the rather incredible, to say the least, is that these buildings came down, laterally ejecting a debris plume in a fountain like cascade, in about the same amount of time that it would take any dropped object to fall from the height of the building, in nothing but mere air alone. In other words, the entire length of the remaining and undamaged structure offered ZERO in the way of resistence, with the building materials (though most of it just peeled away) moving through the path of MOST resistence (massive structural steel columns) at the rate of ABSOLUTE FREE FALL! The 9/11 Commission pegged the descent time for the south tower at 10 seconds. Absolute free fall time in a complete VACUUM, from the height of the south tower? 9.2 seconds. Factor in terminal velocity due to air resistence...? I don't know about you, but it seems rather absurd to me. Posted by: Joseph | May 26, 2006 11:06 AM If this is a "TRUE WAR ON TERROR" Then why are we talking about securing the border 5 years later. Isn't sealing the borders (East, West, North & South) The first thing to do in a "TRUE WAR ON TERROR." Where is Bin Laden with all this tech no special Unit forces can find or get him? That is why I believe he has been dead for years. And when they wave a Bin Laden tape (probably created in a studio somewhere) this instill more Public Fear so they can pass what ever laws they want. WIthout a "NEW PEARL HARBOR" as the PNAC Doc. says they would NOT be able to accomplish any of this!! With all the people dying in SUdan why is the USA not there also?? Because No Oil or god forbid I say the would "Israel" it is not in there best interest. I see us in IRAN soon enough but Why they have NO Nuclear warheads where as Israel has over 300. So why are our boys dying overseas for who's benefit?? The liberation of the Iraqi People is a bunch of BS, imho (ie. Sudan) its about OIL no matter how you spin it, its about OIL, imho. I believe our boys are dying under false pretense. Posted by: jm | May 26, 2006 11:06 AM "Good Luck, Mr. Gold. I'm on your side whether you believe it or not." Good, then get OFF YOUR A__ Posted by: Jon Gold | May 26, 2006 11:03 AM "some small rinky dink local newspaper in Montgomery county, PA." Montgomery County has over 700,000 residents, and also, as you can see, posts their stories online, which means millions have access to it. What have you done besides, "wasting your time on some blog"? Posted by: Jon Gold | May 26, 2006 11:02 AM Good Luck, Mr. Gold. I'm on your side whether you believe it or not. Posted by: Lou | May 26, 2006 11:02 AM And continue fighting this fascist regime. A true patriot loves their country all of the time, and their Government when it deserves it. Mark Twain said that. He was a VERY smart man. Posted by: Jon Gold | May 26, 2006 11:00 AM The Times Herald - some small rinky dink local newspaper in Montgomery county, PA. Action - take action. Don't brag about being in a local newspaper. When you get a congressional hearing or another investigation, then you pat yourself on the back. Posted by: Lou | May 26, 2006 11:00 AM Posted by: Jon Gold | May 26, 2006 10:56 AM So Mr. Gold - what are you going to do about this besides wasting your time on some blog as well as pitching your own website? Posted by: Lou | May 26, 2006 10:52 AM And to answer your question, "do you think that anyone of our fighters could have shot down one of the airliners?" If they were given an order to do so, YOU BET YOUR A__ they could have. That's what they're TRAINED to do. Posted by: Jon Gold | May 26, 2006 10:51 AM "Mr. Gold, Your points are valid and are certainly worth a response. Let me ask you this - do you think that anyone of our fighters could have shot down one of the airliners? From a technical standpoint, of course they could. But from an emotional point, could it ever be accepted that an American fighter pilot shot down an airline carrying citizens? I believe the greater good outweighs the few, but could the US as a whole handled this scenario?" You mean as opposed to letting 3000 people die, letting 15,000 people get sick from the environmental disaster that the Bush Administration covered up, letting 2000+ of our soldiers be murdered, and letting 250,000 innocent Afghani and Iraqi civilians be murdered? I think shooting down an airliner with 200 people is worth the "emotional" strain. Posted by: Jon Gold | May 26, 2006 10:50 AM Please be careful grilling this weekend as your grills may implode or vaporize ala Flight 77, 93 and WTC 7 (small fires). I know some of those Grills get very HOT! ALso I sure wish the mainstream media would get a TRUE INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, I guess they are a thing of the past. The Media is controlled so they write what they are told. imho What happened to the First Amendment, No one questioning teh NSA Wiretapping on Reporters, how odd is THAT! Posted by: JM | May 26, 2006 10:48 AM Bill, I do not for one minute buy in to the 9-11 rejectionist theory. But neither do I buy in to all of the administration and neocon hyping of that event into WWIII. God knows we have enough terroists in the world but, just as we did with the fight against communism, we are making the same strategic errors in combatting terrorism: equating it as a world wide monolith, a conspiracy to establish some dominant Islamic force on the planet. I do believe Bin Laden has his own hateful reasons for the acts on 9-11. But I don't believe in all of this hysterical nonsense we have been hearing about how we are now engaged in WWIII or even more laughable that the Islamic terrorists are just as dangerous as Nazi Germany in WWII. There are too many would be FDRs and Churchills in the West battling imagined Hitlers and Tojos. It is time that you in the media start doing your job and point out the idiocy of this notion as well as the lunacy of those who think 9-11 was some government plot. Posted by: Jaxas | May 26, 2006 10:43 AM Mr. Gold, Your points are valid and are certainly worth a response. Let me ask you this - do you think that anyone of our fighters could have shot down one of the airliners? From a technical standpoint, of course they could. But from an emotional point, could it ever be accepted that an American fighter pilot shot down an airline carrying citizens? I believe the greater good outweighs the few, but could the US as a whole handled this scenario? Posted by: W | May 26, 2006 10:42 AM FOR UNCENSORED NEWS PLEASE BOOKMARK THE FOLLOWING SITES: WWW.ONLINEJOURNAL.COM WWW.WSWS.ORG WWW.GLOBALRESEARCH.CA