Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn should. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn should. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Năm, 9 tháng 5, 2013

To ban or not to ban: should kids be allowed in fine-dining restaurants?

  • iStock_000013096434XSmall.jpg

We’ve all been there. It’s Friday night, you’re all dressed up, enjoying a romantic evening at your favorite restaurant. Or rather, trying to enjoy a romantic evening. If it weren’t for the screaming four-year-old throwing food at your next-door table, the same one who was running around the restaurant minutes before, maybe you would actually be able to enjoy yourself.

Sadly, as adorable as kids may be, they’re not usually the most appealing dinner companions. In fact, several restaurants find them so disagreeable that they’ve gone so far as to ban children across the board. 

“We’d ask parents to remove the child and they’d be offended and sometimes even walk out on checks."

- Mike Vuick, owner of McDains restaurant

Take McDains, the Pennsylvania club-style restaurant on the golf course of the same name, where all children under six are banned.

Or the forthcoming 18-and-older-only sushi restaurant in Alexandria, Va., where angry parents likened the ban on kids to "apartheid." Owner Mike Anderson, who also runs three other restaurants in the area, recently told WTOP: “It's meant to be a spot for husband and wife to come and kind of reconnect in kind of a sexy setting…[without having] to interact with young children.” 

Or Atlanta’s Grant Central Pizza, who banned crying children last year.

Clearly, eating out is not looking so promising for children anymore. 

“This has been accumulating over the years as an increasing number of young children and babies, whose chief form of communication is crying, were coming in,” explains McDains owner Mike Vuick. “We’d ask parents to remove the child and they’d be offended and sometimes even walk out on checks. And other people, who came in expecting a quiet dinner, would complain they have to pay for a sitter and then be disturbed by someone else’s kid.”

So in July 2011, Vuick banned anyone under six, citing it as the best decision he’s made. “I’ve gotten an overwhelming response from people all over the world, and it’s a thousand to one in favor of what we’ve done. Every day a customer seeks me out to thank me for the policy, or someone writes to tell me they wish a restaurant near them would institute this policy. Business is up and it’s even helped me get some staff I wouldn’t have otherwise attracted.”

Some restaurateurs have a different strategy, like Allen Routt, chef and co-owner of The Painted Lady in Newberg, Ore., where children are not banned, but guests are encouraged to leave children under seven at home due to the length of the meal (around three hours) and the mature menu (a multi-course tasting menu).  

“My restaurant isn’t for some adults, and it’s not for some children,” admits Routt. “But banning children seems like a knee jerk reaction. We are raising the next generation and if we can expose children to manners and etiquette and finer experiences, they will mature into more well-adjusted people.”

Alex Tiches, general manager at LJ's & the Kat Lounge in Maryland, agrees: “Exposing children to the dining experience early and expecting proper behavior, courtesy, and knowledge of food, service, and even wine from them, is the best policy.”

Rather than banishment, restaurants need a gameplan for disruptive kids, says Routt. “We use our private dining room for families with small children, and we also have outdoor dining.” 

Routt even sets up babysitting for longtime guests. “Restaurants should maintain the same level of respect for all clients, regardless of age,” adds Robin Wells, president of Etiquette Manor and director or marketing for Caffe Abbracci in Coral Gables, Fla. “And if the front-of-the-house is on top of diners, with eyes on everyone constantly, there shouldn’t be a problem.”

Of course, there’s always an exception. When that happens, go directly to the parents, but with the right tone, advises Wells. “Conflict will never work. You can’t be hostile or angry at someone else’s child, or the parent, so you have to put the right personality in charge, and you have to show other patrons that you’re doing something about a negative situation.”

Or consider hosting dinner parties with etiquette classes, like the one LJ’s hosted for the Boys and Girls Club of Washington County. The key is to consistently set the tone for all guests from the get go with attire policies and professional service, says Tiches, who doesn’t allow any guests to wear hats, tank tops or cut-off shorts in the restaurant. “Some people choose to leave, but the policy will not change, because it sets a tone for all guests.”

Andrew Fritz, manager and co-owner of Citizen Public House and The Gladly in Arizona, seconds that notion: “It’s silly to forbid or place restrictions on who walks through your doors; your target clientele can pick up on the physical evidence in your store (price points, plates and silverware, cuisine, dress code, clientele and ambiance) to determine if your dining establishment is right for them. Plus, well-trained management and staff should be able to mitigate issues pertaining to children and adults alike.”

So just how should parents determine whether or not to bring the kids along? Herewith, 10 tips from restaurant and etiquette experts across the country to help you decide:

Start at home. 

"Start with eating more formal dinners at home where everyone eats the same thing and has serious discussions, connecting the family," says Routt. "People who have problems taking children out often serve kids something separate in front of the TV, so there’s already that disconnect."

Be considerate of everyone at the restaurant.

Adults need to take time for themselves without their kids, or someone else’s, says Fritz. A night out at a great restaurant can provide just the type of break they might need, but unruly children can ruin not only your meal, but also the meals of those seated around you. Disruptive children also inhibit a waitstaff’s ability to provide an optimal dining experience.

Do your research. 

