daughter is having good time.
skating is not easy! but it is exited enough!
星期四, 八月 31, 2006
星期三, 八月 30, 2006
Bush II's First Task: Immigration
Come January 2005, both Congress and President Bush are expected to start work on some unfinished business from the intelligence-reform law that was finally approved this week.
Left out of that sweeping measure, which was aimed primarily at consolidating the nation's spy work, were tough steps to block foreign terrorists from entering and operating in the US. Too many holes remain in the nation's immigration policies to keep terrorists out. Mr. Bush promised advocates of such measures that they would get a high priority in the new Congress.
The reform package did include a few immigration provisions, such as adding 10,000 border patrol agents over the next five years and more remotely piloted aircraft over the southwest border. In addition, minimum standards will be established for using state driver's licenses as IDs to board airplanes.
But what was rejected in the final days of wrangling over the bill were provisions to deny driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, to make it tougher for immigrants to win asylum, and to allow easier deportation of people who are in the country illegally.
The Senate balked at those House-passed measures. But Bush's promise to throw his political capital behind them should help them pass.
The president also plans to introduce more general immigration legislation next year, such as a temporary legal "guest worker" program. This is aimed at stemming the flow of some 750,000 illegal migrants across the Mexican border each year. But this proposal shouldn't hinder the more urgent steps left out of the intelligence-reform bill, which are aimed at preventing another Sept. 11 attack.
Left out of that sweeping measure, which was aimed primarily at consolidating the nation's spy work, were tough steps to block foreign terrorists from entering and operating in the US. Too many holes remain in the nation's immigration policies to keep terrorists out. Mr. Bush promised advocates of such measures that they would get a high priority in the new Congress.
The reform package did include a few immigration provisions, such as adding 10,000 border patrol agents over the next five years and more remotely piloted aircraft over the southwest border. In addition, minimum standards will be established for using state driver's licenses as IDs to board airplanes.
But what was rejected in the final days of wrangling over the bill were provisions to deny driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, to make it tougher for immigrants to win asylum, and to allow easier deportation of people who are in the country illegally.
The Senate balked at those House-passed measures. But Bush's promise to throw his political capital behind them should help them pass.
The president also plans to introduce more general immigration legislation next year, such as a temporary legal "guest worker" program. This is aimed at stemming the flow of some 750,000 illegal migrants across the Mexican border each year. But this proposal shouldn't hinder the more urgent steps left out of the intelligence-reform bill, which are aimed at preventing another Sept. 11 attack.
星期一, 八月 28, 2006
What it will take to terror-proof border
New reforms mandate 10,000 additional agents, but experts point to broader, endemic problems.
By Kris Axtman and Peter Grier Staff writers of The Christian Science Monitor
HOUSTON - An impending sharp increase in Border Patrol numbers is a first step in what could become a long effort to secure US land boundaries in today's terrorist age.
Nearly doubling the border force, as provided for in the just-passed intelligence bill, should at least make life a little easier for hard-pressed agents, who chase thousands of illegals every day. The addition of 4,000 immigration and customs agents will also help.
But if Washington wants to diminish the possibility of terrorist land incursion, it needs to address the larger problem of migrant flows, say experts. The two issues are inextricable - and solving the migrant problem may require a more comprehensive effort than hammering extra pickets on the national fence.
"Finding a terrorist at the border is like finding a needle in a haystack, and I don't know how to find them other than to make the haystack smaller," says Nestor Rodriguez, an immigration expert at the University of Houston.
Immigration was a central issue in the travails of intelligence reform legislation, which finally cleared Congress on Wednesday. House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R) of Wisconsin wanted the bill to include a provision forbidding states from issuing drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, among other things. Rep. Sensenbrenner's objection - along with the concerns of some powerful lawmakers about effects on the military's chain of command - nearly kept the bill from passing.
In the end, the driver-license section was not included. But the legislation still contained important immigration-related changes. Under terms of the bill, the US is to add 2,000 Border Patrol agents and 800 immigration and customs agents every year for the next five years.
The intelligence bill orders tests of advanced sensors, videos, and unmanned aircraft surveillance along the nation's northern border, and mandates creation of a plan to survey the more-porous southwestern border with unmanned aerial vehicles. It also strengthens visa application requirements, and requires that states eventually use a common electronic format for the strip that stores data on driver licenses.
So far, reports of possible terrorist incursions across US land borders are sketchy. In June, a Saudi pilot suspected of being a terrorist cell leader was spotted in Honduras, and then Mexico. Intelligence officials believe he was looking for ways to smuggle Al Qaeda members into the US.
In July, a South African woman was arrested in McAllen, Texas, with $7,300 in different currencies, muddy pants, and a passport with three pages ripped out, and she had no visa to enter the US. She later pleaded guilty to the charges. This fall, US security officials were investigating an intelligence report that a group of 25 Chechen terrorists with ties to Islamic militants had illegally entered the US. It is uncertain if the report was true.
Still, the only way to better the protect the US against terrorists simply walking into the US is to decrease illegal immigration overall, say experts.
"No amount of added security at the border is going to solve the problem until Mexican migration is redefined and dealt with primarily as a labor-market regulation issue rather than exclusively as a border-security issue," says Peter Andreas, a political scientist at Brown University and the author of "Border Games: Policing the U.S.-Mexico Divide."
"That way, border enforcement officials can prioritize trying to stop potential terrorists," he says. "At the moment, they can't do this since they are totally overwhelmed with the daily task of trying to keep out Mexican migrant workers."
T. J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council in San Diego, believes increasing the number of Border Patrol agents by 10,000, 20,000, or even 200,000 is not going to be the solution. Last year, for example, 1.2 million illegal immigrants were caught attempting to cross the border - only 33 percent of total crossings, according to estimates. "This isn't like baseball where a .330 average is good," says Mr. Bonner. "This is our national security, and if one wrong person gets in, it could blow up in our face."
Many experts agree the way to lessen illegal border crossings is not to militarize the border, but to enforce immigration laws already in place. For instance, it is against the law to hire illegal immigrants, but last year only 13 employers were fined for doing so. That kind of lax enforcement does nothing to discourage employers - or illegal immigrants who know they won't be turned away, says Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington.
"We need to reduce the magnet that pulls the illegal aliens as well as doing a better job holding the line," he says.
That magnet, he says, includes anything that allows an illegal immigrant to live a normal life once across the border: the ability to get a job, tap into social services, open a bank account, and get a driver's license. Many states have loosened their laws in these areas.
It's important not to put too much stock in border enforcement, say many experts. First, many of those who are here illegally came legally and then overstayed their visas. Second, history has shown that increasing personnel at the border doesn't necessarily decrease illegal immigration.
"Identifying terrorists among the hundreds of millions of persons who enter the US each year requires a great deal more and better intelligence than has been available," says Susan Martin, an immigration expert at Georgetown University in Washington. "I would like to see Congress spend more money on gathering and analyzing information about terrorist patterns of movement rather than just increase personnel who will still not have the intelligence they need to identify the terrorists."