WWW.TAKINGAIM.INFO OTHERSIDE123.BLOGSPOT.COM WWW.COUNTERPUNCH.ORG All the desperate lies and spin don't change the fact that the Bush administration had foreknowledge of the Sept. 11 attacks by Larry Chin Online Journal 19 May 2002 Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), globalresearch.ca , 21 May 2002 CRG's Global Outlook, premiere issue on "Stop the War" provides detailed documentation on the war and September 11 Order/subscribe. Consult Table of Contents George W. Bush knew. And his administration knew. The transparently dishonest denials issued by the White House do not stand up to the slightest scrutiny. They are lying. A simple examination of existing information, gathered from reliable, open sources proves it. Last night, Michael C. Ruppert of From The Wilderness was scheduled to present his case for Bush 9/11 foreknowledge before a national TV audience on Geraldo Rivera's Fox News program. At the last minutes, this live appearance was cancelled. Coincidence? Ruppert's appearance, which could have caused immeasurable damage to the administration, was allegedly prompted by "breaking news" from the White House suggesting "imminent new terrorist attacks." "Wag the dog"? What desperate measures will this cabal resort to in order to remain in power? How many more lives will they take? Backed into a Corner at Every Turn On May 15, Press Secretary and official White House liar Ari Fleischer nervously stuttered, "The president did not receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers. This was a new type of attack that was not foreseen." This was followed by Condoleeza Rice, who repeated the spin: "I don't think that anyone could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center." Bush himself issued a statement that he had no indication beforehand that "terrorists would hijack jets and deliberately crash them." The White House would have us believe that not a single individual in the entire US government, nor the entire Central Intelligence Agency, had knowledge about a method of terrorism that has been routine for more than 20 years. And that not a single person in the entire national security apparatus of the US had a shred of information on training camps in Iran (a hotspot of intense US intelligence focus for decades) devoted to this method of terrorism. Yossef Bodansky is a director of the Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare in the US House of Representatives, and the author of the book "Bin Laden: The Man Who Targeted America." Bodansky is a Washington insider whose views are sought after, respected and broadly disseminated throughout the US government. In a well-publicized paper from 1993, he stated, "The training of suicide pilots started in the Busher air base in Iran in the early 1980s with some 90 Pilatus PC-7 aircraft purchased from Switzerland." "According to a former trainee in Wakilibad (a base for the training of kamikaze pilots), one of the exercises included having an Islamic Jihad detachment seize (or hijack) a transport aircraft. Then trained air crews from among the terrorists would crash the airliner with its passengers into a selected objective," he wrote. "The leading terrorists are known as 'Afghans,' having been trained with the mujahadeen in Pakistan. Some fought in Afghanistan. Muslim volunteers from several Arab and Asian countries were encouraged to come to Pakistan and join the Afghan Jihad." (Source: Target America: Terrorism in the US Today, 1993. "Islamic Terrorism in the United States," National Security Caucus, 1996.) The Bush administration would have us believe that a subject that was written about in books and discussed openly throughout Washington is "unimaginable." They would also have us believe that they, and their intelligence operatives, have been unaware of some of the most spectacular and horrific terrorist operations in recent history--many of them directed at the United States. On December 29, 1994, four terrorists alleged to have ties to Osama bin Laden hijacked Air France Flight 8969, a flight from Algiers to Paris. They loaded the plane with explosives and filled it with extra fuel, with the intent of ramming it into the Eiffel Tower. Commandos stormed the plane and killed the hijackers. (Source: NBC News. September 30, 2001. Chris Hansen, "The Lesson of Air France Flight 8969") A full seven years before September 11, an al-Qaeda suicide hijacking is partially executed and barely stopped by French intelligence. The Bush administration would have us believe that no one in the CIA had ever heard of such a thing. Another suicide hijacking plot was discovered six years before September 11. Ramsey Youssef, the terrorist who masterminded the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had detailed plans to hijack and crash commercial airliners into buildings in the US, and blow up 12 US airliners during international flights over a two-day period. This plot, known as Operation Bojinka, was discovered by Philippine intelligence agents in 1995, in the hideout of Yousef and Abdul Hakim Murad, a US trained pilot linked to bin Laden. Philippine authorities passed this information to the FBI. This plot was disclosed again in the 1997 trial of Youssef. (Source: Kevin Cullen, Ralph Ranalli. Boston Globe, Sept 18, 2001, "Flight School Said FBI Trailed Suspect Prior to Hijackings") Two years before 9/11, reports prepared for U.S. intelligence warned that Osama bin Laden would hijack an airliner and fly it into government buildings like the Pentagon. "Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House,'' the September 1999 report said. (Source: Associated Press, May 17, 2002). In July 2001, during the G8 Summit in Genoa, Italy, Deputy Prime Minister Gianfranco Fini revealed that Italian intelligence had uncovered a plot to crash a hijacked commercial airliner into either Air Force One or one of the buildings used for the summit. (Source: New York Newsday, Sept 19, 2001) This jetliner kamikaze plot was directed at Bush himself. Taking the Bush denial to its logical extension, the White House would have us believe that Bush and the CIA were not only unaware of this plot, but also not warned by the Italian government. During the investigation into the 1998 US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, intelligence officials and FBI were alerted that two bin Laden associates had been trained as pilots. Airman Flight School in Oklahoma became the focus of an FBI investigation. The FBI was warned in August 