Exceeding Expectations

[lily]

Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16789806/site/newsweek/?rf=nwnewsletter)

Exceeding Expectations
Bush's former speechwriter on what the president did right—and on Jim Webb's
wobbly wordcraft.

Web-Exclusive Commentary
By Michael J. Gerson
Special to Newsweek
Updated: 1:05 p.m. ET Jan 24, 2007
Jan. 24, 2007 - All the commentary leading up to the State of the Union
noted the president’s historically low poll ratings and unpopular Iraq
strategy. But it really isn’t an option for any president to go before
Congress and take the fetal position—and it isn’t a temptation for this
president. Instead, he gave a speech that matched genuine outreach with
ideological boldness. Once again the expectations of the president were
driven down by exaggerated commentary. Once again he gracefully exceeded
those expectations.



The president’s graciousness to the new Speaker, and mention of her father,
set a tone of civility. And the president used that tone to argue for a
series of creative domestic initiatives. His health plan moves in the
direction of universal, government-subsidized, individual ownership of
private health plans, the only feasible alternative to a statist
reorganization of American health care. His immigration plan repudiates the
worst, nativist elements of his own party, and has an improved chance of
passage in the new Congress. His energy plan recognizes that reduced
dependence on foreign oil is a national-security imperative, and his
prominent mention of tighter CAFÉ (corporate average fuel economy) standards
is a necessary departure from Republican orthodoxy.

On foreign policy, the president combined subtle analysis with a blunt
appeal for patience. His historical comparison of the successes of the war
on terror in 2005 with the challenges of 2006, when the terrorists and
dictators "struck back," and his explanation of Sunni and Shia radicalism,
exceeded the usual level of State of the Union sophistication. The quietness
of the chamber during this sober section was clearly attentive, not
dismissive. Then he used the undeniable logic of this threat to argue for
the importance of success in Iraq, concluding with a direct request for the
Congress to support the military in their new strategy. Democrats did what
they had to do: they applauded.

The Democratic response by Virginia Sen. James Webb was also memorable, in a
different way. Whenever a politician puts out to the media that he has
thrown away the speechwriters’ draft and written the remarks himself (as
Webb did), it is often a sign of approaching mediocrity. This was worse.
Senator Webb made liberal use of clichés: the middle class is “the backbone�
of the country, which is losing its “place at the table.� I am not even sure
there is a literary term for a mixed metaphor that crosses two clichés. And
Senator Webb’s logic was as incoherent as his language (the two are often
related). No “precipitous withdrawal�—but retreat “in short order.� Fight
the war on terror vigorously—except where the terrorists have chosen to
fight it. It is, perhaps, a good thing that James Webb earned a job as
senator. As a speechwriter he would starve.

Perhaps the most compelling argument of the day was not made by President
Bush or Senator Webb—and it was made in five words. Earlier in the day,
General David Petraeus testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
When asked if he could get his job done in Iraq without additional troops,
he replied: “No, sir.� When asked if a congressional resolution of
disapproval of the “surge� could encourage the enemy, he said, “That’s
correct, sir.� Under these circumstances, it is hard to imagine what impulse
of arrogance could cause Republican senators like Warner and Collins to
actively undermine the operational judgment of a skilled commander in the
field, at the beginning of a decisive military campaign. The next week or so
will test the proposition: does the military chain of command end in the
Oval Office or on the Senate floor? I live in Virginia—but I have never
voted for either senator from Virginia to be commander in chief.

[ECW]

Only a political hack like a former speechwriter for a chimp to come up with such a sack-o-crap. Chimpy exceeded expectations by delivering a coherent speech that nevertheless confused the War On Terror with the War In Iraq. He never mentioned New Orleans (a part of the Union last time I checked) and he took up Democratic causes all up and down the board. Did the Democrats applaud? You damn tootin' they did because they realized the Commander In Chief was in THEIR ballpark now, singing their national anthem and playing by their rules. Ignore all this at your own risk.

