The Washington Post

Once upon a time, the Washington Post was considered both liberal and one of the best newspapers in the business, particularly with respect to national politics. Back in the '80s and early '90s, before I even lived here, I subscribed to the Washington Post National Weekly Edition. At the time, I felt I learned a lot about what was going on in the world by reading such great columnists as the late Molly Ivins. When I moved here, I subscribed to the Post for a number of years, until I ultimately decided that I didn't read it enough to justify all the paper being produced. I continued to read sections of it online, particularly the soccer columns.

As many of you know, newspaper subscribership has plummeted, driving many newspapers out of business as they are unable to generate a profit. I can't say that I like the direction journalism has taken in the past decade or so, where stenography seems to be the focus rather than reporting. All the same, I don't think the demise of newspapers is a good thing, and have on occasion considered restarting my Post subscription in order to support the institution. Unless things change dramatically, however, I don't see ever going ahead with doing so. The reason is simple -- the Post is no longer a newspaper for which I have any respect.

For starters, the Post has decided that it wants to be nutty conservative (I guess so it can compete with the Washington Times), and has grabbed neocons aplenty to go with a stable of run-of-the-mill conservatives. Just to be clear, I was fine with George Will. And I could tolerate the off-the-wall ruminations of Charles Krauthammer, as one neoconservative at least allows you to keep tabs on their thinking. But to those the Post has added Bill Kristol and Michael Gerson, and Fred Hiatt has revealed himself as a full-fledged neoCon as well. There are others as well (here's a mostly complete rundown), and apparently that's insufficient, as they are complemented by frequent guest columns from additional "luminaries" of the conservative world (Sarah Palin of all people had a nonsensical appearance just this week).

The Post's recent decision to fire Dan Froomkin was also rather troubling, as he actually is a reporter in the traditional sense of the word. He was willing to challenge both the Bush and Obama administrations when their actions deviated from their words. Just as importantly, he challenged others in the media when they failed to do their jobs. I guess that made him unpopular with the Post's management, but he was very popular with its readers, for good reason.

The most recent brouhaha concerned the Post's pay-for-play scandal, whereby the Post's CEO and publisher, Katharine Weymouth sought to sell access to Obama administration officials and to her own reporters and editors. I think this one speaks for itself.

And in yesterday's paper, Gerson wrote a scathing article condemning Justice Ruth Ginsburg for favoring eugenics through abortion. The problem with his writing of such vitriol is that Justice Ginsburg said nothing of the sort. The man said in his column that the Ginsburg quote should not be taken out of context, all the while omitting the last three sentences from the quote, i.e., the ones that provided context. Here was the question Ginsburg was asked:

Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid abortions for poor women?

Here's what Gerson says her response was:

Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae -- in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.

Here's the actual response Justice Ginsburg gave in her answer:

Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong. (empahasis added)

That alone would be an enormous problem, compounded by the fact that he basically stole the misrepresentation from other conservative hacks (one, Jonah Goldberg, got his misrepresentations printed with the L.A. Times, while the other, Ben Domenech, is a well-known conservative blogger).

I actually wrote the ombudsman for the Post about the Gerson article, asking at what point the Post feels an obligation to, you know, fact check the material that appears on its editorial pages. The ombudsman politely and promptly responded, informed me that he handles the news pages, and indicated that my complaints are best delivered to Mr. Gerson (e-mail address provided). I suppose the response I got shouldn't surprise me, but it still disturbed me -- the Post allows columnists to publish their opinions without regard to the truth. I understand the opinion page should be held to a different standard than the news sections, but what the ombudsman's response tells me is that the only standard is what the author says it is. Perhaps that's the norm for the opinion pages these days, and the Post is just following along, but that doesn't make it right.

In sum, between the right-wing slant and the questionable practices, the Post has left me with no desire to offer it my financial support ever again.