2001 that Zacarias Moussauoi, the notorious "20th pilot" who attended Airman was only interested in steering a plane--and not taking off or landing. He also specifically asked about New York City air space. In June 2001, the German BND warned the CIA and Israel of plans by Middle Eastern terrorists to "hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture." Furthermore, according to the same source, the Echelon spy network was used to break this news, and that intelligence agents in the UK also had advance warning. (Source: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, September 14, 2001) In the summer of 2001, Russian intelligence and President Vladimir Putin warned the CIA that 25 terrorist pilots were going to hijack commercial aircraft for suicide missions. Attorney David Shippers, who led the impeachment case against Bill Clinton, warned Attorney General John Ashcroft and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert that he had proof from a credible source (that he has still not revealed) about a plot to use hijacked commercial airliners to ram the White House and Capitol. (Source: Info Wars (radio program) Oct 10 2001) This list of specific warnings about suicide hijackings is but the tip of the iceberg. The Bush administration received many more warnings of an imminent attack from foreign governments (Israel, Germany, Egypt, UK, Russia), FBI agents (whose investigations were obstructed) and covert operatives who were studiously silenced (Naval Intelligence Officer Delmart "Mike" Vreeland, for one) Ari Fleischer's Lies About the CIA As part of his clumsy May 15 damage control press conference, Fleischer responded to a question about CIA foreknowledge by quoting from an address given on April 11 at Duke University by CIA Deputy Director James Pavitt. Fleischer quoted only selected passages from the Pavitt address that seemed to deny 9/11 foreknowledge: "What didn't we know? We never found the tactical intelligence, never uncovered the specifics that could have stopped those tragic strikes that we all remember so well. Against that degree of control, that kind of compartmentation, that depth of discipline and fanaticism, I personally doubt . . . that anything short of one of the knowledgeable inner circle personnel or hijackers turning himself in to us would have given us sufficient foreknowledge to have prevented the horrendous slaughter that took place. Some of you out there may have heard bin Laden himself speak about this on that shocking videotape." But Fleischer failed to quote portions of the same speech in which Pavitt admitted CIA clear foreknowledge of the September 11th attacks, deep penetration of terrorist cells throughout Central Asia and the Middle East, and longstanding presence in the region. This speech, which is posted at the CIA web site, has already been dissected by Online Journal. Among the Pavitt passages that Fleischer did not read to the press: "We had very, very good intelligence of the general structure and strategies of the al Qaeda terrorist organization. We knew and we warned that al Qaeda was planning a major strike. There need be no question about that." "If you hear somebody say, and I have, the CIA abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviets left and that we never paid any attention to that place until September 11th, I would implore you to ask those people how we were able to accomplish all we did since the Soviets departed. How we knew who to approach on the ground, which operations, which warlord to support, what information to collect. Quite simply, we were there well before the 11th of September." "We predicted, we told the President, that there would be between five and 15 serious attacks against on U.S. soil. But we did much much more than warn. With our allies and our partners around the world, we launched immense efforts to counter those threats. Hundreds of terrorists were arrested, multiple cells of terrorism were destroyed." Indeed, according to a September 14, 2001, report from Reuters, "The CIA has been authorized since 1998 to use covert means to disrupt and pre-empt terror operations allegedly planned abroad by Saudi-born dissident Osama bin Laden." Quoting government sources, "The CIA had used such force several times to stop armed groups before they initiated attacks." As mentioned previously, the CIA participated in a study that concluded that Osama bin Laden's terrorists could hijack an airliner and fly it into government buildings. And there is more proof of CIA foreknowledge and action. The February 2001 trial of the al-Qaeda members responsible for the 1998 US embassy bombings was based almost entirely on intercepted cell phone calls. During the trial, prosecutors describe how US intelligence used Echelon, a highly secret technical intelligence gathering system used to monitor worldwide communications. On February 13, 2001, UPI quoted multiple agencies saying that they had broken al Queda's codes. It is inconceivable that, armed with a budget of over $30 billion, and technologies such as Echelon (which tracks nearly all electronic communication in the world), Promis (which monitors banking and financial transactions in real-time), Carnivore (which intercepts e-mail) and other tools, the CIA and other US intelligence agencies would have "no inkling." This lie is further exposed by the fact that Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, had been under constant CIA surveillance since January 2000. (Source: Reuters Oct 22, 2001) According to Le Figaro (October 31, 2001), bin Laden received treatment at an American hospital in Dubai for kidney disease in mid-July 2001--and reportedly met with a CIA official. The More Important Questions They Are Not Asking 1. Who really is Osama bin Laden? What is al Qaeda? What really is "Militant Islam?" In a penetrating analysis by Professor Michel Chossudovsky titled "Who is Osama bin Laden?" this question is answered clearly. Osama bin Laden and the terror networks of the region are creations of the United States and its CIA--and continue to serve the geostrategic purposes of the United States government, which directly and indirectly controls their operations. The CIA, using Pakistan's ISI, played a key role in training the mujahadeen. In turn, the CIA-sponsored guerrilla training was integrated into the teachings of Islam. Pakistan's ISI is a proxy of the CIA by official government directive. CIA covert operations in the region are conducted through the ISI. Terror operations continue throughout the Middle East, the Caucasus, the Balkans and Central Asia--which, in addition to holding coveted untapped oil and gas reserves, produces three quarters of the world's opium. The Islamic Jihad has been supported by the US and Saudi Arabia with a significant part of the funding generated from the Golden Crescent drug trade. Motivated by nationalism and religious fervor, and kept out of touch with upper levels of the intelligence hierarchy, Islamic warriors are unaware of whose purposes they serve. Since the Cold War, Washington has consciously supported Osama bin Laden, while at the same time inflating his legend as the world's foremost terrorist. Why did the director of the ISI transfer money to Mohammed Atta, and why has no one investigated this connection? 