Indeed, even those on the frontlines are skeptical that the new security measures will make a difference. Ray Borane is the longtime mayor of Douglas, a rambling border town in Arizona where Border Patrol agents are a common sight and illegal-immigration trafficking a major problem. "As long as I've been involved in terrorist and illegal immigration issues here, the border-patrol strategy has never really changed," he says. "It's basically the same old, worn-out enforcement attitude, sometimes with a few new bells and whistles like [surveillance] drones. But nothing is going to change here until [federal officials] revamp the whole immigration policy."
• Tim Vanderpool in Tucson, Ariz., contributed to this report.
By Kris Axtman and Peter Grier Staff writers of The Christian Science Monitor
HOUSTON - An impending sharp increase in Border Patrol numbers is a first step in what could become a long effort to secure US land boundaries in today's terrorist age.
Nearly doubling the border force, as provided for in the just-passed intelligence bill, should at least make life a little easier for hard-pressed agents, who chase thousands of illegals every day. The addition of 4,000 immigration and customs agents will also help.
But if Washington wants to diminish the possibility of terrorist land incursion, it needs to address the larger problem of migrant flows, say experts. The two issues are inextricable - and solving the migrant problem may require a more comprehensive effort than hammering extra pickets on the national fence.
"Finding a terrorist at the border is like finding a needle in a haystack, and I don't know how to find them other than to make the haystack smaller," says Nestor Rodriguez, an immigration expert at the University of Houston.
Immigration was a central issue in the travails of intelligence reform legislation, which finally cleared Congress on Wednesday. House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R) of Wisconsin wanted the bill to include a provision forbidding states from issuing drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, among other things. Rep. Sensenbrenner's objection - along with the concerns of some powerful lawmakers about effects on the military's chain of command - nearly kept the bill from passing.
In the end, the driver-license section was not included. But the legislation still contained important immigration-related changes. Under terms of the bill, the US is to add 2,000 Border Patrol agents and 800 immigration and customs agents every year for the next five years.
The intelligence bill orders tests of advanced sensors, videos, and unmanned aircraft surveillance along the nation's northern border, and mandates creation of a plan to survey the more-porous southwestern border with unmanned aerial vehicles. It also strengthens visa application requirements, and requires that states eventually use a common electronic format for the strip that stores data on driver licenses.
So far, reports of possible terrorist incursions across US land borders are sketchy. In June, a Saudi pilot suspected of being a terrorist cell leader was spotted in Honduras, and then Mexico. Intelligence officials believe he was looking for ways to smuggle Al Qaeda members into the US.
In July, a South African woman was arrested in McAllen, Texas, with $7,300 in different currencies, muddy pants, and a passport with three pages ripped out, and she had no visa to enter the US. She later pleaded guilty to the charges. This fall, US security officials were investigating an intelligence report that a group of 25 Chechen terrorists with ties to Islamic militants had illegally entered the US. It is uncertain if the report was true.
Still, the only way to better the protect the US against terrorists simply walking into the US is to decrease illegal immigration overall, say experts.
"No amount of added security at the border is going to solve the problem until Mexican migration is redefined and dealt with primarily as a labor-market regulation issue rather than exclusively as a border-security issue," says Peter Andreas, a political scientist at Brown University and the author of "Border Games: Policing the U.S.-Mexico Divide."
"That way, border enforcement officials can prioritize trying to stop potential terrorists," he says. "At the moment, they can't do this since they are totally overwhelmed with the daily task of trying to keep out Mexican migrant workers."
T. J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council in San Diego, believes increasing the number of Border Patrol agents by 10,000, 20,000, or even 200,000 is not going to be the solution. Last year, for example, 1.2 million illegal immigrants were caught attempting to cross the border - only 33 percent of total crossings, according to estimates. "This isn't like baseball where a .330 average is good," says Mr. Bonner. "This is our national security, and if one wrong person gets in, it could blow up in our face."
Many experts agree the way to lessen illegal border crossings is not to militarize the border, but to enforce immigration laws already in place. For instance, it is against the law to hire illegal immigrants, but last year only 13 employers were fined for doing so. That kind of lax enforcement does nothing to discourage employers - or illegal immigrants who know they won't be turned away, says Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington.
"We need to reduce the magnet that pulls the illegal aliens as well as doing a better job holding the line," he says.
That magnet, he says, includes anything that allows an illegal immigrant to live a normal life once across the border: the ability to get a job, tap into social services, open a bank account, and get a driver's license. Many states have loosened their laws in these areas.
It's important not to put too much stock in border enforcement, say many experts. First, many of those who are here illegally came legally and then overstayed their visas. Second, history has shown that increasing personnel at the border doesn't necessarily decrease illegal immigration.
"Identifying terrorists among the hundreds of millions of persons who enter the US each year requires a great deal more and better intelligence than has been available," says Susan Martin, an immigration expert at Georgetown University in Washington. "I would like to see Congress spend more money on gathering and analyzing information about terrorist patterns of movement rather than just increase personnel who will still not have the intelligence they need to identify the terrorists."
Indeed, even those on the frontlines are skeptical that the new security measures will make a difference. Ray Borane is the longtime mayor of Douglas, a rambling border town in Arizona where Border Patrol agents are a common sight and illegal-immigration trafficking a major problem. "As long as I've been involved in terrorist and illegal immigration issues here, the border-patrol strategy has never really changed," he says. "It's basically the same old, worn-out enforcement attitude, sometimes with a few new bells and whistles like [surveillance] drones. But nothing is going to change here until [federal officials] revamp the whole immigration policy."
• Tim Vanderpool in Tucson, Ariz., contributed to this report.
A new bid to delay Iraq's vote
A new bid to delay Iraq's vote
By Annia Ciezadlo Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor SULAYMANIYAH, IRAQ – Until recently, the struggle over Iraq's election date has divided along sectarian lines. Sunnis, whose religious authorities have largely disdained the elections, want a delay. Shiites, whose powerful religious leaders pushed hard for the poll, won't budge from the scheduled date of Jan. 30.
The stalemate is exacerbating tensions between Iraq's Sunni minority and its majority Shiites, keen to take power after years of rule by a Sunni elite.
It's also put President Bush in a tricky position. Any delay would mean US troops stay longer. So far, Mr. Bush has insisted that elections go forward on time, despite a growing groundswell for a delay from Sunni moderates, who fear that violence will keep Sunnis from participating in the ballot.
But a moderate Shiite cleric has been quietly floating a proposal that could break this dead- lock. Sheikh Fatih Kashif al-Ghitta, a cleric from the Iraqi holy city of Najaf, is trying to gather support for a delay that would last no longer than April. If the delay is accompanied by a strict timeline and guarantees of no further postponements, Mr. Ghitta believes it would help increase voter participation.
"The delay would be effective if it is part of a program to end terrorism in Iraq," says Ghitta in a phone interview from Baghdad. "It would give us a reasonable period of time so that people will feel safe to go out and vote. At the same time, there would be another month or two to organize the elections."
The debate comes at a crucial moment for Sunni-Shiite relations. Iraq's preeminent religious leader, Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has managed to pull together a unified slate of mostly Shiite candidates that looks poised to sweep the Jan. 30 ballot.
On Thursday, Sistani's representatives announced that the Shiite slate would include members of the three main Shiite exile parties, Dawa and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), and the Iraqi National Congress. The list includes some Sunnis and Kurds as well, but no major Sunni political movements.