Call the restaurant ahead of time and gauge their “kid-friendliness” by asking a few pointed questions, suggests Fritz: Do they have a children’s menu or high chairs? Is there a bar? “The host’s responses, not to mention their tone of voice, will help you determine if it’s the right choice for your family,” says Fritz. “If you do make a reservation, let the host know that you’ll have children in your party, so the restaurant can have a chance to plan accordingly.”

Consider what's appropriate for kids.

"Children can be exposed to inappropriate behaviors at trendy and energetic restaurants, especially when alcohol is involved," says Fritz. "Bars, even restaurant bars, are forbidden territory." Though, "it's up to parents to decide what they want to expose their children to," adds Routt.

Set expectations for your kids. 

“Kids over six can usually understand the ROI, as in when they act great, they’ll get rewarded, and vice-versa,” says Wells. “From the time my son was six months old, he knew going out was a privilege and that we would leave a restaurant at any sign of misbehavior. Nobody should have to tolerate my son’s inability to behave for an hour or two." 

Talk to your server.

“Communicate openly and directly with your server,” says Fritz. “They’re there to make your dining experience as wonderful as possible, so let them know what your child enjoys so they can guide them through the dining experience just as they would with you.”

Pay attention to warning signs. 

Leave the restaurant if any of the following occurs, suggests Wells: if your child isn’t hungry or if they’re sick or it’s after 9:00 pm. “Also sense the tone of the restaurant: if there’s romantic couples all around you, it’s not going to work.”

Engage your children. 

“Don’t sit down and give your kids a handful of cheerios and a gameboy and then start adult conversations. That’s the fastest way to say I’m not interested in you, and the child will do anything to gain to attention,” says Wells. “Not only should kids talk directly with the waitstaff, but parents should discuss the menu with them, ask them what they think about the restaurant, anything to engage them.”

Come prepared. 

It never hurts to bring a few games or activities with you in case of emergency. But don’t make them your first line of defense. Try this tactic instead: “If your child becomes bored, which is usually a sign that they’re feeling ignored, tell them to say: Excuse me, does anyone mind if I play my game?” suggests Wells. “This usually prompts the adults to bring the conversation back to something kids care about, or it gives the kid something to do, rather than letting them fend for themselves. If you don’t want to or don’t have the time to engage with your kids, you can’t rely on the restaurant.”

Be safe, and keep kids seated. 

“I’ve had to interact with parents regarding a toddler running around the restaurant, barefoot even,” says Tiches. “Guests forget the restaurant is a dangerous place, with sharp utensils, broken pieces of glass, hot oils and sauces, quick-paced servers, other oblivious guests. I ask the parents to keep the children in their seat for the child's safety.”


View the original article here

Thứ Năm, 25 tháng 4, 2013

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is a killer and should be punished as a killer

One of the consequences of abandoning a standard by which right and wrong can be judged is our increasing inability to mete out punishment that fits the crime. In fact, too often we weigh extenuating circumstances rather than guilty actions.

In the case of the Boston bombers, observers search for reasons why the attacks occurred. But the failure to view the attackers as anything other than simply guilty and judge them accordingly, is similar to the U.S. government's attitude toward the Middle East, which often sees Israel as the major impediment to peace. 

There is little expectation that Israel's enemies be held accountable, much less punished for terrorist acts, hateful rhetoric against Jews and their refusal to reciprocate Israel's peace offerings. 

The irrational reasoning goes that we must work to understand why they hate and kill, not hold them accountable for hating and killing. The Tsarnaev brothers are killers. They should be punished as killers.

The Tsarnaev brothers are killers. They should be punished as killers.

The surviving bomber, 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, has been charged with using a "weapon of mass destruction." The U.S. government could have charged him with a lot more. 

Why didn't it? 

Does not charging Tsarnaev with more lessen the severity of what happened in Boston? 

The Obama administration could have and should have included treason among the charges and designated Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant in this "War on Terror" we are supposed to be fighting, or were fighting, until the administration started softening the language under the false belief that not calling acts of terror acts of terror somehow transforms them into something less lethal.

This administration has been reluctant to try terrorists in military courts. Instead, in 2010, it attempted to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in the Manhattan federal courthouse, not Guantanamo. 

Faced with widespread opposition, the U.S. government quickly abandoned its plans. Tsarnaev, a naturalized U.S. citizen, and therefore entitled to all the rights of citizenship, will be tried in U.S. federal court. He should be tried by military tribunal.

Tsarnaev is a traitor to his adopted country. When he took the oath of citizenship last September 11, of all dates, he swore allegiance to America. Whether he lied about his intentions at the time, or became "radicalized" since then, the acts he and his brother are alleged to have committed are treasonous. He is an enemy combatant.

Refusing to label Tsarnaev's actions for what they are -- traitorous -- does not change the nature of the act, or the intentions behind it. But that's what President Obama seems to be doing elsewhere.

FoxNews.com reported in 2010 that, according to counterterrorism officials, there was a proposal by the Obama administration to remove religious terms such as "Islamic extremism" from the National Security Strategy document, a radical shift in language from previous documents. 

That year, the Washington Times reported, the Department of Homeland Security's Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, "...does not use the words "Islam" or "Islamist" a single time.