2. Why were no fighter planes scrambled on the morning of 9/11? With the full knowledge that four planes had been simultaneously hijacked, the National Command Authority did not scramble fighter aircraft to intercept for 75 minutes--an unprecedented breach of standard FAA procedure that has been followed for 25 years. The bizarre air stand-down has been analyzed at http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm. 3. What accounts for Bush's behavior on 9/11? Bush was not 'formally' informed of the hijackings for 35 minutes--an astounding irregularity all by itself. When White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card "whispered into his ear," Bush displayed no shock and continued to speak to a classroom of schoolchildren. Later reports confirm that Bush knew about the first World Trade Center crash while in the presidential limousine on the way to the school--and he did not act. Another report quoted Bush as saying "When I saw the first plane hit, I thought 'what a terrible pilot.'" Putting aside the callousness of his thought, was this another garbled quote, or did Bush see the first plane? And if so, how did he see it? In yet another report, after both World Trade towers were hit, Bush joked to his budget director Mitch Daniels, "I've hit the trifecta." Is this the behavior of a president who just found out about the horrific "first attack of US territory since the war of 1812"? 4. If 9/11 was an unprovoked surprise terror attack, what was the Bush administration doing provoking the Taliban and threatening war with Afghanistan? In July 2001 Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik is told by senior US officials that military actions against Afghanistan would begin by October. This threat, which was triggered in part by the Taliban's refusal to accept the Bush administration's terms for a trans-Afghan oil pipeline, is made directly to the Taliban during a meeting in Berlin, attended by the Taliban, officials of Russia, Iran, Pakistan and the Northern Alliance. New memos reveal that Bush had an Afghanistan war plan on his desk on September 9. 5. What did Wall Street know? And if Wall Street knew, what wasn't known within the Bush administration? What wasn't known by the CIA and intelligence agencies, which track stock trades on a real time basis? The highly abnormal insider trading that occurred immediately before the 9/11 attacks involving only companies hardest hit by the attacks--UAL, American Airlines, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch and others--and were clearly the result of foreknowledge. Despite these trades, which Dylan Ratigan of Bloomberg Business News described as "insider trading at the worst, most horrific, most evil use you've ever seen . . . one of the most extraordinary coincidences in the history of mankind if it was a coincidence." To those who would place the blame on bin Laden, consider this: according to an October 6 National Public Radio report, Britain's Financial Services Authority cleared bin Laden and al Qaeda of this insider trading. 6. Why have the insiders and whistleblowers been silenced and intimidated? In August 2001, a US Navy Lieutenant and Naval Intelligence officer, Delmart "Mike" Vreeland, who was jailed in Canada on US fraud charges, which were later proven false, repeatedly warned US and Canadian intelligence officials about the pending suicide hijack attacks (complete with the listing of targets), based on information he had gleaned from documents that he had couriered from Russia before his arrest. US and Canadian officials refused to debrief him. Vreeland, whose identity was verified in court, was cleared of all charges and is in Canada fighting extradition to the US. In light of increasing evidence of Bush administration foreknowledge, Vreeland's case, and his claims to have detailed information regarding total US intelligence penetration of al Qaeda, takes on even greater significance. His case can be studied at www.copvcia.com . For more unasked questions, and links to articles in which the answers are fully or partially answered, www.communitycurrency.org/9-11.html . Letting It Happen: A New Smoking Gun On CNN Inside Politics (May 17, 2002), Senator Dianne Feinstein responded to Ari Fleischer's outrageous accusation that she did not provide the White House with information about terrorist threats. Feinstein stated that on September 10, 2001, she discussed the lack of protection against terrorist attacks against targets within the US with the staff of Vice President Dick Cheney and practically begged for some action from the administration. She was told by the Cheney staffer it would have to wait at least six months. A Limited Hangout or Something More? The Mushrooming Scandal in Context Since September 11, and until just days ago, the Bush empire appeared to be invincible, unchallenged and marching the world towards escalating worldwide war, and dictatorship in the United States. The Bush oligarchy appeared dominant over a sold-out and servile Congress, and a corporate consensus marching in lockstep to the orders of the administration's oil/military/intelligence hierarchy. What has caused certain members of Congress to find a voice and a spine? What has caused the major corporate American media, which until days ago was the most aggressive supporter of the White House version of 9/11, to turn on the Bush administration? Who gave the orders, the signal, that is was time to go after Bush--in a way that they had not done since George W. Bush announced his candidacy for the presidency? The answers at this early stage are not clear. But recent events suggest that 1) the rampant criminality of the administration is becoming too obvious to cover up, 2) resistance