On point

Pictures from the 5k

2011-11-12T16:07:00.001-08:00

Race results

2011-11-12T10:52:00.001-08:00

This year, I set two goals for myself. First, I was going to run again, and second, when I competed in a race, that I wasn't going to finish last. Here are my results:

Date Name Gun Time Individual Time Place/Total

9/17/2011 Prevent Cancer Foundation 5k - 33:05 25:14 102/168

10/22/2011 Hyattsville FD 5 mile run 41:30.7 39/122

11/6/2011 Race to Representation 5k 25:42 69/346

11/12/2011 Candy Cane City 5k 23:47 100/278

HVFD 5-mile race

2011-10-22T11:13:00.001-07:00

I was hoping to race at 40 minutes today. Unofficially, my gun time was 41:31, and I clocked myself at 40:42. Not too shabby.

I woke up at 5:30 am and immediately ate breakfast. Rationale: If I ate quickly, I would have enough time to digest so I wouldn’t cramp during the race, which started at 8:15. I ate waffles, a granola bar, and Vitamin Water. This strategy worked out well because I did not have a cramp during the entire race, which allowed me to run consistent times.

Marci drove me to the race because there was track work on the Metro’s Green line. That was really nice of her to do. There was no way I would have made it in time if not for her help. It was great to see her.

The course itself was flat but very hilly in some spots, which was tough on my knees. Before the race, the guy told us that there would be a large hill at the first half-mile. Well, he was wrong – it was actually 200 feet after we started. We started downhill first and then went uphill. I ran regular pace up the hill (big mistake) but the next hill had some momentum going and cleared it easily. My goal was to keep up with the other runners and I was able to do that, but I got pinned in the back of the pack for the first mile of the race. Then I thought I burned out too fast because I ran a 7:30 first mile, the fastest I’ve ever done. The runners spread out after that and I had more room to operate.

I did OK after 2.5 miles and then my sinuses started to act up. By this time I was at the middle of the pack of about 30 runners. Try to imagine running up a hill and having difficulty breathing while simultaneously trying to avoid the runners at the back of the pack. I changed speeds and even the side of the street because I thought it might help. It was awful and I thought I would have to have a DNF a few times; obviously my body has no idea that I’m racing but I pushed on and things got better after mile 4. Water didn’t really help so I asked for some Gatorade and that seemed to help kick it back in gear for the last mile.

I ran nearly full speed for the last half-mile and saw the fire house in the distance. Then I knew I was near the finish line. I rounded the bend in a sprint and saw the clock, Marci was yelling and the firefighters were clapping. I crossed the finish line, took a deep breath and grabbed my knees. I made it though in one piece.

Thoughts on Occupy DC

2011-10-15T19:31:00.000-07:00

I went to Freedom Plaza and McPherson Square to check out the Occupy DC protests. I found the McPherson Square protest was more organized than Freedom Plaza. What I wanted to do was ask people the question, What specifically do they want? The answer, as I came to discover, was all kinds of things. Some people marched about corporate greed and wanted money "taken out of politics." Others were upset about the lack of jobs in this country.

I hadn't realized the skepticism about voting in general. Lenny, the first gentleman I spoke with in the video, suggested that the elections were rigged - he brought up the 2000 election, of course, between George W. Bush and Al Gore. He said that he didn't believe in the electoral process, because the heads of the companies that make the voting machines are big-time Republicans. I checked OpenSecrets.org, though, and could not find any donations from Diebold, one of the makers of our voting machines. It's one thing to say people need to be voted out, but to suggest that the CEO of the company who makes voting machines would create them to favor Republicans seems out there even by our bare-knuckle political standards. Mike, who was from Chicago, didn't go as far as Lenny but he said that the voting really doesn't matter; that it's largely symbolic and the corporations hold sway. Well, voting got President Obama into office for 4 years. That wasn't a symbolic vote.

Mike had a "Arrest Bush and Obama" shirt on, so I don't know how much success the Democrats will have with some of the protesters. The takeaway is whether these people can sustain this excitement and for how long, especially as it gets colder. We'll see.

Time to start running again

2011-07-23T11:05:00.000-07:00

I thought I'd take a break from political/journalism posts to focus on running today. I'm just getting back into it after a long layoff.

I can still recall the first time I raced competitively. 1.75 mile trail course behind Fisher Meadows, in Avon, Connecticut (my hometown). I finished in 16 minutes, 20 seconds, went immediately home and collapsed on my couch. Every bone in my body ached. I liked the trail although you could get easily lost if you don't look at the markers on the trees.

Running helped me in high school in one respect -- I never ran over a 10 minute mile. My best time was when I was a freshman, when I ran a 7:45. Sophomore year I ran an 8:40. Junior and senior years - when I basically stopped running - I ran 9:59 each year. I would have done better senior year had I not stopped to tie my shoelaces just before the finish line. It was hard to run consistently too because I was preparing for college, had honors classes and after school clubs. I sang in Chamber Choir and ACDA Men's Honor Choir that year.