How will erasing a few words from the National Security Strategy lead to Muslim nations making nice? The president's 2009 "outreach" speech in Cairo did nothing to change the dynamic between many Muslim nations and the West, and there appears little or no evidence that similar efforts have changed anything since.

Here is what the National Security Strategy document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventative war said: "The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the greatest ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century." 

Is this not true? If it is true, how will massaging the language reduce the likelihood of future terrorist acts? How will not fitting the punishment to the crime make us any safer?

Having removed many of the boundaries of right and wrong and forgetting what makes an American an American, we are finding it difficult now to redraw boundaries that will keep us safe at a time when we need it most.

Call terror by its rightful name. Judge Dzhokhar Tsarnaev by the crimes he has committed and let his punishment fit them.

Cal Thomas is America's most widely syndicated newspaper columnist and a Fox News contributor. Follow him on Twitter@CalThomas. Readers may e-mail Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.


View the original article here

Thứ Tư, 24 tháng 4, 2013

Fox News Poll: Obama Should Have been More Involved During Benghazi Attack

  • Obama Boston Marathon_Angu.jpg

    April 19, 2013: President Barack Obama gets ready to speak in the Brady Press Briefing at the White House in Washington.AP

Voters are divided over how the White House is handling the September 11, 2012 attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya that killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.  

On President Obama’s role, however, voters are clear:  he should have been more involved.

A Fox News poll asked voters about their reaction to former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s testimony to Congress in February on the Benghazi attack.  Panetta testified that after the initial 5:00 PM briefing with the president, he didn’t hear from the President Obama or anyone at the White House again that night.  

CLICK TO VIEW THE FOX NEWS POLL

While almost a third of voters (29 percent) think there was “probably a good reason” for the president not to be personally involved, most voters -- 61 percent -- say Obama should have been directly involved “no matter what.”

Most Republicans (82 percent) and over half of independents (57 percent) feel the president should have been more engaged in responding to the assault.  Among Democrats views are split: 43 percent say Obama had a good reason not to be involved, while 45 percent say there’s no excuse.

The new poll, released Wednesday, also asked voters to react to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s testimony that she hadn’t seen a cable from the consulate asking for additional security and warning the administration about the dangerous situation diplomats were facing.  

Some 39 percent of voters say it is “troubling” Clinton didn’t see the cable, while an equal number don’t believe her testimony and actually think she was aware of it (39 percent).  Few -- 11 percent -- say it’s no big deal that she didn’t see the ambassador’s request for help.  

Voters have mixed views about how the White House is handling the situation:  46 percent say the administration is covering up what happened.  Almost as many -- 43 percent -- say there’s no cover up.

Republicans (72 percent) are almost three times as likely as Democrats (24 percent) to think there is a cover up.  Among independents, 46 percent feel the White House is hiding what happened, while 39 percent do not.  

The administration eventually acknowledged the attack in Benghazi was a planned terrorist attack.  Early on it pointed to a controversial online video sparking spontaneous violence.  

Although Panetta and Clinton have testified, so far Congress hasn’t heard from the U.S. government personnel who survived the attack.  By a 67-26 percent margin, voters think lawmakers should subpoena them if the State Department and CIA don’t volunteer to let the witnesses be interviewed by Congressional investigators.

The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,009 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from April 20 to April 22.  The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.


View the original article here

Thứ Ba, 9 tháng 4, 2013

Why Fox News reporter Jana Winter should not go to jail

This should be an easy case.

Jana Winter, a reporter for FoxNews.com, wrote a story last July about a “chilling notebook” that had been sent to offices at the University of Colorado by mass murder defendant James Holmes. The story cited “law enforcement” sources who Ms. Winter, like any reporter who relies on confidential sources to do her job, should not be required to name.   

It should be an easy case because not only does the First Amendment prohibit states from abridging the freedom of the press, but Colorado – like 31 other states – has enacted a shield law that goes beyond the protections afforded journalists by the Constitution. 

Under Colorado law, the courts of that state cannot force a journalist to reveal his or her confidential sources unless the identities of those sources are “directly relevant” to a substantial issue in the case, cannot be obtained by other means, and the interests of the requesting party in knowing those names outweigh  the journalist’s right to report and the public right’s to know. All three conditions must be met; here, none of them are.

The identities of Ms. Winter’s sources are hardly “directly relevant” to James Holmes' guilt or innocence, or to the proper punishment.

James Holmes is charged with multiple counts of capital murder. The identities of Ms. Winter’s sources are hardly “directly relevant” to his guilt or innocence, or to the proper punishment. Whether or not the notebook is admissible is an issue for the court to decide. Who told Ms. Winter about it is, in evidentiary terms, beside the point. 

The defense, in an effort to avoid the obvious conclusion that these sources are not directly relevant to a substantial issue in the prosecution, has attempted to recast this case -- not as the prosecution of Mr. Holmes but as the investigation of a purported violation of the Court’s gag order.   

That is absurd.   

This is a murder case.  The caption on all of the papers says it: "the People of Colorado v. James Holmes."   