to the brute force of Bush unilateralism is becoming too great to ignore, 3) political and social instability throughout the world is becoming a problem in key strategic regions where a modicum of finesses is needed, 4) a segment of the ruling elite has grown tired of being shut out of the deal. Consider the embarrassing failures of the Bush administration since September 11: Despite the success of restarting the Unocal pipeline, Afghanistan remains a hotbed of warlordism and anti-US hostility that US-installed Hamid Karzai is having difficulty controlling. Osama bin Laden has not been found. Al Qaeda has not been dismantled. Recent talks between the US, Russia, Iran and former Soviet republics to forge a multilateral agreement regarding oil and gas in the Caspian Sea region collapsed, leaving the western oil companies in a precarious position with unrequited investments throughout the Caspian region. Israel's American-approved and American-assisted butchery and criminal occupation of Palestine, pushed to nightmarish extremes by Ariel Sharon, has triggered outrage and anti-US hostility throughout the world. Islamic outrage is worsening. The threat of oil embargos from OPEC nations and threats of boycotts of US goods are real. Bush has failed to maintain multinational "coalitions"--the key to continued US military and neoliberal economic primacy. A war against Iraq is impossible without a coalition. The US-orchestrated coup of Venezuela failed. Evidence of the Bush administration's participation in this coup is clear, blatant, and embarrassing. The US-led Plan Colombia/Andean Initiative is meeting with continued resistance throughout Latin America. The world economy is floundering. Outside of the tightly controlled US, America is hated. Enron, Enron, Enron. The constitutional crisis triggered by Bush's refusal to reveal documents relating to the energy task force has worsened. A continuing grand jury investigation of corruption in Kazakhstan, implicating oil companies tied to the Bush administration. More FBI agents are coming forward with lawsuits exposing Bush administration obstruction of anti-terror operations. Former President Jimmy Carter's visit to Cuba was a loud rebuke to Bush, and a loud signal to the world that an opposing faction of the New World Order--one which includes prominent conservative Democrats--is a making a move. The crafty Carter, he of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, was the consummate world diplomat--a stark counter to the relentless unilateral militarism of the Bush faction. Clearly, Bush and his administration would not be under pressure unless powerful people wanted it to happen. The corporate media, which has gotten the green light to make noise, would not be engaging in a feeding frenzy without an incentive. Is this another limited hangout? How far will this go? Is it a palace coup? Is it a "wag the dog" fake? The Lies Will Not Stand In the months since September 11, the defining moment of recent history, neither the Bush administration, nor its surrogates and allies, have produced one shred of credible evidence supporting the White House version of the events of that day. Instead, the Bush administration has mass marketed a total fabrication based on accusations, fear mongering, infantile comic book bluster, and duplicitous lies about US policies, geo-strategic agenda, and worldwide operations. Their evidence has amounted to the weakest conspiracy theory and, in the case of the "notorious bin Laden video" that is trotted out at the first sign of controversy, televised conspiracy fantasy. Meanwhile, in the past eight months, hundreds of independent researchers, journalists and scholars have done what neither Congress nor the White House has done: investigate. This already substantial body of evidence is being exponentially strengthened and enhanced by new evidence coming to light in the mushrooming scandal. The points presented in this article are but the tip of the iceberg. The courageous Ruppert has thoroughly and dispassionately examined the September 11 case. Read his powerful analyses: The Case for Bush Administration Advance Knowledge of 9-11 Attacks "A Time Line Sorrounding September 11 Ruppert has dissected the events of the day, but also the geostrategic agenda preceding and following the event. The Bush version of events is utterly smashed to pieces. A recently published and excellent collection of investigative journalism, Everything You Know Is Wrong, offers another thoroughly documented, meticulously sourced examination of 9/11 titled "September 11, 2001: No Surprise." Given the voluminous evidence (from reliable open sources) now amassed against the Bush administration, this much is clear: the administration of George Walker Bush cannot claim a lack of intelligence, technology or human resources capable of predicting or preventing the attacks of September 11. Nor can it disown the criminal activities and policies that preceded and followed the day, and the mass slaughter that has continued to be waged around the world in its name. In fact, the Bush oligarchy had both the motive and the means to facilitate the most spectacular atrocity in modern American history, and open the Pandora's box of world war without end. Bush knew. Now, the entire world knows. It is up to the people of the world to seize this moment, and send the Bush administration into the bowels of history. Posted by: che | May 26, 2006 10:42 AM William. If by chance you grow balls some day, feel free to come to my site, www.yourbbsucks.com, and debate me. A word of warning, you need some REALLY big ones to debate me. Posted by: Jon Gold | May 26, 2006 10:42 AM even the title of this topic is somewhat ironic: '9/11 Truth? I Don't Think So' thats exactly how i feel when i think about the mainstream media discussing 9/11.. 'think they are gunna ask tough questions and find the truth of 9/11 - i dont think so'. Posted by: sickofthemedia | May 26, 2006 10:42 AM On the Threshold: Understanding the 9/11 Truth Movement [A Letter to Dr. Phil - May 25] Good Day Dr. Phil, Mrs. McGraw, and all others who read this communiqué, I am a political science graduate student in Illinois. While I have conducted research on various disturbing aspects of US complicity in human tragedies, for instance, American support of Adolph Hitler (www.ibmandtheholocaust.com or www.john-loftus.com/bush_nazi_link.asp) and the US being a leading supplier of small armaments to war stricken communities (http://fas.org/asmp/fast_facts.htm), I have been most disturbed to have recently learned about the 9/11 truth movement (www.911revealingthetruth.org, www.reopen911.org, or www.scholarsfor911truth.org). Its members assert that individuals within the US government have not allowed for full disclosure of information that would enable an honest understanding of the tragedy of September 11th. Project Censored (www.projectcensored.org), regarding the various unanswered questions raised by the 9/11 truth movement, has stated the following: "For many Americans, there is a deep psychological desire for the 9/11 tragedy to be over...