I've always wanted to begin again, but priorities always got in the way. Job, bills, Red Sox games, or some other excuse. It's time to end the excuses. My goal is to get back in between my freshman and sophomore paces - say, an 8:30 mile. If I beat that, all the better. What has helped is that this incredible triathlete, Marci, has come into my life. The first time I ran with Marci, I ran a 9:30 pace. Even now, with no training, I'm still under 10 minutes. Marci is an amazing person, and she'll help me along, but I want to do this for me.

It's time to begin again. And I will do it - with life's responsibilities. Fired up, and ready to go.

On Point: White House Correspondents for Politico Answer Q&A

2011-05-19T18:03:00.000-07:00

Arlington, VA -- Politico White House correspondent Julie Mason and Senior Congressional Correspondent Jonathan Allen held a Q&A at the Boeing Learning Center in Arlington, VA this afternoon. It was sponsored by the Rosslyn Business Association.

I was able to ask them three questions during the session. Here are the questions and answers.

Question 1: "Have you gotten a clarification from the White House on an issue regarding the raid that the Navy SEALS did on Osama bin Laden's compound? My understanding is that the SEALS went in, shot bin Laden and gathered all sorts of evidence like bin Laden's diary, hard drives and jump drives, which are still being analyzed. But the logs that track al-qaida's movements were left behind. Was that a decision of choice or necessity? As much as we laugh over bin Laden's porn stash, wouldn't the logs have been more important?"

Julie Mason: "We've heard absolutely nothing from the White House on that issue and probably won't know for some time."
Jonathan Martin: "Everytime someone talks about bin Laden's porn stash, I think of Tom DeLay's mustache... (Laughter) Yeah, just like everyone else, we won't know what really happened in the raid for at least 20 years. I think most Americans would be happy that we got bin Laden and a whole lot of his stash."

Question 2: "President Obama ran on a campaign of transparency and says he would have a transparent government. You've covered him for two years. Simply put, how is he doing?"

Julie Mason: "Okay, this is a question that really gets under my grill, because my head is going to explode. He's horrible! He's worse than President (George W) Bush. I've been covering Bush since the early days of his administration, before 9/11. When Bush was in the Oval Office, we WH reporters would have a pooled press in the Oval, and there would be Bush in his long-sleeved shirt. He would answer anything we wanted, and he would take the heat. With Obama - I didn't cover the Obama campaign, I just covered him after he took office - With Obama he doesn't do that. At all. He hasn't answered questions from the WH press since April 5th. He governs by press release. His team is really very disciplined, there are no leaks, no nothing. They really want to control the message."

"President Bush was uncomfortable with me. There were 4 guys and I was the only girl (in our press pool) and Bush had all these nicknames for the guys...'Hey so and so... and then would get to me, and say, "Miss Mason, what can I help you with?"

Someone else's followup question: "If he's not answering your questions, why not take a stand? Why not say, we're not going to the briefings unless you talk with us?"

Julie Mason: "I don't think this is a crisis. We have a monthly meeting with the White House press secretary, and we say, 'Hey, Dude hasn't answered our questions since April 5th.' (Carney) says, 'I'm working on it, I'm working on it.'

Question 3: "What did you think of Donald Trump? Although his substance was ridiculous, did Trump provide a blueprint for going after Obama? Very confrontational."

Julie: "From a style perspective only. We hope that no Republican candidate mirrors Trump's substance."

Q&A with Rep. Larson

2009-10-19T08:21:00.001-07:00

WETHERSFIELD - Yesterday I went to a town hall meeting held by Rep. John Larson (CT-1). I asked him these questions: First, should the United States support President Karzi even if the election was corrupt? Second, how do we find a way forward in Afghanistan without a willing partner there? Third, does he think that Karzi, if he's legitimately elected, could survive a U.S. withdrawl? Fourth, what are we doing giving Pakistan $2 billion in aid when they deny our troops access across their border to fight militants there?

Larson said, "I completely agree with you -- we should have a willing partner in Afghanistan. We should have another election, possibly in the spring. If Karzi ends up legitimately getting elected by the people, that's who we should partner with. As to whether he could survive a U.S. withdrawl, it's hard to say. I have to go with what the people on the ground are telling me, which is, five minutes after we're gone, the Taliban is going to come back.

"Also, it's not so much that Pakistan is unwilling to fight the militants, it's that they aren't fighting the militants effectively. They don't want the sects to revolt against the government, either."

Larson said he was concerned about our economy and the rising cost of health care, in addition to our strategic objectives. He said, "It may be impossible to totally eradicate the Taliban because most of them aren't engaged in terrorism." He credited President Obama with being deliberative with Gen. McCrystal's troop request.