If accepted, the defense’s argument would render the protections of the shield law a nullity in any case where a gag order is imposed, and its alleged violation is investigated: that is, precisely in those cases where public and press interest is greatest.

Nor is this a case where, if the Court were determined to do so, it could not use other means to seek out the leakers.   

In fact, a number of law enforcement officers have already been questioned under oath. If the Court wishes – and frankly, with all of the other issues in this case, there is hardly a compelling reason for such a sideshow – it can conduct further hearings.  But reporters have no place on the witness stand.    

Perhaps most important, Mr. Holmes’ only legitimate interest here -- his right to a fair trial, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment – is hardly at risk, much less at such great risk as to outweigh the compelling interests of a free press and an informed citizenry that the Colorado statute seeks to protect.  

A fair trial does not carry with it a right to a jury that has not been exposed to pretrial publicity. Were it otherwise, no notorious defendant could ever be tried.  

The press coverage of this case reflects the enormous public interest in a particularly heinous crime.   It would be impossible to find a jury anywhere in America comprised only of individuals who had not been exposed to publicity about this case, some of it accurate, some of it speculative, and some of it probably just plain wrong.  

That is true in every “big” case.  I would be far more dubious of the honesty/capacity of a would-be juror who claimed to have heard nothing about the case than one who (as they will be asked) affirms that they can put aside what they have heard and decide the case based on the evidence presented in court.  

Only last week, the Colorado court granted, as against the opposition of  both the prosecution and the defense, the motion by various media organizations to release the affidavits supporting all arrest and search warrants in this case and any requests seeking the production of records.   

The prosecution claimed that it was seeking to protect the privacy of victims and witnesses; Mr. Holmes’ attorneys argued that the release of these materials would impair his right to a fair trial.  

The Court rejected both of these arguments, recognizing that only an “overriding and compelling” state interest could justify the burden on First Amendment rights, and that no such interest existed here.   

The same conclusion should apply to the defense’s demand that Ms. Winter name her sources.

At the end of the day, there are two puzzling aspects of Ms. Winter’s situation, neither of which relate to the merits, which should be easy.  

The first is that it has gone so far: that a story published last July, one of literally tens of thousands in this case, could subject a promising reporter to the choice of naming her sources (and destroying her career in the process) or going to jail.  

The second is that, even with a hearing only days away, there has been so little attention to the threat posed here not only to Ms. Winter, but to the core principles of the First Amendment, and to the efficacy of shield law such as Colorado’s.  

Is it because Ms. Winter works for FoxNews, and not for a more “liberal” media outlet?   I cannot imagine a more shortsighted response, nor one that is more inconsistent with the fundamental premise of a free press.

Susan Estrich is the Robert Kingsley Professor of Law and Political Science at USC. She has  taught criminal law and First Amendment law at both Harvard Law School and USC and is as former president of the Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts and a member of the national board of the ACLU.


View the original article here

Thứ Năm, 4 tháng 4, 2013

FoxNews.com's Jana Winter should be praised, not threatened with jail time

By

Published April 04, 2013

FoxNews.com

While the press in Colorado is consumed with its coverage of the capital murder prosecution of James Holmes for the slaughter he perpetrated in a movie theater in the town of Aurora on July 20, 2012, a related court proceeding is taking place in the same courthouse that the local and national press would be wise to cover.

My Fox News colleague, Jana Winter, an experienced journalist of impeccable integrity, is being threatened with incarceration by a Colorado judge unless she reveals the sources for the excellent and highly newsworthy piece she wrote for FoxNews.com revealing the existence of a notebook written by Mr. Holmes before the murders and sent to his psychiatrist, Dr. Lynne Fenton.

Winter's report cited unnamed law enforcement sources and the defense immediately complained that investigators had violated the judge's gag order issued days beforehand.

Putting reporters in jail for revealing the truth while protecting their sources is highly offensive to the values the First Amendment was written to protect.

Now, in a witch hunt instigated by defense attorneys, the court seeks to learn who revealed the notebook's existence to Ms. Winter. Fourteen cops and investigators have denied being her source under oath, with more testimony next week. Ms. Winter herself has invoked the protection of the Colorado Shield Law, which permits bonafide journalists to decline to reveal their sources on matters of material public interest. But this law, like many, has a loophole in it that might enable a misguided court to incarnate Ms. Winter if the court concludes that its need to know the identity of the source is greater than Ms. Winter’s need to protect the source, and if the identity of the source cannot be obtained by any less intrusive means.

All this means is that if judges want to compel reporters to reveal sources, they can, and the so-called shield laws are meaningless. This has become a power play between the court, the State, and the press. What need does the court have now for the identity of my colleague’s sources? She reported truthfully and accurately of a matter of acute public importance. She first informed the world that Mr. Holmes sent a notebook to a mental health professional full of details about how he was going to kill people.

When one weighs the service Ms. Winter performed--the revelation of a truth--against the wishes of the State in wanting to know who spilled the beans, this is not a close call. Moreover, if courts can force reporters to reveal confidential sources, then who will talk to reporters in the future, and how will inconvenient truths about the government become known?