[,thus,] there is a natural resistance to naysayers who continue to question the US government's version of what happened on September 11th.... This resistance is rooted in our tendency toward the inability...to even consider the possibility of certain ideas. These fearful ideas might be described as threshold concepts, in that they may be on the borders of discoverability, yet we deny even the potentiality of implied veracity -- something is so evil it is completely unimaginable. A threshold concept facing Americans is the possibility that the 9/11 Commission Report was on many levels a cover-up for the failure of the US government to prevent the tragedy.... It is a threshold concept that is so frightening that it...[is] too awful to even consider." First, I would like to thank each of you for your contributions to aiding the psychological well-being of the citizens of the United States. Second, I pray that each of you take an interest in this topic so as to lay to rest the 9/11 truth movement as merely conspiratorial nonsense, or, "bridge the threshold" and reveal, though terribly disturbing, a truth that can become the bedrock of necessary knowledge so as to truly allow for the healing of our collective psyche and secure a more prosperous humanity. Posted by: Joseph Keck | May 26, 2006 10:41 AM Tell me William, how on Earth did Flight 77 manage to hit the Pentagon 34 minutes AFTER the SECOND tower was hit? Cause as we all know, AFTER the SECOND tower was hit, we were all aware that we were "under attack". Yet, Flight 77 managed to go into the most defended airspace in the world, and hit one of the most defended buildings in the world. All while Dick Cheney was watching. All while Andrews Air Force base had fighters ready to intercept. How did it manage to do that William? Posted by: Jon Gold | May 26, 2006 10:38 AM To all, Arkin is too arrogant to answer - he just throws his view onto the wall to see if anything sticks. I wouldn't be surprised if today's blog was a joke by Arkin just to see if he push some buttons. Has Arkin ever really answered anything directly - I mean point by point instead of some grammatically flawed rant. He still never answered last week's posting on the threat of Al Qaeda. Posted by: D&Y | May 26, 2006 10:38 AM 6.6 seconds + 47 Story steel reinforced building + pancake collapse = impossible FEMA, NIST, or NOVA can not duplicate what happened using the facts of what occured that day. Exactly! No plane ever hit WTC7. Larry Silverstein admitted on PBS he made the decision to "pull it". According to FEMA there was no manual firefighting taking place at WTC7. Pull it, is a term used by structural engineers in the demolition field meaning to "pull" the main support to initial the collapse sequence. Only FEMA has attempted to explain WTC7's collapse and stated that their explanation only has a small probability of occurance. Why don't you mention this in your article instead of your sickening insinuation that the 9/11 Truth movement is looking for profits? Why don't you mention the German firm who scanned all the hard drives recovered from the complex and found PROOF of inside trading happening just before the attacks which allowed people to steal hundreds of millions of dollars? This evidence was turned over to the FBI and they did nothing. Did you receive a "compensation" check? Sickening when someone accusses of being corrupt and out for profit, isn't it? Posted by: Domenick | May 26, 2006 10:35 AM The comments by Jon Gold are, well, pure gold. Mr. Arkin, I challenge you to reply to them in a professional manner. Not in the fashion of this pathetic article about the results of the new Nationwide 9/11 poll conducted by Zogby. Take the challenge, Mr. Arkin. It should be easy. Mr. Gold's comments are right here on this page. Posted by: - Ø®£Z - | May 26, 2006 10:34 AM Please tell me why mossad agents were arrested after celebrating and filming the towers fall on a Jersey Rooftop? First why were they celebrating and second if they knew of the attack why not share it with the USA to save all those lies. But this info is classified?? Why is that, if it concerns 9/11 and the truth why is it classfied. Doesn't take a rocket sciencist to conclude of a probably Mossad involvement. imho Posted by: JM | May 26, 2006 10:33 AM Posted by: Roxdog | May 26, 2006 10:32 AM Four years ago when I came to the startling discovery that 9/11 couldn't have been perpetrated by 19 terrorists with boxcutters, I thought that if the topic could ever breach the taboos that seemed to be in place against even mentioning the plethora of unanswered questions in the mass media, people would immediately see the obvious. People would stand up and say, wait a minute, why did WTC7 just implode like that? How could those buildings "pancake" when the they had all those vertical columns in the core bearing the gravitational load? How could the strongest military might on the planet not defend itself against such an attack? How could... ??? But I was mistaken. People carry too much emotional baggage when it comes to 9/11 to look at it empirically. Or even to look at it at all. Because surely our own government couldn't do something like that to it's own people? Surely they wouldn't. Posted by: Anonomous | May 26, 2006 10:29 AM Tell me William, why was Philip Zelikow, a member of the Bush Transition team, a man who wrote a book with Condoleezza Rice, a man who wrote the Iraq War Strategy, a man who said the Iraq War is about the protection of Israel, and a man who currently works underneath Condoleezza Rice at the State Department allowed to be in charge of the 9/11 Commission even though the family members asked for his resignation? Why is that William? Posted by: Jon Gold | May 26, 2006 10:22 AM Posted by: Paul | May 26, 2006 10:21 AM I'll just let this guy's comments speak for me. "Tell me William, why did the 9/11 Commission completely