As for Jim Webb, former Republican who quit the party over this ill-begotten war, discarding his speechwriter was the best thing he could have done because his speech came off as true, honest, devoid of phony sounding platitudes, and, best of all, real. That's something no Republican speechwriter in the world can duplicate. The jealousy is obvious even way down here in Texas.

[BoogyMan]

Their national anthem, ECW?

Wow.

[wonder cow]

I think that that Jim Webb did much better than Chimpy, myself.

[ECW]

Their national anthem, ECW?

Wow.


Democrats have been harping on the health care crisis for years now while Republican Congress after Republican Congress has sat on their hands and done nothing. All of a sudden, the Democrats win and find themselves in power and what does YOUR president come up with? A health care plan. Like I said, pal, singing their national anthem.

[BoogyMan]

Their national anthem, ECW?

Wow.


Democrats have been harping on the health care crisis for years now while Republican Congress after Republican Congress has sat on their hands and done nothing. All of a sudden, the Democrats win and find themselves in power and what does YOUR president come up with? A health care plan. Like I said, pal, singing their national anthem.


Ahh so when he agrees with the democrat party he is now an American?

Egads.

[Elrathin]

Ahh so when he agrees with the democrat party he is now an American?

Egads.


Boogy, why are you nitpicking words? You know as I he is using the national anthem as a metaphor. Quit playing Flea, it doesn't suit you.

[BoogyMan]

Ahh so when he agrees with the democrat party he is now an American?

Egads.


Boogy, why are you nitpicking words? You know as I he is using the national anthem as a metaphor. Quit playing Flea, it doesn't suit you.


I don't know that, but hope he will much more eloquently explain it.

[Elrathin]

I don't know that, but hope he will much more eloquently explain it.


:rolleyes:

Ok Boogy, have it your way, I thought you were better than that.

[ECW]

Their national anthem, ECW?

Wow.


Democrats have been harping on the health care crisis for years now while Republican Congress after Republican Congress has sat on their hands and done nothing. All of a sudden, the Democrats win and find themselves in power and what does YOUR president come up with? A health care plan. Like I said, pal, singing their national anthem.


Ahh so when he agrees with the democrat party he is now an American?

Egads.


It must be tough carrying the burden of the Worst President Ever on your back otherwise you would not make such assinine statements. Here is my original line: You damn tootin' they did because they realized the Commander In Chief was in THEIR ballpark now, singing their national anthem and playing by their rules.

Nothing in there about being an American. Nothing in there that says he was actually singing. Nothing in there that says he bought a hot dog while at the ballpark. Egads yourself.

Get with the program. What took Chimpy so long to propose a health care program? He had a compliant Congress until this year. He could have pushed this through like he did with everything else. Why now? I'll tell you. L-E-G-A-C-Y. With the War in Iraq going to hell, the national debt going through the roof because of his undiscplined budgets, incompetent management of the government itself and his two major accomplishments (NCLB and Medicare Drug Benefit) wallowing in bureaucratic stumblings, he needs something good to go out on. So he grabs one of our hallmarks (since all of his are gone) and brings it to us for our approval.

The Democratic Party couldn't be more pleased that Chimpy can see the writing on the wall.

on edit: toss me another softball Boogy... the new guy located below this statement is ready to hit it out of the ballpark as well.

[Stoner]

Ahh so when he agrees with the democrat party he is now an American?




Now you're starting to see ECWs mindset. He's very "selective" in his thinking.

[Elrathin]

Now you're starting to see ECWs mindset. He's very "selective" in his thinking.


Care to back up the claims that ECW said that Bush wasn't an American? Oh wait that would require proof from you.

[BoogyMan]

I don't know that, but hope he will much more eloquently explain it.


:rolleyes:

Ok Boogy, have it your way, I thought you were better than that.


That kind of commentary bears scrutiny.