The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to stimulate and protect open, wide, robust debate about the policies and personnel of the government. Truth is essential to that stimulation. Putting reporters in jail for revealing the truth while protecting their sources is profoundly contrary to that purpose and highly offensive to the values the First Amendment was written to protect and we have all come to enjoy.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution. His latest is “Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom.”


View the original article here

FoxNews.com's Jana Winter should be praised, not threatened with jail time

By

Published April 04, 2013

FoxNews.com

While the press in Colorado is consumed with its coverage of the capital murder prosecution of James Holmes for the slaughter he perpetrated in a movie theater in the town of Aurora on July 20, 2012, a related court proceeding is taking place in the same courthouse that the local and national press would be wise to cover.

My Fox News colleague, Jana Winter, an experienced journalist of impeccable integrity, is being threatened with incarceration by a Colorado judge unless she reveals the sources for the excellent and highly newsworthy piece she wrote for FoxNews.com revealing the existence of a notebook written by Mr. Holmes before the murders and sent to his psychiatrist, Dr. Lynne Fenton.

Winter's report cited unnamed law enforcement sources and the defense immediately complained that investigators had violated the judge's gag order issued days beforehand.

Putting reporters in jail for revealing the truth while protecting their sources is highly offensive to the values the First Amendment was written to protect.

Now, in a witch hunt instigated by defense attorneys, the court seeks to learn who revealed the notebook's existence to Ms. Winter. Fourteen cops and investigators have denied being her source under oath, with more testimony next week. Ms. Winter herself has invoked the protection of the Colorado Shield Law, which permits bonafide journalists to decline to reveal their sources on matters of material public interest. But this law, like many, has a loophole in it that might enable a misguided court to incarcerate Ms. Winter if the court concludes that its need to know the identity of the source is greater than Ms. Winter’s need to protect the source, and if the identity of the source cannot be obtained by any less intrusive means.

All this means is that if judges want to compel reporters to reveal sources, they can, and the so-called shield laws are meaningless. This has become a power play between the court, the State, and the press. What need does the court have now for the identity of my colleague’s sources? She reported truthfully and accurately of a matter of acute public importance. She first informed the world that Mr. Holmes sent a notebook to a mental health professional full of details about how he was going to kill people.

When one weighs the service Ms. Winter performed--the revelation of a truth--against the wishes of the State in wanting to know who spilled the beans, this is not a close call. Moreover, if courts can force reporters to reveal confidential sources, then who will talk to reporters in the future, and how will inconvenient truths about the government become known?

The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to stimulate and protect open, wide, robust debate about the policies and personnel of the government. Truth is essential to that stimulation. Putting reporters in jail for revealing the truth while protecting their sources is profoundly contrary to that purpose and highly offensive to the values the First Amendment was written to protect and we have all come to enjoy.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution. His latest is “Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom.”


View the original article here

Should judge jail FoxNews.com reporter if she declines to reveal her sources?

FoxNews.com reporter Jana Winter faces jail on contempt charges unless she reveals the sources for an exclusive story she wrote about accused Colorado mass murderer James Holmes.  Her story first revealed the existence of a notebook that Holmes had mailed to his psychiatrist.  

Winter is citing her First Amendment right to protect her sources, while Holmes’ lawyers want the information to determine if his right to a fair trial may have been violated.

This is a non-scientific viewer question.


View the original article here

Thứ Sáu, 29 tháng 3, 2013

Gabriel Sherman should keep history separate from fantasy

Sometimes little things crack open and reveal big things. For example, what started as a small dispute--over the historical record of a presidential speech from four decades ago--has now metastasized into a raging controversy over a new book about Roger Ailes and Fox News, written by the veteran author Zev Chafets.

And that controversy over Chafets has, in turn, opened up a window into the practice of “journalism” by some young “journalists” of our own time. Indeed, the controversy has shined a deeply unflattering light on the author of yet another book on Ailes and Fox, forthcoming from author Gabriel Sherman. As we shall see, the evident sloppiness of Sherman’s research could lead one to think that the mere publication of his book will go beyond controversy. Its publication would, in and of itself, be a scandal.

I’ll come back to that big story in a bit. But first, the small story, which is, in fact, important in its own way.

On March 21, one Gordon Stewart, a small newspaper publisher in Putnam County, New York--where he is in direct business competition with another small newspaper publisher, Beth Ailes, wife of Roger Ailes--took to the pages of Politico to attack Chafets. Stewart described Chafets’ brief mentions of him in the pages of his book, Roger Ailes: Off Camera, as “ignorant, arrogant and fraudulent” and “breathtakingly bogus.” What was Stewart’s beef? Why was he so vociferous against Chafets? After all, the points in question were made by Chafets in passing; the subject of the Chafets book is Ailes, not Stewart. Stewart is, at most, a minor character.

It seems to me that Stewart chose to go after Chafets so strongly because he, Stewart, sees the opportunity to attack Chafets as a “twofer”--that is, as an opportunity to attack the Ailes family as well.

After all, the Chafets book was regarded by many--especially those in the camp of rival biographer Sherman--as too friendly to Ailes. And so Stewart, perhaps, wanted to dump on the Chafets book as a way of helping the Sherman book. Is all this inside baseball? Sure it is. But it’s still interesting, because it reveals much about the way reporters and writers can sometimes serve larger business and political agendas.