omit Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta's testimony from their final report? You remember his testimony don't you? The testimony that said he and Dick Cheney watched Flight 77 for at least 50 miles until it hit the Pentagon. How can that be? The Pentagon was hit at 9:37, and the 9/11 Report says that Dick Cheney didn't arrive at the PEOC until 9:58. Oh, that's right. Norman Mineta said he arrived at the PEOC by 9:20, and Dick Cheney was already there. NO WONDER the 9/11 Report omitted his testimony." Posted by: Robert Rice | May 26, 2006 10:20 AM Thanks for the psychological profiling. Now could you attempt to debunk the evidence please, starting with the sheer amount of foreknowledge that was blatantly ignored. Posted by: Tonny Payne | May 26, 2006 10:16 AM I have noticed that everytime a mainstream "journalist" writes anything about the "truth movement" they routinely use "quotation marks" as a way of "trivializing" the jlegitimate "questions" many "Americans" have about the "official story". I would challenge the "journalist" who wrote the "news item" to provide us with a link to another "article" in which he uses even a tenth as many "quotation marks" as he has in this "fine piece" if you "get my drift". Stop making it about tinfoil hats and mind control and aliens and start asking some hard questions of those responsible for "defending" America from "terrorists", whomever they may be. Perhaps then you won't need "amateurs" and "bloggers" to do you "job" for you. The "media" has failed the citizens of this "Nation" miserably and have done everything possible to railroad us into a disasterous war based on lies and deceptions using 911 as a justification. Talk about predatory and devious. Posted by: Alan Morgan | May 26, 2006 10:15 AM Tell me William, why did the 9/11 Commission completely omit Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta's testimony from their final report? You remember his testimony don't you? The testimony that said he and Dick Cheney watched Flight 77 for at least 50 miles until it hit the Pentagon. How can that be? The Pentagon was hit at 9:37, and the 9/11 Report says that Dick Cheney didn't arrive at the PEOC until 9:58. Oh, that's right. Norman Mineta said he arrived at the PEOC by 9:20, and Dick Cheney was already there. NO WONDER the 9/11 Report omitted his testimony. Posted by: Jon Gold | May 26, 2006 10:14 AM Posted by: D&Y | May 26, 2006 10:09 AM Remember when this Administration tried to tell us that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were best buddies, and that turned out not to be true? The BUSH FAMILY has more ties to Osama bin Laden than Saddam Hussein EVER had. Posted by: Jon Gold | May 26, 2006 10:09 AM This guy is a prick for ignoring the writing on the wall. The cat is out of the bag and this guy is a gatekeeper for the truth. EVERYONE will be held accountable. UniversalSeed.org, for all your truth needs. Posted by: ChuckSheen | May 26, 2006 10:08 AM And of course William, the Bush Administration has lied about EVERYTHING else. Why on God's Green Earth should we believe what they have to say about 9/11? Posted by: Jon Gold | May 26, 2006 10:07 AM 6.6 seconds + 47 Story steel reinforced building + pancake collapse = impossible FEMA, NIST, or NOVA can not duplicate what happened using the facts of what occured that day Posted by: Phil E | May 26, 2006 10:06 AM Mr. Franchi, Arkin doesn't read the posts - if he did, he would have answered questions posed by numerous readers last week about the threat of Al Qaeda. Arkin plays it safe by emailing his blog to the Post and calling it a day. You raise a good point . . . too bad it will go unanswered. Posted by: Jim Miller | May 26, 2006 10:02 AM How dare you turn your backs on the 3000 people who lost their lives on 9/11, and all of their surviving family members. Did the Bush Administration want to invade Afghanistan and Iraq prior to 9/11? According to documents easily obtained on the PNAC's website, and documents obtained from the "secret" Energy Task Force Meeting headed by Dick Cheney, the answer is yes. Not to mention fmr. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill who said not 10 days after the inauguration, during a principals meeting, Bush was adamant about finding a way to invade Iraq. The President saying, "Go find me a WAY to do this". So, if the President and his Administration wanted to invade Afghanistan and Iraq before 9/11, and the only way they could do it was if something like 9/11 happened, and then 9/11 DOES happen, and they use it to invade those two countries, doesn't that make them a suspect? You bet your a_ _ is does. And if the facts surrounding 9/11 point more towards the Administration than they do to Osama Bin Laden, don't you think it IMPORTANT to take a look at it? You bet your a_ _ it is. Ask family members Kristen Breitweiser, Mindy Kleinberg, Patty Cassazza, Lorie Van Auken, Bob McIlvaine, and Donna Marsh O'Connor why they think the 9/11 Commission was a "Hollow Failure". Better yet, ask Mr. McIlvaine, and Donna Marsh O'Connor why they're convinced the Bush Administration was responsible for the atrocities that took place on 9/11. Bush didn't want to investigate 9/11. Bush fought AGAINST the family members for the creation of the so called independent 9/11 Commission. Bush refused to testify publicy, under oath, and not without Dick Cheney at his side. No recordings were allowed, only hand written notes. Nah, they obviously have NOTHING to hide. Go ahead, ask Sibel Edmonds... Posted by: Jon Gold | May 26, 2006 10:01 AM It's obviously a sad day in America when the people have to tell the Press what's going on in this country. Posted by: Jon Gold | May 26, 2006 09:52 AM Just curious William... have you bothered to look at any of the evidence for yourself or are you just slamming anyone who does as a Conspiracy Kook? Do yourself a favor Arkin, before you start slamming people and name calling like a bully on the playground, look at the independent research. Posted by: Gary Franchi | May 26, 2006 09:49 AM first off, thanks for at least acknowledging the new Zogby poll, that's more than I can say for the rest of the mainstream media. as for your statement: 'Isn't the answer self-evident? The organization itself exploits the 9/11 families and the American public's confusion.' I find that highly offensive. First off, there is no single organization which represents the 9/11 skeptics out there, most of us come to question the official account only after doing months and months of our