One thing that struck me, too: My friend Shawn and I were the only people at the town hall under the age of 30. I would guess that the average age of the people in attendance was late 50s or early 60s. It was packed and everyone was respectful of one another.

President Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

2009-10-09T08:16:00.000-07:00

President Obama won the Nobel Prize today. I'm kind of underwhelmed by the announcement, for a couple of reasons:

*He's been in office less than a year.
*He still has two wars going on in Iraq and Afghanistan.
*He has yet to sign meaningful health care reform.
*Israel is still building settlements in the West Bank despite Obama's pleading to the contrary.
*Iran is still developing nuclear weapons.

As the AP reported:

The peace prize was created partly to encourage ongoing peace efforts but Obama's efforts are at far earlier stages than past winners'. The Nobel committee acknowledged that they may not bear fruit at all.
"He got the prize because he has been able to change the international climate," Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said. "Some people say, and I understand it, isn't it premature? Too early? Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now. It is now that we have the opportunity to respond -- all of us."

It seems to me that Obama was given the prize for what he MIGHT achieve, rather than what he HAS achieved. And if the Nobel board thinks they might not bear fruit at all, what's the point of the prize in the first place?

Believe me, I want to be proven wrong and the Nobel board to be proven right. But I think such a prestigious award for Obama so early will be a distraction to his larger policy agenda -- because if he doesn't achieve big things, people will say that he didn't deserve it.

Thoughts?

On Point: Rep. Wilson

2009-09-15T19:10:00.000-07:00

At President Obama's health care speech last week in a joint session of Congress, Obama was briefly upstaged by South Carolina congressman Joe Wilson, who yelled, "You lie!" at the time when Obama was saying that the health care plan did not include illegal immigrants.

Initially, Wilson put out a statement apologizing. But then, he saw a political opportunity once residents and some GOP'ers came to his defense. In fact, his Web site claims that he has raised over $1.6 million since his outburst. There are even "I Stand With Joe Wilson T-shirts. So much for civility.

There are several things that bother me here. First of all, Wilson's apology was not sincere. You don't apologize and then make a Web ad asking for campaign contributions. Second, he refused to apologize on the House floor. If a Democrat treated President Bush in that way, Republicans would be upset, so why is it okay for Wilson to antagonize Obama the way he did?

The House, to its credit, admonished Wilson by passing a resolution of disapproval this afternoon, which has never happened. I credit the seven Republicans that voted with the Democrats -- but why were there 12 Democrats voting with Republicans against it?

As I have said in earlier blogs, every party has its lunatics, and the fact that Wilson's apology didn't mean much should give voters pause. It's almost like the GOP rallies around this guy because Wilson could lead them out of the political wilderness. When did disrespect and beligerence become acceptable in this country? We used to have two parties with two different philosophies, but at least there were people in the GOP deserving of respect. We have one and a half parties now, if that.

We used to go by facts. You know, because information and facts help make more informed decisions? Based on the town hall protests and remarks GOPers have made, including Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) the GOP doesn't care about facts anymore, as long as they score political points. "Well, if you don't agree with me, you must be a Nazi or a socialist!" is the message that comes across. I bet the people that are bussed into these town halls don't even know what socialism is. All they know is that it's bad and it's not democracy.

This rhetoric is silly and bad for our democracy. It coarsens our dialogue and does not help us find common ground, but instead someone to blame. I hope that Wilson's example is heeded so that we can get on to real health care reform.

On point: Michael Vick

2009-09-04T09:51:00.000-07:00

I'm going to take a detour from my political rants to focus on Michael Vick's recent signing with the Eagles. ESPN reports that Vick will be eligible to play Week 3.

It is unfortunate that those with the resources and the money get second chances like the one Michael Vick is getting with the Eagles. Money gives you license to get out of just about anything, even though our laws subscribe to the notion of, "Equal justice under the law." Vick has the money to hire the best people to help revamp his image.

A job applicant with a history as a convicted felon rarely, if at all, gets a job, let alone signing with another NFL team. But because the NFL is a business as well as entertainment, Vick is kind of like their version of Tiger Woods in terms of natural talent. He's only 29. I am not suggesting that Woods is anywhere near the morally bankrupt creep Vick turned out to be. In fact, watching the 60 Minutes interview Vick did with James Brown proves it. "I cried a number of nights knowing I let so many people down," he said. Yeah, right. Vick wants to play football. Woods is a terrific golfer and by all accounts, a great role model.

All I'm saying is that celebrities that get in trouble with the law should struggle the same way as people who don't have the money. If that were the case, Vick would be lucky to be working at the local dump. Really, that's where he belongs.

So many questions

2009-07-30T18:16:00.000-07:00

Why, David Ortiz? WHY???

He acknowledged today that he tested positive for performance enhancing drugs in 2003.

So does that mean our World Series championships in '04 and '07 were not real?

I say we should see who else tested postive and then deal with it with everyone.