And so, for example, it helps Stewart, up in Putnam County, if he can inflict damage on Chafets and thus the Ailes family.

Yet there’s more to Stewart than that. I met him in the late 70s, when we both worked for President Jimmy Carter--he in the White House speechwriting shop, me as a senior outside adviser, strategist, and pollster to the President.

For years now, I have been bemused and bewildered as Stewart sought to retroactively inflate his role in the Carter administration. In particular, he insists on inflating his role in one particular incident, Jimmy Carter’s “Crisis of Confidence” speech of July 15, 1979, commonly referred to as the “malaise” speech. Some may say that it was not Carter’s greatest speech, but it is indisputable that it is his best-remembered speech--still a focus of interest and controversy. And in any case, it was an important event, a hinge in the Carter presidency, and so, for better or for worse, its history should be remembered accurately.

And so I was particularly annoyed to see, back on July 14, 2009, that Stewart had chosen to commemorate the 30th anniversary of that speech in a self-glorifying op-ed for The New York Times.

Yes, Stewart was a member of the Carter White House speechwriting staff, reporting to chief speechwriter Hendrik “Rick” Hertzberg. But in truth, he was more of a helper, and perhaps a stage-manager--but certainly not a principal author--of that famous speech. Matters of presentation and delivery are important, of course, to any politician, and so if Stewart had been content simply to define himself as a stage-manager, I would have had no complaint. And yet when I read this passage, below, describing the speechwriting process as it played out in July ’79 at the presidential retreat in Camp David, MD, I was taken aback. Because not only was it wrong and misleading, but Stewart knew it. Yet here’s what he wrote:

“Meanwhile, mostly secluded in a cabin, sometimes working day and night shifts, my colleague Hendrik Hertzberg and I wrote and rewrote what we had no idea would still be known 30 years later as “The Malaise Speech.”

Once again, it is simply incorrect to assert, as Stewart did, that he and Hertzberg co-authored the speech. I know, because I was there. The original draft of the speech was contained in a memo that I delivered to the President in the beginning of July; it was the last installment of a series of memos that the President had received, at his request, over a many-month process. And everyone involved knew that I, at the President’s direction, was the point person. In other words, it was a lengthy and deliberate policy-development process.

So I was the author of that original draft, with the invaluable help of Wayne Granquist of the Office of Management and Budget. In the subsequent speechwriting process, my friend Rick Hertzberg and I collaborated closely together as Rick brilliantly melded the original draft with new input from Stuart Eizenstat, Carter’s domestic policy adviser and others. And most of all, from Jimmy Carter himself. Yet that original draft remained the heart and soul of the speech Carter delivered.

Yet four summers ago, as I kept reading Stewart’s op-ed, I read with growing amazement the way in which Stewart incorrectly promoted himself to not only co-author, but also to author of the most important part of the speech. As Stewart put it:

“I recall scribbling faster than it seemed possible to put legible words on a pad, but the end result was: ‘On the battlefield of energy we can win for our nation a new confidence, and we can seize control again of our common destiny.’ The speech had found its central argument. The policy steps fell into place.”

As I said, I was annoyed at the time, but being involved in other things--and knowing that everyone intimately involved knew the truth about really happened, contrary Stewart’s claims--I chose to simply let the matter go. Yet now, as I see Stewart’s fantasy resurfacing, I have felt the need now to speak out and set the record straight.

Yet one who had a differing account, at the time, was Hertzberg, Stewart’s then-boss, who has long been a top writer for The New Yorker magazine. Three days after Stewart’s op-ed appeared in the Times, Hertzberg wrote his own account in The New Yorker, which gently, but nevertheless effectively, excluded any writing role for Stewart. Here’s how Hertzberg chronicled the moment:

“I was the designated writer for the speech that emerged from this curious process. In truth I was more stenographer-typist than author, smoothing and coordinating bits of draft from various people, including Caddell, Stuart Eizenstat, and Carter himself.”

Typical of Rick, he downplays the importance of his own role.

Later in the same piece, Hertzberg noted that Carter had done a good job in delivering the speech, and wrote generously of Stewart:

“Much of the credit for that must go to Gordon Stewart, who had been a theatre director in a previous life. (He was the original director of “The Elephant Man” on Broadway until felled by a collapsed lung.)”

Those of us who know Rick Hertzberg well and admire his fluid writing style can savor Rick’s deft way of reminding the reader that Stewart was, in fact, a stage-manager, not a speechwriter.

In that vein, Hertzberg continued with his account of those days:

"Gordon showed chutzpah beyond the call of duty. First he insinuated himself into the makeshift studio at Camp David where Carter was practicing the speech. That was pretty ballsy right there. But then, having crashed the President’s rehearsal, he proceeded to direct the man."

We can note some of these words and phrases that Hertzberg used to describe Stewart: “chutzpah beyond the call of duty,” “insinuated,” “ballsy,” “crashed the President’s rehearsal.” Hertzberg is describing Stewart as as acting like a stage manager, for sure, but not as an author. That was all on the record four years ago--Stewart taking credit for something he didn’t do. As noted, I should have weighed in at that time, too.