"The Bush administration has been insisting on elections Jan. 30, and I don't see any signs of flexibility there," says Juan Cole, an Iraq expert at University of Michigan. "There is no reason to think that the [security] situation will be better in April than it is in January. And I think this is the subtext of the Bush administration's reluctance to change the date. One cleric in Najaf who's not a grand Ayatollah is not going to be able to make the situation different."
Ghitta's plan is simple: Delay the elections until the end of April, giving the interim government, election commission, and Sunni politicians more time to build greater voter participation. But if elections still aren't possible by the end of April, Iraq's current interim government must agree to step down.
The plan is significant because it is the first such proposal to come from a member of the Shiite clergy, not from Sunnis or from secular Shiites like Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi.
If Allawi proposed a delay, it might be seen as a self-serving attempt to keep his office long enough to consolidate power. But Ghitta's proposal, coming from a respected Shiite cleric, might fare better.
Ghitta is hoping to enlist the United Nations to enforce this ultimatum. If he can persuade the United Nations and other international authorities to guarantee a strict timeline, he is willing to take the idea to Sistani.
"Sistani wants to be assured that the election will eventually be held," said Mr. Ghitta, a religious scholar from a long line of Shiite clerics. "The Shiite marja'iya will not agree to a delay in the elections without a guarantee. But if we go to the marja'iya with this idea, with a written schedule, the marja'iya will look at it seriously."
Sistani has so far refused to compromise on the election date, which he hammered out in a series of painful, long-distance negotiations - he rarely leaves his house - with US occupation authorities last year. On Nov. 26, a group of mostly Sunni political parties, headed by politician Adnan Pachachi, asked for a delay of six months. The answer from Sistani's office was swift: no delay.
But as the Dec. 15 deadline for voter registration draws near, Iraqi authorities have begun to acknowledge that the election will be difficult to pull off as planned. On Wednesday, Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi hinted at a possible compromise: elections staggered over a series of two or three weeks, instead of one day, giving election authorities time to adjust to often violent conditions in different parts of the country. Allawi backed away from the idea on Thursday, but Iraq's independent electoral commission, said it would be willing to consider it.
So far, Ghitta has approached a senior United Nations representative and Mr. Pachachi. United Nations officials could not be reached for comment, but a representative of Pachachi's Independent Democratic Movement said they were taking the idea seriously.
But the most important response will be Sistani's. Ghitta has not yet taken his proposal to the senior cleric. An aide in Sistani's Najaf office called Ghitta "a very respected scholar," but said he had not heard of the proposal.
"Ayatollah Sistani's position is clear: he does not want a delay in the election," said the aide, who asked not to be named. "The Iraqi people have already been waiting for a long time."
But Ghitta believes that Iraqis need more time for voter education. "The people of Iraq have not been instilled with the culture of elections."
By Annia Ciezadlo Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor SULAYMANIYAH, IRAQ – Until recently, the struggle over Iraq's election date has divided along sectarian lines. Sunnis, whose religious authorities have largely disdained the elections, want a delay. Shiites, whose powerful religious leaders pushed hard for the poll, won't budge from the scheduled date of Jan. 30.
The stalemate is exacerbating tensions between Iraq's Sunni minority and its majority Shiites, keen to take power after years of rule by a Sunni elite.
It's also put President Bush in a tricky position. Any delay would mean US troops stay longer. So far, Mr. Bush has insisted that elections go forward on time, despite a growing groundswell for a delay from Sunni moderates, who fear that violence will keep Sunnis from participating in the ballot.
But a moderate Shiite cleric has been quietly floating a proposal that could break this dead- lock. Sheikh Fatih Kashif al-Ghitta, a cleric from the Iraqi holy city of Najaf, is trying to gather support for a delay that would last no longer than April. If the delay is accompanied by a strict timeline and guarantees of no further postponements, Mr. Ghitta believes it would help increase voter participation.
"The delay would be effective if it is part of a program to end terrorism in Iraq," says Ghitta in a phone interview from Baghdad. "It would give us a reasonable period of time so that people will feel safe to go out and vote. At the same time, there would be another month or two to organize the elections."
The debate comes at a crucial moment for Sunni-Shiite relations. Iraq's preeminent religious leader, Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has managed to pull together a unified slate of mostly Shiite candidates that looks poised to sweep the Jan. 30 ballot.
On Thursday, Sistani's representatives announced that the Shiite slate would include members of the three main Shiite exile parties, Dawa and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), and the Iraqi National Congress. The list includes some Sunnis and Kurds as well, but no major Sunni political movements.
"The Bush administration has been insisting on elections Jan. 30, and I don't see any signs of flexibility there," says Juan Cole, an Iraq expert at University of Michigan. "There is no reason to think that the [security] situation will be better in April than it is in January. And I think this is the subtext of the Bush administration's reluctance to change the date. One cleric in Najaf who's not a grand Ayatollah is not going to be able to make the situation different."
Ghitta's plan is simple: Delay the elections until the end of April, giving the interim government, election commission, and Sunni politicians more time to build greater voter participation. But if elections still aren't possible by the end of April, Iraq's current interim government must agree to step down.
The plan is significant because it is the first such proposal to come from a member of the Shiite clergy, not from Sunnis or from secular Shiites like Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi.
If Allawi proposed a delay, it might be seen as a self-serving attempt to keep his office long enough to consolidate power. But Ghitta's proposal, coming from a respected Shiite cleric, might fare better.
Ghitta is hoping to enlist the United Nations to enforce this ultimatum. If he can persuade the United Nations and other international authorities to guarantee a strict timeline, he is willing to take the idea to Sistani.
"Sistani wants to be assured that the election will eventually be held," said Mr. Ghitta, a religious scholar from a long line of Shiite clerics. "The Shiite marja'iya will not agree to a delay in the elections without a guarantee. But if we go to the marja'iya with this idea, with a written schedule, the marja'iya will look at it seriously."
Sistani has so far refused to compromise on the election date, which he hammered out in a series of painful, long-distance negotiations - he rarely leaves his house - with US occupation authorities last year. On Nov. 26, a group of mostly Sunni political parties, headed by politician Adnan Pachachi, asked for a delay of six months. The answer from Sistani's office was swift: no delay.
But as the Dec. 15 deadline for voter registration draws near, Iraqi authorities have begun to acknowledge that the election will be difficult to pull off as planned. On Wednesday, Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi hinted at a possible compromise: elections staggered over a series of two or three weeks, instead of one day, giving election authorities time to adjust to often violent conditions in different parts of the country. Allawi backed away from the idea on Thursday, but Iraq's independent electoral commission, said it would be willing to consider it.
So far, Ghitta has approached a senior United Nations representative and Mr. Pachachi. United Nations officials could not be reached for comment, but a representative of Pachachi's Independent Democratic Movement said they were taking the idea seriously.
But the most important response will be Sistani's. Ghitta has not yet taken his proposal to the senior cleric. An aide in Sistani's Najaf office called Ghitta "a very respected scholar," but said he had not heard of the proposal.
"Ayatollah Sistani's position is clear: he does not want a delay in the election," said the aide, who asked not to be named. "The Iraqi people have already been waiting for a long time."