own research. Sure, there are now films out there which are spreading like wildflower promoting some of the more extreme views of 9/11, but in general a large number of people question 9/11 from simple research. It is incredibly disingenuous (if not ironic) of you to suggest that this organization 'exploits the 9/11 families and the American public's confusion.' - that is EXACTLY what this administration has done to a T. Do you remember where the Republican National Convention was in 2004? I do - in NYC, where 9/11 happened. Do you know how many times 9/11 was mentioned by every single speaker there? I do - about a hundred plus times, intermixed with Iraq and terrorism of course, to 'exploit .. [the] American public's confusion' as you put it. 9/11 has been exploited, obfuscated, and covered up by this administration - people who have profited from the deaths of nearly 3000 Americans - who deserved a real investigation, not the whitewash crap that lapdog media critics such as your self froth at the mouth to support and preach as the truth. I welcome a challenge from anyone in the media, because at the end of the day few of you know thing one about the struggles involved in finding any real closure on 9/11 - because none of you know the questions, and have no desire to find the answers. Shame on you, not those that question 9/11. Posted by: sickofthemedia | May 26, 2006 09:30 AM Why avoid the issue at hand. You're dismissing it all as "conspiracies don't happen". Let the chips fall as they may! Don't be afraid of the implications, hell armageddon might come upon us, but at last we have some honesty restored. Posted by: Greg | May 26, 2006 09:29 AM Are we supposed to believe? 1. Several FAA flight controllers exhibited extreme incompetence on 9/11, and evidendy on that day only. 2. The officials in charge at both NMCC and NORAD also acted incompetently on 9/11, and evidently on that day only. 3. In particular, when NMCC-NORAD officials did finally order jet fighters to be scrambled to protect New York and Washington, they ordered them in each case from more distant bases, rather than from McGuire and Andrews, respectively. 4. After public statements saying that Andrews Air Force Base had no jet fighters on alert to protect Washington, its website, which had previously said that many jets were always on alert, was altered. 5 Several pilots who normally are airborne and going full speed in under three minutes all took much longer to get up on 9/11. 6. These same pilots, flying planes capable of going 1,500 to 1,850 miles per hour, on that day were all evidently able to get their planes to fly only 300 to 700 miles per hour. 7. The collapse of the buildings of the World Trade Center, besides occurring at almost free-fall speed, exhibited other signs of being controlled demolitions: molten steel, seismic shocks, and fine dust were all produced. 8. The video and physical evidence suggesting that controlled demolition was the cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers co-exists with testimony from people in these buildings that they heard, felt, and saw the effects of explosions. 9. The collapse of WTC-1 and WTC-2 had some of the same features as the collapse of WTC-7, even though the latter collapse could not be attributed to the impact and jet fuel of an airplane. 10. Both the North Tower and the South Tower collapsed just as their respective fires were dying down, even though this meant that the South Tower, which had been hit second, collapsed first. 11. Governmental agencies had the debris, including the steel, from the collapsed WTC buildings removed without investigation, which is what would be expected if the government wanted to prevent evidence of explosives from being discovered. 12. Physical evidence suggesting that what hit the Pentagon could not have been a Boeing 757 co-exists with testimony of several witnesses that the aircraft that did hit the Pentagon was far smaller than a 757. 13. This evidence about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon co-exists with reports that Flight 77 crashed in Kentucky or Ohio. 14. This evidence co-exists with the fact that the only evidence that Flight 77 did not crash was supplied by an attorney closely associated with the Bush administration. 15. Evidence that Flight 77 did not return to Washington to hit the Pentagon co-exists with the fact that when the flight control transcript was released, the final 20 minutes were missing. 16. The fact that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon did so only after executing a very difficult maneuver co-exists with the fact that it struck a section of the Pentagon that, besides containing none of its leaders, was the section in which the strike would cause the least death and destruction. 17. On the same day in which jet fighters were unable to protect the Pentagon from an attack by a single airplane, the missiles that normally protect the Pentagon also failed to do so. Posted by: Lisa Holmes | May 26, 2006 09:26 AM If 9/11 is an open and shut case, why does one of the official reports say: The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/debris-damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added.) Posted by: N Gallow | May 26, 2006 09:06 AM what research have you done? it is so easy to target a group, single them out, paint them as some evil enemy with some sort of unknown motive, and defile them without providing any substance whatsoever - so much easier than doing any real research or providing any real information to your reader base. perhaps in the least you should recognize that over half of new yorkers want a new investigation, and that the jersey girls who faught for the original investigation called the 911 commission a 'hallow failure'. so lets see, bush and cheney wanted to limit the scope of the investigation, waited 400+ days to allow an independent investigation, refused to testify in public or under oath, had to testify together, and on the morning of 911 the secret service didn't move a finger after the 2nd plane hit -well after the secret service was on the call bridge aware of multiple hijackings - oh, and the commission was a lame whitewash.. yeah, those that question 911 are so stupid - give me a break. so i ask, what research have you done? Posted by: no | May 26, 2006 09:06 AM The comments to this entry are closed.
The latest news on computer and network security issues. Visit www.washingtonpost.com/technology.
9,383.846154
0.923077
1.384615
high
medium
abstractive