However, last week, when I saw that Stewart had trashed author Chafets for picayune inaccuracies in his Ailes book, I said to myself, “Enough is enough. If Stewart is going to dump on Chafets for tiny mistakes, then I should let everyone know that Stewart has been telling a whopper for years.” And so on March 22, here at Fox News Opinion, I wrote of Stewart:

“For years, now, he has been claiming that he did something that he did not, in fact, do. Nor, in fact, did Stewart have anything meaningful to do with it. To put it bluntly, Stewart is either misremembering or fantasizing about what happened. But either way, I can’t let his incorrect narrative become part of the historical record.”

Okay, so enough about Stewart. I suspect that he attacked Chafets out of a desire to hurt Beth and Roger Ailes. And I suspect that now, Stewart will be more circumspect in the future. Indeed, since I have all my files, including my personal files, on the “Crisis of Confidence” speech, I will in due time publish the inside account of what really happened in that fascinating and fateful summer of 1979.

But now here’s an interesting little twist to this tale--a twist that levers open that bigger window into the sloppy and shoddy “journalistic” practices of our time.

There’s a person named Gabriel Sherman, a writer for New York magazine and a fellow at the New America Foundation--a left-of-center think-tank to which George Soros and others in the Soros family have contributed--who is writing a book on Roger Ailes and Fox. In other words, Sherman and his book are in competition with Zev Chafets and his book.

Moreover, by many accounts, Sherman seems bent on publishing a hit job on Ailes and Fox.

Okay, fair enough, it’s a free country, and Sherman can write any book he wishes to write--although someone ought to be examining why it is that such writers can use tax-deductible foundation money for their obviously partisan ideological ends.

Yet perhaps Soros & Co. should have looked more closely at Sherman and his work. Why? Because Sherman has been dogged by accusations of inaccuracy, and he seems to suffer not only from inaccuracy, but apparently also, as I have learned, from incompetence.

One thing is sure: Sherman is not short on chutzpah. In the wake of the publication of my column on Stewart last week--which I never mentioned Sherman at all--Sherman called me on the phone and said, “Hi, Pat.” There’s some chutzpah right there. I have never met Sherman, I never gave him my number, and, indeed, as a general practice, I don’t take calls from people to whom I haven’t given my number.

But then, as I tried say, “I don’t want to talk to you,” Sherman bulled ahead, saying, “I know that Roger Ailes put you up to it”--referring to my March 22 Fox piece. Now of course, Sherman doesn’t know any of that, because it’s not true. As the reader can surely tell, I have strong feelings about the accuracy of the historical record; that’s why I wrote the piece.

After that, I ended the conversation.

For his part, Sherman didn’t give up. In fact, he is the one pushing hardest to keep this story alive, I presume because he believes it will help gain traction for his own book.

Yet as Sherman struggles to gain that traction, he is making mistakes--bad mistakes. In a pair of tweets from March 27, Sherman wondered aloud, to the world, where I was getting the information from about Stewart. Sherman first asked:

"So far I haven't been able to find an example what Caddell is accusing Stewart of."

That is, my accusing Stewart of inflating his role in that 1979 speech. And then Sherman added in a second tweet:

"If anyone has seen an interview where Stewart has "claimed to be the author" of the malaise speech, please send along. Thanks."

When I saw those tweets, I couldn’t believe my eyes: Sherman was asking where I got the idea that Stewart had claimed to be the writer--or any kind of major player--in that speech? Really? Seriously? Can Sherman be that obtuse?

Well, once again, for the record, I might have gotten the idea that Stewart was exaggerating his role from Stewart’s own op-ed in The New York Times, dated July 14, 2009. The Times might not be nearly as important as it once was, but it’s still a pretty big paper, and Sherman, a resident of New York City, ought to be more familiar with it, and what’s in it. And if not, there’s always Nexis and Google to help out.

Okay, so enough on that. Now let’s focus on Sherman himself, and what he’s up to.

We might ask: What sort of book is Sherman writing? Is he really so unable to do basic research that, instead, he has to “crowdsource” a factual question through Twitter?

Indeed, such cluelessness, or laziness--or, perhaps on the side of the equation, purposefulness and relentlessness--ought to make people wonder about every article that Sherman has ever written.

What possible reason could he be doing this? Could he be simply ignorant--or intentionally ignorant?

But wait! It gets better! On Thursday, March 28, Sherman actually e-mailed me and wanted to know, yet again, where I got the idea that Stewart had once claimed to have written the 1979 “crisis of confidence” speech. Here’s the money quote from Sherman’s e-mail: “Can you point me to the published accounts where Stewart claimed to be the author of the speech? I have not be able to locate any references.”

As my grandkids would say, “Like, duh. Dude, do your homework.”

For the sake of the historical record, here’s the entirety of the e-mail:

From: Gabriel Sherman
Date: March 28, 2013, 10:11:30 AM EDT
To: Pat Caddell

Subject: Book Research: Your Foxnews.com Column

Dear Pat,

I hope you're well. I'm following up by email as you requested in our phone conversation last week. As I explained, in my upcoming book on Roger Ailes and Fox News, I write about your Foxnews.com column about Gordon Stewart. The column was recently reprinted in Elizabeth Ailes's newspaper, The Putnam County News & Recorder.