On point: President Obama's citizenship

2009-07-22T16:43:00.000-07:00

There are many things to question as a journalist with President Obama's policies. On health care, for example, he's having a primetime news conference tonight to try to convince people that this bill should be passed by the August recess.

(A quick did you know: This will be President Obama's 4th news conference in just over six months in office. President George W. Bush had 4 news conferences in eight years.)

I have serious questions about Guantanamo Bay detainees and the policy of "indefinite detention" - the notion that people are too dangerous to let go -- or that there are people who can't stand trial because they were tortured.

Every party has its nutjobs. There are people, for example, who believe that Americans really didn't land on the moon in 1969. There are people who don't know if the world is flat. There are people who believe that some in Congress are un-American. But I've never seen people in Congress openly questioning President Obama's citizenship to this degree.

There is a bill in Congress, H.R. 1503, that would require candidates who run for President to produce a valid birth certificate and supporting documents prior to running. Rep. Posey says it would simply eliminate the need for opponents to question future presidential candidates. Anyone can find the Constitution online. It spells out the qualifications very easily.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Second -- President Obama sent a copy of his birth certificate to news oulets in January 2008. Some claim that Hawaii was not a state during the time Obama was born. Wrong again. Hawaii was granted statehood in 1959, two years prior to Obama's birth. More information from Snopes.com available here.

Regarding Rep. Posey's bill, his motivation is so Obama will not be re-elected, under the auspices of "transparency". Question the President's policies, but his birth is a dead issue.

Palin steps down

2009-07-03T16:28:00.000-07:00

Finally, a reprieve from the Michael Jackson saga. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, John McCain's 2008 vice presidential nominee, announced in a rambling and bizarre statement that she was stepping down July 26th.

NBC is reporting that Palin said she was "fed up with politics." Palin said:

"I thought about, well, how much fun some governors have as lame ducks," she said. "They travel around their state, travel to other states, maybe take their overseas, international trade missions -- so many politicians do that.

"And then I thought that's what's wrong. My choice is to take a stand and affect change and not just hit our head against the wall and watch valuable state time, money -- millions of your dollars -- go down the drain in this new political environment."

I guess if you try and rationalize that, she really feels like she's doing a selfless thing. What's going to happen when she runs in 2012 with people like Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee? They will turn to her and say, "Governor, we had some trying times in office, but we stuck it out. We didn't abandon our state. You threw in the towel."

There's another reason why Palin is doing this: She's running a stealth campaign to raise her profile for 2012. She's trying to pull a Ronald Reagan a la 1976. In 1976, Ronald Reagan first ran for president and he came in second to the GOP nomination to Gerald Ford when everyone counted him out. The difference was that Reagan was two-term governor of California and an actor. Even if Palin ran in 2012, she would rely on 2 1/2 years of executive experience. But like Reagan, she is a very recognizable figure.

Palin is the Republicans' biggest draw at rallies, so she will raise a lot of money.

Palin has a book deal. So she will make a lot of money.

Palin can travel as a private citizen without someone filing an ethics complaint against her in Alaska. She knows that she has to raise her profile in the "lower 48" if she's going to be a national candidate.

And yet, we talk about experience, and judgement. Palin seems to wear her lack of experience and judgment as a badge of honor. Maybe in four years, people will forget how she touted Alaska's distance to Russia as foreign policy experience. Maybe President Obama's big plans won't pan out. Maybe Palin will use the time away from politics to study up on a national issue that is important to her. We'll just have to wait and see.

On point: Michael Jackson

2009-07-02T18:40:00.000-07:00

I'm seriously getting a headache with all this coverage of Michael Jackson's death. In case you have been living under a rock, Jackson died of a heart attack June 25th and was reportedly on prescription medication with several different doctors. The media has not stopped talking about Jackson since, and he will have a public viewing next Tuesday at the Staples Center.

I confess that I listened to a couple of Jackson songs immediately after he passed: "Thriller," "Beat It" and "The Way You Make Me Feel" because Jackson was a talented artist - talented, but tragic. I don't care whether Joe Jackson started a record company. I don't care if Debbie Roe wants her kids back. I don't care if Diana Ross is the next of kin in Jackson's will if her mother passes (she's 79).

This is what I dislike about celebrities: The media covers them for the ratings. Gov. Sanford? Yeah, he had a few trysts outside of his marriage, but the Argentine mistress pales in comparison to the footage of Jackson swinging his baby over a balcony in Germany. North Korea might shoot a missle near Hawaii over July 4th? Well, Kim Jong Il is not the King of Pop.

As David Schuster likes to say, "Here's a few things I thought you should know..."

The CIA has requested a 2-month delay in releasing the 2004 report of Bush's torture program. So far, they get an extra week. Hmmm... makes you wonder if they'll ever get around to releasing it. Score another one for lack of transparency.