Flying

For the week vacation in Hilton Head with the family, we were going to take a direct flight from National to Savannah, and drive the ~1 hour from there. Six weeks before our flight, US Airways notified us that they were stopping their morning direct flights, and so we decided it would be better to switch to a flight into Hilton Head -- if we needed to take a connection, why keep the drive as well?

The last couple of times we've flown, we've gotten Emelia her own seat, even though she's eligible to be a lap baby until she turns two. She doesn't sit still, and it's gotten too difficult to keep her on a lap the whole way. On the flight from Charlotte to Hilton Head, they weren't able to seat the three of us near each other (only 2 passengers per side anyhow), so Kathy and Emelia sat in the back row, with Emelia alternating between Kathy's lap and the seat. It was 95 degrees outside, the air conditioning in the plane hardly worked, and the plane wasn't a jet -- it was a prop plane, a Dash 8, something that only added to Kathy's queasiness.

On the way back, we also were on a Dash 8 into Charlotte, but at least it was a newer (and more comfortable) plane, the A/C worked, and we were able to sit across from each other. Also, no one was in the seat next to me, so we passed Emelia back and forth throughout the flight to keep her fairly content, though she was unable to settle down enough to sleep despite the flight being during her nap time. Our flight to DCA was in a small jet, again 2 passengers per side, and again the seat next to me was unoccupied. Emelia's fussiness increased as her exhaustion did, but did ok all things considered -- naturally, she only fell asleep while we were landing on the second flight, and woke up soon thereafter with all the motion that followed upon landing.

Unfortunately, our luggage didn't accompany us on our flight home, as none of our three bags were on the conveyor belt when we got to baggage claim. Rather than wait for the next flight, to see if the bags made it, we went home and waited. And waited. And waited. I called and was told our bags would make it to us between 8:30 and 11:30. We never received a phone call telling us that they wouldn't be delivered, and Kathy stayed up later than the supposed window waiting for the bags that never came. I called in the morning, and they stated that the bags would show up some time after eight. When they showed up, I looked for my toiletry case so I could take a shower. It wasn't in either of the bags (bag #3 was Emelia's car seat), and when I asked Kathy, she remembered that she had put it in the carry-on suitcase that we hadn't bothered to unpack yet. In other words, we unintentionally defied TSA regulations that prohibit carrying on containers larger than 3 ounces, carrying toiletries when they aren't in a one-quart clear plastic bag, and not separating them out for inspection when we went through security. And despite this, we got through security wholly unimpeded.

Given how much inconvenience these rules create (and it's only getting worse with airlines deciding to charge for even the first checked bag), I'd at least appreciate it if TSA enforces these supposedly necessary rules. The fact that they aren't, or are doing so haphazardly, pisses me off even more than the rules being there in the first place, seeing as how we're left with inconvenience without enhanced security.

Our next flights are coming up this weekend, for Kathy's college reunion out in Minneapolis. Unfortunately, these aren't direct flights either. As for Hilton Head, the folks decided they liked it so much that they booked a house down there for next year's family vacation as well. As of now, we plan on driving the 10 hours.

It's Not About the Money

Today in the mail I got a notice from E-Z Pass that I ran a tollbooth in Maryland a couple of weeks ago. I was livid as I read this, as I know quite well that I didn't run the toll -- either the machine malfunctioned or the attendant didn't signal to the machine that I paid. If I pay within 30 days, there's no fine, so with the stamp I'm only on the hook for $2.41. That means that the rage I felt was way out of proportion to the inconvenience I'm now facing. All the same, I don't think my anger was an overreaction -- this letter all but accuses me of stealing!

The letter also claims that they have me on videotape -- somehow I'd wager that the tape is focused on the red/green light rather than the tollbooth (which may support their accusation), so it doesn't include the interaction that I had with the attendant, or show whether money exchanged hands. It was the first toll on the trip up to Wilmington to get Kathy, and the funny thing is that I remember that particular exchange -- I gave the attendant a $20, and he said all he had were ones. I either said or thought something to the effect, "That's ok -- they're going to be used to pay the rest of the tolls."