But Ghitta believes that Iraqis need more time for voter education. "The people of Iraq have not been instilled with the culture of elections."
Friday, August 25, 2006Steele stock on the rise
Michael S. Steele’s bid to win the Senate seat of retiring Paul S. Sarbanes is looking more and more like a winning bet.
A certain Washington Times reporter predicted nearly a year ago that a Michael Steele Senate campaign would yield Maryland its first black senator and first Republican elected to the Senate since Charles Mathias Jr. retired 20 years ago.
And it isn’t so much about personality or issues or party. Everybody likes all the guys running: Rep. Ben Cardin, NAACP President Kweisi Mfume, even Josh Rales — darn right we need ideas.
Maryland is looking good on the homefront economically and taxes are under control. The big issue is energy, and that’s a national problem no one can figure out. And Maryland is not as dismissive of Republicans as people want to believe.
Two years after Mr. Mathias was first elected in 1969, Republicans John Glenn Beall Jr. returned from a six-year hiatus and Spiro T. Agnew was the governor.
It was Agnew’s popularity that made it work and, despite a lot of political hatred of Gov. Robert Ehrlich, his approval ratings on handling the state’s business are high.
If party affiliation and issues and necessailry the keys to this contest, what is?
How about race?
Democrats have done their level best behind the scenes to disrupt any potential Mr. Mfume has to secure the nomination, and if the effort works in September, the party may pay in November.
If the November contest pits a black Republican, Mr. Steele, against a white Democrat, Mr. Cardin, the election boils down to numbers.
Thirty percent of the state’s eligible voters are Republican and 70 percent are Democrats. Mr. Steele needs all the Republicans and another 20 percent from elsewhere to win. That’s not as tough as it looks: Blacks make up almost half of the state’s eligible Democratic voters.
Mr. Steele needs at least half of the state’s black voters to pick him over Mr. Cardin.
Impossible? Remember that even George W. Bush pulled 13 percent of black votes nationwide two years ago.
Here’s the clincher: The highest concentration of registered Democrats is on Mr. Steele’s home turf, Prince George’s County, the wealthiest predominantly black county in the country — where Mr. Steele knows everybody and everybody knows him.
If you’re Ben Cardin or even Kweisi Mfume bringing your despised Baltimore credentials downstate against a widely known and popular local, you really have to consider what chance you have to stop this guy, who, by the way, hasn’t yet cranked his TV ad campaign up to full speed.
— Brian DeBose, national political reporter, The Washington Times
posted at 1:18 PM 1 Comment »
-->
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Dixie Chicks flick flop
When it is released to theaters this fall, a documentary about the Dixie Chicks is going to become an “election issue,” predicts hopeful news organizations who are desperately trying to wedge the film into cultural and political relevance.
Perhaps they have overlooked public disinterest: The girl group has now cancelled appearances in 15 cities, the latest being Indianapolis, due to low ticket sales. Still, Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, who agreed to fund the musical publicity vehicle this week, has painted a heroic picture.
“Dixie Chicks: Shut Up and Sing” travels with the Dixie Chicks, from the peak of their popularity as the national-anthem-singing darlings of country music and top-selling female recording artists of all time, through the now infamous anti-Bush comment made by the group’s lead singer Natalie Maines in 2003,” he noted.
The film claims the girl group was under political attack, shrugging off death threats and bravely continuing to “live their lives, have children and of course make music.”
Let us pause to remember that their biggest hit was called “Sin Wagon.”
Producer Barbara Kopple still pines for the Dixie Chicks to be perceived as domestic goddesses. She gushed, “They are contemporary but rooted in tradition, strong yet vulnerable — career women who are deeply connected to family.”
Oh, and rude to the leader of the Free World, too.
“The Dixie Chicks paid a huge price for questioning the invasion of Iraq and daring to say what millions of people were thinking,” said director Cecilia Peck. “Our film looks at the cost of standing up for what you believe in.”
Yes, but does it also examine who paid the cost for such a freedom? And some equal time here, please. Ms. Peck, et al: Do you have the courage to make a film about President Bush — who is also standing up for what he believes in?
—Jennifer Harper, national reporter, The Washington Times
posted at 12:24 PM 41 Comments »
-->
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Composting news
Democrats joyously bandied about earlier this week a leaked memo from Dick Wadhams, Sen. George Allen’s re-election campaign manager, in which he lamented the whole episode of Mr. Allen calling a campaign volunteer for his opponent, Jim Webb, “macaca.”
In it, Mr. Wadhams said the Webb campaign and the news media “worked hand-in-hand to create national news over something that did not warrant coverage in the first place.”
“Even after Senator Allen apologized to the Webb campaign staffer in specific, and to anyone who may have been offended in general, the news media continued to print and re-print the same speculations and inaccurate portrayals of Senator Allen’s comments,” wrote Mr. Wadhams. “Never in modern times has a statewide officeholder and candidate been so vilified in a desperate attempt to revive a campaign that was fast-sinking — the Webb campaign.”
In particular, Mr. Wadhams called out The Washington Post for running a week of daily stories about it.
The following day, The Post ran not one, but two, separate stories relating to Mr. Allen’s “macaca” remark.
One was a round-up of other Republicans who aren’t Mr. Allen and who didn’t call someone “macaca,” but have said things during campaigns that offended people. The other one was about how voters at a forum did not ask Mr. Allen about his “macaca” remark, instead concentrating on less pressing matters such as the war in Iraq.
– Charles Hurt, Capitol Hill bureau chief, The Washington Times
posted at 3:37 PM 6 Comments »
-->
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Dispatches from Lebanon
BEIRUT — Mismatched bed sheets, strung up above and along the iron fence and brick wall, blow in the afternoon breeze and provide shade, if you could call it that, from the afternoon Beirut sun.
She didn’t want her pictures taken, but she didn’t mind sharing coffee, “qahwah” in Arabic. With a warm smile and old hands, she poured from a small metal pot and offered cigarettes.
The red transistor radio, dusty and partially covered with yesterday’s masking tape was open, its electronics exposed as her husband worked like a surgeon with a knife, eyes focused on this little machine, their connection to the outside world, outside Sanayeh Park, their home, and home for hundreds of other refugees, since the war between Israel and Hezbollah began.
I told them I’d be back tomorrow and said thanks for the coffee. The following day I went to Radio Shack, and bought a new radio with extra batteries.
I can’t help everyone, that’s obvious, but now and again I can do something.
Under a nearby canopy, I had dinner with another family. On a little burner, Haidar Ajami cooks meat and fresh tomatoes in a deep dish pan. Enjoy it with pita bread, use your hands and dig in there, scoop some out, nice and hot, and the taste of those tomatoes is divine. And the olives!
A girl brings hot tea in little ceramic cups, the men talk about politics, the war, life in Beirut, sharing the humanity common to all of us.
Haidar prays on his Muslim prayer rug, and the sound of children laughing and playing is a melody. Then suddenly, the loud boom of bombs exploding in the suburbs. Some women put their hands over their hearts and some people look to the sky.
But Haidar, he keeps still. And prays.
I returned to the park on the third day of the cease-fire, hoping to see Haidar and his family again, but they were gone. Everyone was gone, headed back to their villages, returning to homes that, for many, are now piles of rubble. For others, the homes still stand, but the structures lack water, electricity or fuel.