Also, the Washington Post got caught trying to sell sponsorships to administration officials, at the publisher's house, for $25,000 to $250,000 a piece. Here's the question: Were there any takers? Aren't there any media outlets anymore that actually value their integrity? This is the Post, for crying out loud. It would be like Edward R. Murrow holding a salon at the President of CBS house without being confrontational. It just wouldn't happen.

Supreme Court rules in favor of New Haven Firefighters

2009-06-29T07:28:00.000-07:00

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court this morning ruled that the firefighters seeking promotions should have been promoted. Also, the city of New Haven should not have thrown out the test because not enough minorities passed.

Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority:

"All the evidence demonstrates that the City chose not to certify the exami-nation results because of the statistical disparity based on race—i.e., how minority candidates had performed whencompared to white candidates. As the District Court put it, the City rejected the test results because “too many whites and not enough minorities would be promoted werethe lists to be certified.” 554 F. Supp. 2d, at 152; see also ibid. (respondents’ “own arguments . . . show that the City’s reasons for advocating non-certification were re-lated to the racial distribution of the results”). Without some other justification, this express, race-based deci-sionmaking violates Title VII’s command that employerscannot take adverse employment actions because of anindividual’s race...

"The City rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white. The question is not whether that conduct was discriminatory but whether the City had a lawful justification for its race-based action."

The Court rejected both remedies that each side would devise. New Haven held that as long as an employer made a "good-faith effort," it would comply with Title VII. The firefighters countered that unintentonal discrimination should be treated the same as intentional discrimination. The Court found that too restrictive. They used the "strong basis in evidence standard" going forward. Kennedy wrote,

Congress has imposed liability on employersfor unintentional discrimination in order to rid the work-place of “practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation.” Griggs, supra, at 431. But it has also pro-hibited employers from taking adverse employment ac-tions “because of” race. §2000e–2(a)(1). Applying thestrong-basis-in-evidence standard to Title VII gives effectto both the disparate-treatment and disparate-impact provisions, allowing violations of one in the name of com-pliance with the other only in certain, narrow circum-stances. The standard leaves ample room for employers’ voluntary compliance efforts, which are essential to the statutory scheme and to Congress’s efforts to eradicate workplace discrimination. And the standard appropriately constrains employers’discretion in making race-based decisions: It limits that discretion to cases in which there is a strong basis inevidence of disparate-impact liability, but it is not sorestrictive that it allows employers to act only when thereis a provable, actual violation.

Judge Sotomayor ruled in favor of the city in the Second Court of Appeals. She will have the chance to explain her reasoning during her nomination hearings, which begin July 13th.

Supreme Court declares strip-search unconstitutional

2009-06-25T10:13:00.000-07:00

In an 8-1 decision this morning, the Supreme Court declared that strip-searching a 13-year-old girl for drugs was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The opinion, which was delivered by Justice Souter, continued:

Although the strip search violated Savana’s Fourth Amendment rights, petitioners Wilson, Romero, and Schwallier are protected from liability by qualified immunity because “clearly established law [did] not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment ,” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U. S. ___, ___. The intrusiveness of the strip search here cannot, under T. L. O., be seen as justifiably related to the circumstances, but lower court cases viewing school strip searches differently are numerous enough, with well-reasoned majority and dissenting opinions, to counsel doubt about the clarity with which the right was previously stated.

Here's the question that I have: If that strip-search is unconstitutional -- what about those machines in airports? I stood in one as it checked me for explosives. Isn't that a virtual strip-search?

On point: Gov. Sanford

2009-06-25T07:29:00.000-07:00

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) needs to thank Gov. Sanford (R-SC) for making him yesterday's news.

As I'm sure many of you know already, Sanford skipped town over Father's Day weekend. Nobody, not even his wife, knew where he was. His office put out a statement Monday saying Sanford was hiking on the Appalachian Trail. An intrepid reporter for the State newspaper, Gina Smith, saw him walking out of Atlanta's Hartsfield airport Wednesday morning. Smith asked, "Aren't you supposed to be hiking, Governor?" to which he replied, "I had a change of plans and flew to Buenos Aires."

Turns out, he was hiking, all right -- up the trail of his "dear friend" in Argentina. You can read Sanford's emails to the woman here.

Two things I am glad that happened. First of all, Sanford had to answer for himself and didn't ask his wife to stand with him. I can think of Gov. Spitzer, Gov. McGreevey, and Sen. Vitter, whose press conferences ended with apologies to their wives and families. Second, based on the statement his wife released, she sounds like she knows what she's doing. She said:

When I found out about my husband's infidelity I worked immediately to first seek reconciliation through forgiveness, and then to work diligently to repair our marriage. We reached a point where I felt it was important to look my sons in the eyes and maintain my dignity, self-respect, and my basic sense of right and wrong. I therefore asked my husband to leave two weeks ago.