In your column, you write: "Four years ago, in both print and in interviews, Stewart claimed to be the author of the 'crisis of confidence' speech."

Which interviews are you referring to? Can you point me to the published accounts where Stewart claimed to be the author of the speech? I have not be able to locate any references.

Thank you, I'm on a deadline so I look forward to being in contact at your earliest convenience.

best,

Gabe

Ladies and gentlemen of the historical jury, there you have it: a smoking gun of Sherman’s arrogance and/or ignorance--willful or otherwise. That is, he can’t or won’t find something that is plainly a part of the public record, and then he writes me a faux-friendly e-mail asking me to help him--and perhaps engage with him on other aspects of his Ailes book project.

So here’s my answer to you, Gabriel Sherman: I have taken all this time to write this lengthy and detailed piece on a matter that I thought had been put to be bed, succinctly, last week. Frankly, Mr. Sherman, you are an embarrassment to the journalistic trade, and if your book is in the same vein, it will be an embarrassment to your publisher and a disservice to the reading public.

Please take my advice: Grow up, get a life, and most of all, leave me alone. Got that?

Patrick Caddell is a Democratic pollster and Fox News contributor. He served as pollster for  President Jimmy Carter, Gary Hart, Joe Biden and others. He is a Fox News political analyst and co-host of "Political Insiders" Sundays on Fox News Channel and Mondays at 10:30 am ET on "FoxNews.com Live."


View the original article here

Thứ Năm, 28 tháng 3, 2013

When it comes to marriage, government should divorce itself

  • Supreme Court Gay Mar_Cala(2).jpg

    Kim Roberts, left, and her partner Lisa Mayes of Benicia, Calif. participate in a marriage equality rally on Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at the Solano County Government Center in Fairfield before the Supreme Court hears arguments concerning the Defense of Marriage Act after it heard arguments contesting the constitutionality of the California's Proposition 8 on Tuesday. (AP Photo/The Reporter, Joel Rosenbaum)MANDATORY CREDIT

With the Supreme Court now hearing cases centering on the legality of a federal ban on gay marriage and California’s ban on gay marriage, the real way our nation should address marriage rights is to get government out of the marriage business, altogether.

It never made sense to have state or federal government intrude into personal affairs by giving it the power to sanction and legitimize the loving commitment of one individual to another. That is a matter for the adults involved, who should share their intentions and vows in a ceremony with family, friends and any religious institutions they choose (or not), then sign any financial documents they see as being appropriate and, perhaps, exchange rings.  End of story.

If two adults are mature enough to get married, they should be mature enough to envision and codify how they will deal with their finances, should that marriage end.

The government’s only interest should be in enforcing child support and fair child custody and visitation for each parent, in the event of a dissolution of the (government-free) marital bond.  Making certain that children do not descend into poverty, and spouses are not left without parental rights, would then be the only proper function of the state related to marriage—both triggered only when marriages end.  This would be no different than the state’s current role in enforcing child support, custody and visitation in non-married couples.

The legal sanctioning of, or refusal to sanction, any loving union between adults is inherently laden with cultural values.  And if it is determined that love and commitment should be the sole driving force behind state and federal marriage laws, then it is utterly and completely illogical to deny five people who love one another the right to marry as a group.  Heterosexual government-sanctioned marriage leads logically to homosexual government-sanctioned marriage, which leads logically to polygamy.  Anyone who suggests otherwise is suggesting that government should play favorites and show prejudice.

If two men can marry, despite having no biological ability to reproduce (which some argue is the government’s stake in heterosexual marriage) and without having both genders represented as role models in the household (which others argue is the government’s stake in heterosexual marriage), then certainly two men and a woman can marry.  No one can credibly argue that three people cannot be in love, and the three-parent structure would offer the children of this marriage a mother and two fathers—role models of both genders, with 50 percent more earning capacity than a two-parent family and many advantages, in terms of built-in child care.

Government should not play favorites or show prejudice. And the proper next step for government to take is a major step out of our personal lives. This can be done by neither showing a preference for or against marriages, nor deciding who should marry whom. Instead, that should be left to people and their loved ones and their religious institutions, if any.

All state, federal and corporate (as in, health insurance) preferences shown married couples, as opposed to those who are not married, are inherently prejudicial.  There ought to be no distinction between the rules for filing taxes, whether one is married, or not.  Every individual should file taxes under the same set of rules.  There ought to be no government rubber stamp via government-sanctioned marriage of whether someone has the right to act on behalf of another individual who is too ill to make decisions. That should all be codified in a prenuptial agreement or other legal documents.  There ought to be no automatic inheritance of assets by spouses, which should be codified in a will.

The gay marriage debate is a sideshow in the bigger debate we must have:  Why was government so intrusive as to be involved in marriage, in the first place, and shouldn’t government divorce itself from the concept of sanctioning marriage, altogether? 

Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team. Dr. Ablow can be reached at info@keithablow.com.


View the original article here