Better than living in a city park? Perhaps. Safer? Who’s to say?
One thing is certain. Home, pile of rubble or not, is just that: home.
Lebanon has been in the grip of civil war on and off for decades, yet the resiliance of its people is remarkable. Shops remain open. Taxis beep their horns in traffic jams in Beirut. Lives continue on toward an unknown horizon.
If you would like to contribute to or reach out to a charity providing assistance to those displaced by war in Lebanon, here are a few links:
International Committee of the Red Cross
Catholic Relief Services
United Nations World Food Programme
– Rodney Lamkey Jr., photographer, The Washington Times
posted at 3:34 PM 4 Comments »
-->
Monday, August 21, 2006
Lonely Joe Lieberman
So, if Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman wins his independent candidacy for re-election, will he still get along with Democratic colleagues who have endorsed Democratic nominee Ned Lamont?
Sen. John Kerry shot a few arrows at Mr. Lieberman yesterday on ABC’s “This Week,” and Mr. Lieberman fired back on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” Although Mr. Lieberman described Mr. Kerry as a “friend,” it didn’t seem so. Mr. Kerry had said Mr. Lieberman sounded like Vice President Dick Cheney in criticizing those who want to pull out of Iraq by a date certain.
Writer Jason Zengerle, in an article in the latest issue of the New Republic, quotes two anonymous Lieberman associates as also wondering about Mr. Lieberman’s future in the Democratic Caucus.
“I think [Mr. Lieberman] believes a lot of his colleagues are doing what they have to do publicly, and he sort of expected it,” said one, identified as a former Lieberman adviser. Still, “there’s definitely been a growing sense of hurt, since at least 2003 and his presidential campaign, about the way parts of the party have treated him.”
Someone identified as a Lieberman friend had this to say: “I know that, in his heart of hearts, he considers himself a Democrat, but it’ll be interesting to see how he feels when this is all over and done with. Over the next three months, he’s going to be embraced by Republicans and spurned by the organized Democratic Party, including a lot of people he considers to be his friends. It’s hard to say how much that’s going to affect him, but he wouldn’t be human if it didn’t.”
— Greg Pierce, national reporter, The Washington Times
posted at 2:41 PM 37 Comments »
-->
Friday, August 18, 2006
Vacation pipe dreams
As Washingtonians know well, August is break time and my husband and I carved out two (2) full (day AND night) kid-free vacation days. Some of you know what a certifiable miracle that is.
We wanted to to go somewhere, but we were just too darned tired to even get in the car. So our fun-filled Grand Plan became: Sit on deck. Drink relaxing beverages. Listen to a CD of ocean waves.
Two hours and two cups of coffee into our precious vacation, I discovered that some items on a basement shelf were getting wet. My husband became alarmed when he learned of the wetness. Within minutes, the terrible verdict was in: We had another pinhole leak.
Homeowners in Montgomery and Prince George’s counties are all too familiar with this scourge, in which copper water pipes buried in walls spring very tiny leaks that drip and drip and totally ruin wallboards and floors.
Not to mention precious kid-free vacations.
Our last pinhole leak happened in November, right before Thanksgiving. We completely destroyed the bathroom to get at that one. My husband mangled some skin (and got 15 stitches) and we learned how to wrestle a 40-year-old bathtub out the door and wrestle new bath equipment in.
This new leak meant we had to destroy the kitchen.
My husband was beside himself over the leak and went through all five stages of emotional trauma—shock, denial, anger, bargaining with God and acceptance.
Then he went to work.
I will spare our gentle readers the dirty details, but my husband, exhausted as he was, rose to the occasion magnificently. We’re talking changes in cabinetry, plumbing, wiring, appliances and wall coverings.
And shopping. My reporting on marriage-skills techniques came in handy several times during this crisis. You know those ads where a couple argues over color swatches (”Cool Coconut Cream” vs. “Lightly Lemon Bisque”)? Believe it.
But this blog is to sing the praises of men like my husband who are sainted carpenters’ sons, inside and out. So many times we read of men behaving badly, but I think those (bad) guys are a small minority. I think there are many, many, many more men who, like my husband, are dedicated to solving problems and making things even better than before. To me, that’s the definition of goodness.
So to all the wonderful handymen (husbands, fathers, brothers) out there, we thank you and we love you.
— Cheryl Wetzstein, national reporter for social and family issues.
posted at 1:42 PM 5 Comments »
-->
Thursday, August 17, 2006
You say ‘Macaca’
Many in the mainstream media have left out a crucial detail in reporting the flap over Sen. George Allen calling a Democratic volunteer of Indian descent a “macaca” in front of a crowd of 100 Virginians during a campaign event.
Mr. Allen, Virginia Republican facing a reelection battle with Democrat Jim Webb, was videotaped using the term.
“This fellow over here with the yellow shirt, Macaca, or whatever his name is, he’s with my opponent,” the senator said, gesturing to 20-year-old S.R. Sidarth, a volunteer for Mr. Webb who was filming the campaignstop with a handheld recorder. It has been widely reported that “Macaca,” depending on its spelling, could mean “monkey.” It is also considered an ethnic slur referring to Africans.
But what nearly all media outlets have failed to mention is that Mr. Allen’s mother, Etty, is French. She grew up in colonial Tunisia on the Mediterranean coast of North Africa, and spoke French to herchildren. Mr. Allen has also been quoted as having performed well in French class.
Mr. Allen, for his part, says he used the term because his campaign staffers had nicknamed Mr. Sidarth, who had followed the senator around for several days, “mohawk” because of his hairstyle.
He apologized and said the comments were taken out of context and were not intended to have any racial implications.
Democrats have seized on the comments as a way to paint Mr. Allen, who had had a history of displaying the Confederate flag as a young man and as Virginia’s governor, as racially insensitive.
They also pulled all the choice quotes from “Fifth Quarter, The Scrimmage of a Football Coach’s Daughter,” written by the senator’s sister Jennifer Allen, calling him a bully.
The book, published in 2000 and with consultation with Mr. Allen, describes his years as a high school student.
It gives several examples of young George terrorizing his siblings with violence and threats — he once dragged Jennifer up the stairs by her hair. She also said her brother hit a potential boyfriend on the head with a pool cue. The book also details that Mr. Allen’s mother sometimes spoke to the children in French.
Salon.com this week interviewed Mr. Allen’s sister, who said their mother did not recognize the term “macaca.”
Mr. Allen used the word twice during the campaign appearance on Friday in Southwest Virginia, pointing at Mr. Sidarth. “Let’s give a welcome to macaca here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia,” Mr. Allen said.
The senator said he was actually directing the comment toward Mr. Webb, insinuating he has not traveled far from Northern Virginia while campaigning for statewide office.
Mr. Sidarth, born and raised in Fairfax County, is of Indian descent. The University of Virginia student told CNN he found the “macaca” comment offensive.– Christina Bellantoni, Capitol Hill correspondent, The Washington Times
posted at 12:37 PM 24 Comments »
-->
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
The politics of terror
The terrorist arrests in Britain last week may be the political gift that keeps giving, if today’s news about a United Flight being diverted is any indication.