This trial separation was agreed to with the goal of ultimately strengthening our marriage. During this short separation it was agreed that Mark would not contact us. I kept this separation quiet out of respect of his public office and reputation, and in hopes of keeping our children from just this type of public exposure. I remain willing to forgive Mark completely for his indiscretions and to welcome him back, in time, if he continues to work toward reconciliation with a true spirit of humility and repentance.

The Democrats who were involved in scandal, Spitzer and McGreevey, resigned. The Republicans were were in scandal, Ensign, Vitter and Sanford, have not stepped down. Why? Why is it so morally wrong for the Democrats to engage in infidelity, yet the GOP, the party that positions itself as the moral authority, the one that believes in the sanctity of marriage and family values, gets a slap on the wrist?

On point: Iran and citizen journalists

2009-06-23T09:53:00.000-07:00

I am a big fan of international news. The situation in Iran shows us how important news organizations need to devote time

On point: GITMO

2009-01-25T13:50:00.000-08:00

President Obama signed an executive order which, among other things, says the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, needs to be closed within a year.

Obama's executive order states:

If any individuals covered by this order remain in detention at Guantánamo at the time of closure of those detention facilities, they shall be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.

Kudos to Obama for trying to keep one of his campaign promises. And Obama rightly understands that Guantanamo Bay represents a big black eye on America's foreign policy decision-making.

If I was asking questions of President Obama, I'd want to know whether he was so concerned about keeping a campaign promise that he didn't think through the bigger picture.

Where do these people go?
What happens to the third group of people that can't be tried, because evidence against them is tainted?
How and where would they be tried inside the U.S.?
What happens if countries don't take them back?

What congressman is going to want U.S. detainees in their district?

If Obama wants to keep campaign promises, that's fine. Why not figure out these questions, or at least, as many as possible, and then announce the closure of Gitmo? President Obama has placed himself in a box -- if he asks for more time, Republicans will say, 'I told you so' and Democrats will say, 'You're not doing this fast enough.'

Senator McCain's "Miers moment"

2008-09-21T15:18:00.001-07:00

If Gov. Sarah Palin was Senator McCain's second choice, wouldn't that be demeaning to women?

I raise this question because McCain's first choice was his good friend Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT). Lieberman has been hawkish on the war with Iraq and has repeatedly spoken out on Senator Obama's lack of credentials to be President of the United States. This is what he said on Meet the Press, as recounted by TheHill.com:

“This is a good young man,” Lieberman, the 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee, said. “Is he ready to lead or as ready as John McCain? The answer is no.”

Here's some of his remarks at the GOP convention, according to the New York Times:

Senator Barack Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man who I think can do great things for our country in the years ahead, but, my friends, eloquence is no substitute for a record, not in these tough times for America.

And I was there, so I can tell you, when others were silent about the war in Iraq, John McCain had the guts and the judgment to sound the alarm about the mistakes we were making in Iraq. You know...

(APPLAUSE)

... when others wanted to retreat in defeat from the field of battle, which would have been a disaster for the USA, when colleagues like Barack Obama were voting to cut off funding for our American troops on the battlefield...

(AUDIENCE BOOS)

... John McCain had the courage to stand against the tide of public opinion, advocate the surge, support the surge, and, because of that today, America's troops are coming home, thousands of them, and they're coming home in honor.

Lieberman has known McCain for 20 years, worked with McCain in the Senate, and seen his character. Why, then, didn't McCain return the favor and ask his friend to join him on the ticket? They would have really stuck it to the Democrats, since Lieberman was the party's 2000 nominee. Also, it truly would have been a bipartisan ticket.

Gov. Palin is an up-and-coming politician, but when she was nominated, it reminded me of when President Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court in 2005. Myers, like Palin, did have some experience - five years as White House Counsel, first woman elected to the Dallas Bar Association, and as a member of the Dallas City Council. However, she had no experience as a judge. Conservatives balked and when senators wanted documents that might illuminate her views, Miers withdrew her nomination three weeks later.

This was Senator McCain's "Miers moment." If he can't go with his own intuition when he picks a running mate, how is he going to stand up to his party when he becomes President?

I got a letter to the editor!

2008-08-05T22:31:00.000-07:00

Ok, maybe I shouldn't be that excited. Leif from Allston wrote of my column on Tim Russert (7/23):

This week's Soapbox (7.23.08) was dead on while still missing the target. I loved Russert and everything he represented, but I have to admit that the coverage of his death went on too long. Zipadelli had it right when he said Russert would probably have wanted the attention given to politics.

What Zipadelli doesn't acknowledge is that this wasn't just the death of a man, but the death of the last true, honest and objective journalist. Russert was the last Mohican and with his death we can unequivocally say that we have entered the journalistic dark ages. I mourn the loss of the man, and now I mourn the future of news.

First of all, I'm glad someone is reading. You always have to assume that someone is reading. It keeps my writing fresh. However, I disagree with the reader's premise.