So is it worth trying to fight over two dollars and forty-one cents? Given the principle involved, I think it's worth making a phone call before I send the money. But principle or not, it probably isn't worth any more effort than that.

Scattered

On a Monday about a month ago, I was at home sick. It was recycling pick-up day, and yet again someone had put their recycling in my filled bin, their newspapers and magazines balanced atop my bottles and cans. That particular day was very windy, and the papers and magazines went flying, along the street and into my yard and my neighbors' yard, before the city had picked up my recycling. I spent a good 20 minutes cleaning cleaning up the debris, furious that I needed to do this when I should have been inside taking it easy.

Fast-forward to yesterday, and a plastic bag left by the curb somewhere on our street on another windy day. The bag, filled with styrofoam peanuts, was no match for the wind and was blown into the street, where it was hit by a passing car that tore a hole in the bag. A substantial number of peanuts were scattered, but the bulk remained in the bag, which some well-intentioned(?) soul picked up and placed into my yard. The gusts didn't abate, however, and the bag, now with a significant hole, emptied into my yard. I threw away the bag and what remained inside, but my heretofore plain plot is presently populated by a platoon of pink packing peanuts.



When I got home tonight I borrowed Tom's Shop Vac in the hopes that I could get rid of the peanuts, but the damn things are too big for the vacuum's hose! So they continue to infest my lawn, and it's too cold (and too dark when i get home) to pick them up one at a time.

I figure that right now, a couple of people are running a serious karma deficit.

Three More Pills

Do you have allergies? Have you ever tried to find an antihistamine that works well but doesn't make you drowsy? For me, the allergy medicine of choice for roughly two decades has been Actifed -- not only has it worked well for seasonal allergies, but it's been my preferred cold medicine as well. And now I'm down to my last three pills of it. I've been hoarding the last of my stash, reluctant to use them for situations I wouldn't have hesitated to in the past, saving them for REALLY BAD TIMES.

I'm sure many of you are asking yourself at this point, why doesn't he stop complaining about it on his blog and go to the pharmacy and buy more Actifed? You might even be asking this question using language not suitable for print in a family-friendly blog (though that's not my concern). Honestly, there is an explanation -- Actifed contains pseudoephedrine, and apparently pseudoephedrine can be used to make crystal meth. So the powers that be no longer allow medicines with pseudoephedrine to be readily available on drugstore shelves (though Bunsen Burner sales continue to be unregulated), and the makers of Actifed decided that it would be foolish to keep Actifed behind the counter, given that its popularity has declined over the years as Claritin and other medicines have become available. Thus, they reformulated Actifed so that it no longer contains pseudoephedrine, which means Actifed, or a new medicine with the same name, remains on the shelves, but that I have no idea how well it'll work for me.

This isn't a case like when Mars reformulated 3 Musketeers, and suddenly my favorite candy bar no longer tasted the same. I mean, that was bad, but there were reasonable alternatives that allowed me to get my chocolate fix. And other than a temporary upsurge in caloric intake, there wasn't a downside to trying lots more chocolate bars in order to find the best among acceptable ones (I settled on Snickers). No, this is far more serious -- chocolate may make you feel better when your head is blocked up, but no matter how much you eat you're still more congested than downtown DC during rush hour.

So I'm pretty annoyed, not only with the people who make crystal meth, but also with the efforts to limit access to pseudoephedrine, and with Pfizer (the makers of Actifed). As to the latter, the thing that really bugs me is how they've chosen to spin the reformulation -- the new package proudly asserts, "Does Not Contain Pseudoephedrine," as though the many allergy sufferers using Actifed will be overjoyed to hear that the product that they've relied on is no longer the same. As though there have been millions of people who have been reluctant to use Actifed because it contained pseudoephedrine, and who will now flock to the new Actifed.

So if any of you see me in the next few weeks and I'm completely out of it and perhaps only semi-functional (even more so than usual), you're on notice that it may be for a reason other than that I'm a new parent. You've been warned.