But who benefits more?
Republicans see a parallel to 2002, when Democrats’ near-unanimous opposition to President Bush’s version of the Department of Homeland Security cost them two Senate seats. With Congress set to debate wiretapping policy and treatment of detainees, Republicans say they have a chance to make their case about which party is better able to protect safety all over again.
But Democrats say this election is different because the Bush administration and DHS in particular have done so little to improve domestic security since. They say having a track record of failure they can point to makes all the difference.
The other major difference is Iraq. Mr. Bush survived one election in 2004 with the war still simmering, but two years on, U.S. generals say parts of the country are worse than ever.
– Stephen Dinan, White House correspondent, The Washington Times
posted at 12:30 PM 6 Comments »
-->
Friday, August 11, 2006
Why wait for the U.N.?
While the world is waiting for the U.N. Security Council to vote on a Mideast deal, rockets are being fired and people are dying. Israel is planning to expand its ground war. Hezbollah is firing back. And the Lebanese government agreed to send troops to Southern Lebanon once there is a cease-fire. Once there is a cease-fire? Why would an army need a “cease-fire” in order to start defending its country? And people wonder why Hezbollah is gaining popularity in the Arab streets.
Once again, governments — Arabs and Israel — are failing to solve their own problems, whether in a diplomatic or military way. This is not a call for a massive war, but rather a call for governments to step in and take responsibility. This war is a result of ignoring the highly volatile situation that has persisted in the area for many years. It was bound to explode at some point. The Jerusalem Post wrote, “All governments involved allowed militants – Israeli, Palestinian and Lebanese – to go on terrorizing, killing and kidnapping for six years. And indeed, the war they were striving for did eventually erupt.” Let’s see how the different entities involved in this conflict will emerge after the war is over. Or is it ever over?
— Gihane Askar, Internet content producer, The Washington Times
posted at 4:36 PM 12 Comments »
-->
Friday, August 11, 2006
Feeling the heat of November already
As most eyes were focused this week on the Connecticut primary and the foiled terror plot, congressional Democrats continued to hammer away on two separate issues they hope will take hold with voters this fall: embryonic stem cell research and Social Security.
Whether that happens remains to be seen, but the Democrats argue that both topics matter to millions of Americans and are being badly bungled by Republicans.
Wednesday marked the five-year anniversary of President Bush’s embryonic stem cell policy of 2001, and a plethora of top Democrats wasted no time in telling voters that the way to change the policy is to put Democrats in charge. “With the right leadership, the promise of stem cell research will be realized,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said on the anniversary. “Democrats remain undeterred….The time has come for a new direction.”
Mr. Bush’s 2001 policy allowed federal funding for such research but limited it to embryonic stem cell lines already created at that time. Congress recently passed bipartisan legislation to expand that funding policy, but Mr. Bush vetoed it.
Also this week, Democrats and liberal advocacy groups released a report listing Republicans seeking reelection and their stances on the Social Security private accounts that Mr. Bush tried unsuccessfully to promote last year. Democrats promised to find any statement or action made by Republican candidates in support of those accounts, and raise that in the campaigns.
Groups like Americans United and Campaign for America’s Future are already running ads in several states warning voters that Republicans will privatize Social Security. One of their key targets this week is Rep. Clay Shaw, Florida Republican, who is running his own ad touting his support for the Social Security system and his plan to fix it, which wouldn’t cut benefits, privatize the system or raise taxes.
AU today said Mr. Shaw’s ad is in direct response to an ad AU has been running in his district, which shows an elderly couple forced to split a hotdog because Mr. Bush and his backers privatized Social Security and cut their benefits. Yesterday, AU put out a press release declaring: “Shaw feels the heat over pro-privatization stance.”
— Amy Fagan, congressional reporter, The Washington Times
A certain Washington Times reporter predicted nearly a year ago that a Michael Steele Senate campaign would yield Maryland its first black senator and first Republican elected to the Senate since Charles Mathias Jr. retired 20 years ago.
And it isn’t so much about personality or issues or party. Everybody likes all the guys running: Rep. Ben Cardin, NAACP President Kweisi Mfume, even Josh Rales — darn right we need ideas.
Maryland is looking good on the homefront economically and taxes are under control. The big issue is energy, and that’s a national problem no one can figure out. And Maryland is not as dismissive of Republicans as people want to believe.
Two years after Mr. Mathias was first elected in 1969, Republicans John Glenn Beall Jr. returned from a six-year hiatus and Spiro T. Agnew was the governor.
It was Agnew’s popularity that made it work and, despite a lot of political hatred of Gov. Robert Ehrlich, his approval ratings on handling the state’s business are high.
If party affiliation and issues and necessailry the keys to this contest, what is?
How about race?
Democrats have done their level best behind the scenes to disrupt any potential Mr. Mfume has to secure the nomination, and if the effort works in September, the party may pay in November.
If the November contest pits a black Republican, Mr. Steele, against a white Democrat, Mr. Cardin, the election boils down to numbers.
Thirty percent of the state’s eligible voters are Republican and 70 percent are Democrats. Mr. Steele needs all the Republicans and another 20 percent from elsewhere to win. That’s not as tough as it looks: Blacks make up almost half of the state’s eligible Democratic voters.
Mr. Steele needs at least half of the state’s black voters to pick him over Mr. Cardin.
Impossible? Remember that even George W. Bush pulled 13 percent of black votes nationwide two years ago.
Here’s the clincher: The highest concentration of registered Democrats is on Mr. Steele’s home turf, Prince George’s County, the wealthiest predominantly black county in the country — where Mr. Steele knows everybody and everybody knows him.
If you’re Ben Cardin or even Kweisi Mfume bringing your despised Baltimore credentials downstate against a widely known and popular local, you really have to consider what chance you have to stop this guy, who, by the way, hasn’t yet cranked his TV ad campaign up to full speed.
— Brian DeBose, national political reporter, The Washington Times
posted at 1:18 PM 1 Comment »
-->
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Dixie Chicks flick flop
When it is released to theaters this fall, a documentary about the Dixie Chicks is going to become an “election issue,” predicts hopeful news organizations who are desperately trying to wedge the film into cultural and political relevance.
Perhaps they have overlooked public disinterest: The girl group has now cancelled appearances in 15 cities, the latest being Indianapolis, due to low ticket sales. Still, Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, who agreed to fund the musical publicity vehicle this week, has painted a heroic picture.
“Dixie Chicks: Shut Up and Sing” travels with the Dixie Chicks, from the peak of their popularity as the national-anthem-singing darlings of country music and top-selling female recording artists of all time, through the now infamous anti-Bush comment made by the group’s lead singer Natalie Maines in 2003,” he noted.
The film claims the girl group was under political attack, shrugging off death threats and bravely continuing to “live their lives, have children and of course make music.”
Let us pause to remember that their biggest hit was called “Sin Wagon.”
Producer Barbara Kopple still pines for the Dixie Chicks to be perceived as domestic goddesses. She gushed, “They are contemporary but rooted in tradition, strong yet vulnerable — career women who are deeply connected to family.”
Oh, and rude to the leader of the Free World, too.
“The Dixie Chicks paid a huge price for questioning the invasion of Iraq and daring to say what millions of people were thinking,” said director Cecilia Peck. “Our film looks at the cost of standing up for what you believe in.”