It's a terrible message to send to young journalists like me that Russert is the last of the Mohicans, that somehow his brand of honest, true and objective journalism died with him. In fact it could be viewed as a source of motivation. Here we have the chance to rededicate ourselves to our craft, give our sources time to explain their positions, and effectively analyze and interpret the news. If we do that, we'll have a little piece of Russert in all of us.

Are ex-insurgents really that loyal?

2008-06-25T21:05:00.000-07:00

Here's something I don't understand. We're working with the ex-insurgents in Iraq to keep the violence down, and President Bush says it's a success. This is partially why he says the surge has worked, because these 'Sons of Iraq' have taken up arms against al qaeda.

In this Reuters article, dated August 25, 2007, they report:

U.S. forces have rebranded one of the main insurgent groups in Iraq and now use the term "concerned local nationals" to refer to a group that once claimed responsibility for killing scores of Americans.

The updated vocabulary for referring to the 1920 Revolution Brigade, described by a U.S. commander on Saturday, is a sign of the abrupt change in tactics that has seen U.S. forces cooperate with former Sunni Arab enemies.

The 1920 Revolution Brigade was one of the main anti-American Sunni Arab insurgent groups in Iraq in the years after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion and has claimed responsibility for killing scores of U.S. troops in ambushes and bomb attacks.

The picture becomes a little more clear from Kim Gamul of the Associated Press:

Balad, Iraq (AP) - School teacher Raad Mohammed Mahdi used to take on another role after classes: foot soldier in the Sunni insurgency north of Baghdad.

He grew weary of his double life last year and wanted to lay down his arms. The problem was he didn't know how to surrender formally without facing possible jail time.

Last week, Mahdi entered a U.S. military base and signed a form that amounts to a personal truce. More than 140 other men came the next day after learning that soldiers did not detain Mahdi, whose late brother was an insurgent leader.

She goes on to say that, "The latest offer promises a clean slate for fighters if they claim their only targets were American troops. It also pledges a "fair" legal process for those wanted for attacks on Iraqis troops or civilians."

Can this really be that simple? All you do is sign a form and say that you were targeting our troops? There's no financial incentive? There's no fear that some of these ex-insurgents might go back to Al Qaeda and tell them our secrets?

Just a thought.

Russert coverage overblown

2008-06-17T07:17:00.000-07:00

With apologies to Maureen Orth and Tim Russert's son Luke, the coverage of Russert's death has been way overblown.

I'm not a heartless person. Really. The tributes to Russert have described him as a kind and generous man, a great father, political operative and journalist. But how many ways can you say that in a week?

On the 13th (my birthday) there was the NBC special report by Tom Brokaw that Russert had died. After that, MSNBC, Fox and CBS cable networks had wall-to-wall coverage of tributes and rememberances. Dateline NBC was dedicated to Russert, as was Meet the Press. His funeral on the 18th was covered by MSNBC, and Making a Difference is covering Russert Friday.

To honor Russert properly is to rededicate ourselves to our profession; to give sources a fair shake and time to express their views; to make sure our families know how much we care; and finally, to hold our public officials accountable. That should be the essence of what we do anyway.

Lessons from Tim Russert

2008-06-13T20:41:00.000-07:00

Tim Russert, NBC's Washington bureau chief, moderator of "Meet the Press," has died of a heart attack at the age of 58.

While I join with millions of others being grief-stricken over his death, what hasn't been brought up is what affect this grueling presidential campaign had on him and everybody in the news business. Think about it: The primary campaign has gone on for sixteen months. The general election campaign will last five months until November. The next President will be sworn in on January 20th, 2009. That's twenty three months of campaigning. There has to be a better way -- not just for the candidates, but for the reporters.

Because Russert was a personality, he worked every day, multiple times a day. First for TODAY, then for the MSNBC. On Nightly News. The marathon election coverage, and of course Meet the Press. That has to take a toll on the guy, even if his coronary heart disease was being controlled by medication.

I've always been critical of the press's role in the war up to Iraq because we didn't do the job questioning the administration's claims of WMDs. So when Bill Moyers took an honest look in his April 25, 2007 show "Buying the War" on PBS, Russert was one of the few journalists to agree to appear on the program.

TIM RUSSERT: What specifically has he obtained that you believe will enhance his nuclear development program.

BILL MOYERS: Was it just a coincidence in your mind that Cheney came on your show and others went on the other Sunday shows, the very morning that that story appeared?

TIM RUSSERT: I don't know. The NEW YORK TIMES is a better judge of that than I am.

BILL MOYERS: No one tipped you that it was going to happen?

TIM RUSSERT: No, no. I mean-

BILL MOYERS: The Cheney office didn't leak to you that there's gonna be a big story?

TIM RUSSERT: No. No. I mean, I don't have the-- This is, you know-- on MEET THE PRESS, people come on and there are no ground rules. We can ask any question we want. I did not know about the aluminum tubes story until I read it in the NEW YORK TIMES.