Yes, but does it also examine who paid the cost for such a freedom? And some equal time here, please. Ms. Peck, et al: Do you have the courage to make a film about President Bush — who is also standing up for what he believes in?
—Jennifer Harper, national reporter, The Washington Times
posted at 12:24 PM 41 Comments »
-->
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Composting news
Democrats joyously bandied about earlier this week a leaked memo from Dick Wadhams, Sen. George Allen’s re-election campaign manager, in which he lamented the whole episode of Mr. Allen calling a campaign volunteer for his opponent, Jim Webb, “macaca.”
In it, Mr. Wadhams said the Webb campaign and the news media “worked hand-in-hand to create national news over something that did not warrant coverage in the first place.”
“Even after Senator Allen apologized to the Webb campaign staffer in specific, and to anyone who may have been offended in general, the news media continued to print and re-print the same speculations and inaccurate portrayals of Senator Allen’s comments,” wrote Mr. Wadhams. “Never in modern times has a statewide officeholder and candidate been so vilified in a desperate attempt to revive a campaign that was fast-sinking — the Webb campaign.”
In particular, Mr. Wadhams called out The Washington Post for running a week of daily stories about it.
The following day, The Post ran not one, but two, separate stories relating to Mr. Allen’s “macaca” remark.
One was a round-up of other Republicans who aren’t Mr. Allen and who didn’t call someone “macaca,” but have said things during campaigns that offended people. The other one was about how voters at a forum did not ask Mr. Allen about his “macaca” remark, instead concentrating on less pressing matters such as the war in Iraq.
– Charles Hurt, Capitol Hill bureau chief, The Washington Times
posted at 3:37 PM 6 Comments »
-->
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Dispatches from Lebanon
BEIRUT — Mismatched bed sheets, strung up above and along the iron fence and brick wall, blow in the afternoon breeze and provide shade, if you could call it that, from the afternoon Beirut sun.
She didn’t want her pictures taken, but she didn’t mind sharing coffee, “qahwah” in Arabic. With a warm smile and old hands, she poured from a small metal pot and offered cigarettes.
The red transistor radio, dusty and partially covered with yesterday’s masking tape was open, its electronics exposed as her husband worked like a surgeon with a knife, eyes focused on this little machine, their connection to the outside world, outside Sanayeh Park, their home, and home for hundreds of other refugees, since the war between Israel and Hezbollah began.
I told them I’d be back tomorrow and said thanks for the coffee. The following day I went to Radio Shack, and bought a new radio with extra batteries.
I can’t help everyone, that’s obvious, but now and again I can do something.
Under a nearby canopy, I had dinner with another family. On a little burner, Haidar Ajami cooks meat and fresh tomatoes in a deep dish pan. Enjoy it with pita bread, use your hands and dig in there, scoop some out, nice and hot, and the taste of those tomatoes is divine. And the olives!
A girl brings hot tea in little ceramic cups, the men talk about politics, the war, life in Beirut, sharing the humanity common to all of us.
Haidar prays on his Muslim prayer rug, and the sound of children laughing and playing is a melody. Then suddenly, the loud boom of bombs exploding in the suburbs. Some women put their hands over their hearts and some people look to the sky.
But Haidar, he keeps still. And prays.
I returned to the park on the third day of the cease-fire, hoping to see Haidar and his family again, but they were gone. Everyone was gone, headed back to their villages, returning to homes that, for many, are now piles of rubble. For others, the homes still stand, but the structures lack water, electricity or fuel.
Better than living in a city park? Perhaps. Safer? Who’s to say?
One thing is certain. Home, pile of rubble or not, is just that: home.
Lebanon has been in the grip of civil war on and off for decades, yet the resiliance of its people is remarkable. Shops remain open. Taxis beep their horns in traffic jams in Beirut. Lives continue on toward an unknown horizon.
If you would like to contribute to or reach out to a charity providing assistance to those displaced by war in Lebanon, here are a few links:
International Committee of the Red Cross
Catholic Relief Services
United Nations World Food Programme
– Rodney Lamkey Jr., photographer, The Washington Times
posted at 3:34 PM 4 Comments »
-->
Monday, August 21, 2006
Lonely Joe Lieberman
So, if Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman wins his independent candidacy for re-election, will he still get along with Democratic colleagues who have endorsed Democratic nominee Ned Lamont?
Sen. John Kerry shot a few arrows at Mr. Lieberman yesterday on ABC’s “This Week,” and Mr. Lieberman fired back on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” Although Mr. Lieberman described Mr. Kerry as a “friend,” it didn’t seem so. Mr. Kerry had said Mr. Lieberman sounded like Vice President Dick Cheney in criticizing those who want to pull out of Iraq by a date certain.
Writer Jason Zengerle, in an article in the latest issue of the New Republic, quotes two anonymous Lieberman associates as also wondering about Mr. Lieberman’s future in the Democratic Caucus.
“I think [Mr. Lieberman] believes a lot of his colleagues are doing what they have to do publicly, and he sort of expected it,” said one, identified as a former Lieberman adviser. Still, “there’s definitely been a growing sense of hurt, since at least 2003 and his presidential campaign, about the way parts of the party have treated him.”
Someone identified as a Lieberman friend had this to say: “I know that, in his heart of hearts, he considers himself a Democrat, but it’ll be interesting to see how he feels when this is all over and done with. Over the next three months, he’s going to be embraced by Republicans and spurned by the organized Democratic Party, including a lot of people he considers to be his friends. It’s hard to say how much that’s going to affect him, but he wouldn’t be human if it didn’t.”
— Greg Pierce, national reporter, The Washington Times
posted at 2:41 PM 37 Comments »
-->
Friday, August 18, 2006
Vacation pipe dreams
As Washingtonians know well, August is break time and my husband and I carved out two (2) full (day AND night) kid-free vacation days. Some of you know what a certifiable miracle that is.
We wanted to to go somewhere, but we were just too darned tired to even get in the car. So our fun-filled Grand Plan became: Sit on deck. Drink relaxing beverages. Listen to a CD of ocean waves.
Two hours and two cups of coffee into our precious vacation, I discovered that some items on a basement shelf were getting wet. My husband became alarmed when he learned of the wetness. Within minutes, the terrible verdict was in: We had another pinhole leak.
Homeowners in Montgomery and Prince George’s counties are all too familiar with this scourge, in which copper water pipes buried in walls spring very tiny leaks that drip and drip and totally ruin wallboards and floors.
Not to mention precious kid-free vacations.
Our last pinhole leak happened in November, right before Thanksgiving. We completely destroyed the bathroom to get at that one. My husband mangled some skin (and got 15 stitches) and we learned how to wrestle a 40-year-old bathtub out the door and wrestle new bath equipment in.
This new leak meant we had to destroy the kitchen.
My husband was beside himself over the leak and went through all five stages of emotional trauma—shock, denial, anger, bargaining with God and acceptance.
Then he went to work.
I will spare our gentle readers the dirty details, but my husband, exhausted as he was, rose to the occasion magnificently. We’re talking changes in cabinetry, plumbing, wiring, appliances and wall coverings.