BILL MOYERS: Critics point to September eight, 2002 and to your show in particular, as the classic case of how the press and the government became inseparable. Someone in the Administration plants a dramatic story in the NEW YORK TIMES And then the Vice President comes on your show and points to the NEW YORK TIMES. It's a circular, self-confirming leak.

TIM RUSSERT: I don't know how Judith Miller and Michael Gordon reported that story, who their sources were. It was a front-page story of the NEW YORK TIMES. When Secretary Rice and Vice President Cheney and others came up that Sunday morning on all the Sunday shows, they did exactly that.

My concern was, is that there were concerns expressed by other government officials. And to this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them.

Here's more from the interview:

TIM RUSSERT: Look, I'm a blue-collar guy from Buffalo. I know who my sources are. I work 'em very hard. It's the mid-level people that tell you the truth.

BILL MOYERS: They're the ones who know the story?

TIM RUSSERT: Well, they're working on the problem. And they understand the detail much better than a lotta the so-called policy makers and political officials.

BILL MOYERS: But they don't get on the Sunday talk shows.

TIM RUSSERT: No. I mean, they don't want to be, trust me. I mean, they can lose their jobs, and they know it. But they can provide information which can help in me challenging or trying to draw out sometimes their bosses and other public officials.

BILL MOYERS: What do you make of the fact that of the 414 Iraq stories broadcast on NBC, ABC and CBS nightly news, from September 2002 until February 2003, almost all the stories could be traced back to sources from the White House, the Pentagon, and the State Department?

TIM RUSSERT: It's important that you have an opposition party. That's our system of government.

BILL MOYERS: So, it's not news unless there's somebody…

TIM RUSSERT: No, no, no. I didn't say that. But it's important to have an opposition party, your opposing views.

While I don't agree with everything Russert said, he was right to come on the program. If nothing else, it showed that he, as a journalist, was thinking about what role we play in reporting or in this case, amplifying the case for war. What can we learn from Russert? Beyond his political knowledge and skills as a journalist, this: Make the election periods shorter, for everyone's sake.

Interview with Carole Simpson

2008-05-07T16:34:00.000-07:00

This interview was done at Emerson College's TV studios in April.

On Point: Military Analysts and Rev. Wright

2008-05-06T06:51:00.000-07:00

I'll grudgingly admit that as a journalist too often I overlook the business side -- in the sense that we have to keep readers or viewers interested in what we put out.

At the same time, this seems to clash with our well-intentioned values of serving the public. Here's a great example: Rev. Wright. Yes, Wright is newsworthy, but his sermons fit neatly into a predictable narrative that you can play over again, especially on cable. Covering substance, like race relations in this country, takes a lot more effort - and doesn't fit that storyline necessarily.

This is not to say that all journalists or big guys (or women) in suits are corrupt and selfish: indeed, many are genuinely concerned about our profession. I have watched NBC and Tom Brokaw since I was 14 and so I trust them as a reliable news source (I'm now 23). But even NBC falls victim to the economic side, too. The story in the New York Times about military analysts demanded explanation on the air. Williams did address it in his blog, but that's only seen by a fraction of the audience. Part of the reason they didn't address it was because they were afraid, I'm sure, that they would lose credibility, and yet, one can make the argument that by not addressing this, NBC lost a little credibility with viewers.

What is it about our profession that makes it so difficult for us to admit that we were wrong, when we hold people to a certain standard? Is it the old-boys network? Do the personalities at the networks become insulated, almost invincible? Williams has been in television news for more than 25 years. As far as I can tell, NBC, CBS ABC and CNN did what they always do when called on the carpet -- they refused to address this issue on the air, hoping that it would blow over. I was hoping that at least Williams would address the issue in the same way he addressed the Virginia Tech gunman's material: that we thought it was newsworthy and that it was disturbing. Or perhaps the network could have arranged for Gens. Jack Jacobs and Gen. McCaffery to respond directly to the NYT's findings, even if they were predictable answers. It would show that at least the network was receptive to this damaging report.

Because they didn't address the issue, it has the perception that the networks knew, and were hiding what they know; that Williams's friendship with McCaffery, Jacobs and the late Wayne Downing trumped standards; or that they didn't have a system to properly vet analysts ties to military contractors (or maybe didn't know about those ties), if what the Times says is true. Their story shook me to the core in part because these people are presenting themselves as objective military analysts, whose opinions are based on years of experience. When it turns out they are being coached to say Bush talking points, it puts into clearer focus on we, the media, instead of questioning the war, amplified it. All of those reflect poorly on a news organization, something the networks weren't willing to admit. We need to do a better job as journalists explaining what we do and why we do it, even if it puts us on the defensive sometimes. How can we expect to hold other people accountable for their actions and not be accountable for our own behavior?

On Point: Facts still need their space

2008-05-05T19:58:00.000-07:00

It depresses me how