And shopping. My reporting on marriage-skills techniques came in handy several times during this crisis. You know those ads where a couple argues over color swatches (”Cool Coconut Cream” vs. “Lightly Lemon Bisque”)? Believe it.
But this blog is to sing the praises of men like my husband who are sainted carpenters’ sons, inside and out. So many times we read of men behaving badly, but I think those (bad) guys are a small minority. I think there are many, many, many more men who, like my husband, are dedicated to solving problems and making things even better than before. To me, that’s the definition of goodness.
So to all the wonderful handymen (husbands, fathers, brothers) out there, we thank you and we love you.
— Cheryl Wetzstein, national reporter for social and family issues.
posted at 1:42 PM 5 Comments »
-->
Thursday, August 17, 2006
You say ‘Macaca’
Many in the mainstream media have left out a crucial detail in reporting the flap over Sen. George Allen calling a Democratic volunteer of Indian descent a “macaca” in front of a crowd of 100 Virginians during a campaign event.
Mr. Allen, Virginia Republican facing a reelection battle with Democrat Jim Webb, was videotaped using the term.
“This fellow over here with the yellow shirt, Macaca, or whatever his name is, he’s with my opponent,” the senator said, gesturing to 20-year-old S.R. Sidarth, a volunteer for Mr. Webb who was filming the campaignstop with a handheld recorder. It has been widely reported that “Macaca,” depending on its spelling, could mean “monkey.” It is also considered an ethnic slur referring to Africans.
But what nearly all media outlets have failed to mention is that Mr. Allen’s mother, Etty, is French. She grew up in colonial Tunisia on the Mediterranean coast of North Africa, and spoke French to herchildren. Mr. Allen has also been quoted as having performed well in French class.
Mr. Allen, for his part, says he used the term because his campaign staffers had nicknamed Mr. Sidarth, who had followed the senator around for several days, “mohawk” because of his hairstyle.
He apologized and said the comments were taken out of context and were not intended to have any racial implications.
Democrats have seized on the comments as a way to paint Mr. Allen, who had had a history of displaying the Confederate flag as a young man and as Virginia’s governor, as racially insensitive.
They also pulled all the choice quotes from “Fifth Quarter, The Scrimmage of a Football Coach’s Daughter,” written by the senator’s sister Jennifer Allen, calling him a bully.
The book, published in 2000 and with consultation with Mr. Allen, describes his years as a high school student.
It gives several examples of young George terrorizing his siblings with violence and threats — he once dragged Jennifer up the stairs by her hair. She also said her brother hit a potential boyfriend on the head with a pool cue. The book also details that Mr. Allen’s mother sometimes spoke to the children in French.
Salon.com this week interviewed Mr. Allen’s sister, who said their mother did not recognize the term “macaca.”
Mr. Allen used the word twice during the campaign appearance on Friday in Southwest Virginia, pointing at Mr. Sidarth. “Let’s give a welcome to macaca here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia,” Mr. Allen said.
The senator said he was actually directing the comment toward Mr. Webb, insinuating he has not traveled far from Northern Virginia while campaigning for statewide office.
Mr. Sidarth, born and raised in Fairfax County, is of Indian descent. The University of Virginia student told CNN he found the “macaca” comment offensive.– Christina Bellantoni, Capitol Hill correspondent, The Washington Times
posted at 12:37 PM 24 Comments »
-->
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
The politics of terror
The terrorist arrests in Britain last week may be the political gift that keeps giving, if today’s news about a United Flight being diverted is any indication.
But who benefits more?
Republicans see a parallel to 2002, when Democrats’ near-unanimous opposition to President Bush’s version of the Department of Homeland Security cost them two Senate seats. With Congress set to debate wiretapping policy and treatment of detainees, Republicans say they have a chance to make their case about which party is better able to protect safety all over again.
But Democrats say this election is different because the Bush administration and DHS in particular have done so little to improve domestic security since. They say having a track record of failure they can point to makes all the difference.
The other major difference is Iraq. Mr. Bush survived one election in 2004 with the war still simmering, but two years on, U.S. generals say parts of the country are worse than ever.
– Stephen Dinan, White House correspondent, The Washington Times
posted at 12:30 PM 6 Comments »
-->
Friday, August 11, 2006
Why wait for the U.N.?
While the world is waiting for the U.N. Security Council to vote on a Mideast deal, rockets are being fired and people are dying. Israel is planning to expand its ground war. Hezbollah is firing back. And the Lebanese government agreed to send troops to Southern Lebanon once there is a cease-fire. Once there is a cease-fire? Why would an army need a “cease-fire” in order to start defending its country? And people wonder why Hezbollah is gaining popularity in the Arab streets.
Once again, governments — Arabs and Israel — are failing to solve their own problems, whether in a diplomatic or military way. This is not a call for a massive war, but rather a call for governments to step in and take responsibility. This war is a result of ignoring the highly volatile situation that has persisted in the area for many years. It was bound to explode at some point. The Jerusalem Post wrote, “All governments involved allowed militants – Israeli, Palestinian and Lebanese – to go on terrorizing, killing and kidnapping for six years. And indeed, the war they were striving for did eventually erupt.” Let’s see how the different entities involved in this conflict will emerge after the war is over. Or is it ever over?
— Gihane Askar, Internet content producer, The Washington Times
posted at 4:36 PM 12 Comments »
-->
Friday, August 11, 2006
Feeling the heat of November already
As most eyes were focused this week on the Connecticut primary and the foiled terror plot, congressional Democrats continued to hammer away on two separate issues they hope will take hold with voters this fall: embryonic stem cell research and Social Security.
Whether that happens remains to be seen, but the Democrats argue that both topics matter to millions of Americans and are being badly bungled by Republicans.
Wednesday marked the five-year anniversary of President Bush’s embryonic stem cell policy of 2001, and a plethora of top Democrats wasted no time in telling voters that the way to change the policy is to put Democrats in charge. “With the right leadership, the promise of stem cell research will be realized,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said on the anniversary. “Democrats remain undeterred….The time has come for a new direction.”
Mr. Bush’s 2001 policy allowed federal funding for such research but limited it to embryonic stem cell lines already created at that time. Congress recently passed bipartisan legislation to expand that funding policy, but Mr. Bush vetoed it.
Also this week, Democrats and liberal advocacy groups released a report listing Republicans seeking reelection and their stances on the Social Security private accounts that Mr. Bush tried unsuccessfully to promote last year. Democrats promised to find any statement or action made by Republican candidates in support of those accounts, and raise that in the campaigns.
Groups like Americans United and Campaign for America’s Future are already running ads in several states warning voters that Republicans will privatize Social Security. One of their key targets this week is Rep. Clay Shaw, Florida Republican, who is running his own ad touting his support for the Social Security system and his plan to fix it, which wouldn’t cut benefits, privatize the system or raise taxes.
AU today said Mr. Shaw’s ad is in direct response to an ad AU has been running in his district, which shows an elderly couple forced to split a hotdog because Mr. Bush and his backers privatized Social Security and cut their benefits. Yesterday, AU put out a press release declaring: “Shaw feels the heat over pro-privatization stance.”
— Amy Fagan, congressional reporter, The Washington Times
订阅：
博文 (Atom)