[BoogyMan]

It must be tough carrying the burden of the Worst President Ever on your back otherwise you would not make such assinine statements. Here is my original line: You damn tootin' they did because they realized the Commander In Chief was in THEIR ballpark now, singing their national anthem and playing by their rules.

I have no tie to the Carter presidency! :D

Nothing in there about being an American. Nothing in there that says he was actually singing. Nothing in there that says he bought a hot dog while at the ballpark. Egads yourself.

Seems to me that we have the SAME national anthem. Your usage of that as some kind of allegorical tool has a knock on effect of meaning that he wasn't "singing the national anthem" until he was forced to by the liberals.

Words have meanings, maybe not what you intended, but that is the impression you leave when you make such abjectly partisan comments.

[Stoner]

I have no tie to the Carter presidency

I think ECW believes if he keeps saying Bush is the worst president then it will eventually become true. Yet another example of how these libs have nothing but hate inside. I can't imagine going through life full of anger 24/7.

[Elrathin]

Words have meanings, maybe not what you intended, but that is the impression you leave when you make such abjectly partisan comments.


Sorry Boogy, but even I was able to tell he was using a metaphor. So if you want to play that game, maybe you should play it with some of our rampant "liberal hater" posters.

[BoogyMan]

Words have meanings, maybe not what you intended, but that is the impression you leave when you make such abjectly partisan comments.


Sorry Boogy, but even I was able to tell he was using a metaphor. So if you want to play that game, maybe you should play it with some of our rampant "liberal hater" posters.


I think you know me pretty well as a poster here Elrathin, I take true umbrage with with that kind of allegorical nonsense which holds little more than double entendre.

[ECW]

Now you're starting to see ECWs mindset.Â*Â*He's very "selective" in his thinking.


Care to back up the claims that ECW said that Bush wasn't an American?Â*Â*Oh wait that would require proof from you.


He's another Chesswarsnow and Fleabitmonkey. They can talk the talk but they can't bring proof. The resulting "opinions" are little more than fluff. Everyone's got one.

[ECW]

Words have meanings, maybe not what you intended, but that is the impression you leave when you make such abjectly partisan comments.


Sorry Boogy, but even I was able to tell he was using a metaphor.Â*Â*So if you want to play that game, maybe you should play it with some of our rampant "liberal hater" posters.


I think you know me pretty well as a poster here Elrathin, I take true umbrage with with that kind of allegorical nonsense which holds little more than double entendre.


The fact remains that here you are pissing a river about my metaphor but you ignored the thrust of my comments.

I guess when you don't have a comeback to the concept that Bush is now advancing Democratic ideals because his own ideals have been shot down you have to grab at whatever justifies that denial. OK by me.

[BoogyMan]

The fact remains that here you are pissing a river about my metaphor but you ignored the thrust of my comments.

I guess when you don't have a comeback to the concept that Bush is now advancing Democratic ideals because his own ideals have been shot down you have to grab at whatever justifies that denial. OK by me.

I love your examples ECW, they are so graphic.

I ignored your commentary because, as I previously said, the allegorical mess you posted IS a double entendre and I took umbrage with it.

If you wish to frame the discussion in such a way as to make yourself feel better that is fine, solves nothing, but fine.

[ECW]

The fact remains that here you are pissing a river about my metaphor but you ignored the thrust of my comments.

I guess when you don't have a comeback to the concept that Bush is now advancing Democratic ideals because his own ideals have been shot down you have to grab at whatever justifies that denial. OK by me.

I love your examples ECW, they are so graphic.

I ignored your commentary because, as I previously said, the allegorical mess you posted IS a double entendre and I took umbrage with it.

If you wish to frame the discussion in such a way as to make yourself feel better that is fine, solves nothing, but fine.


My, my, my. You sit there and fill up the crying towel with your crocodile tears that bad old hater ECW used a metaphor that implied that your illustrious WAR president was forced by the Liberals to sing the national anthem when he wasn't before. That partisan Liberal ECW allegorically stated that somehow this president wasn't all American until Democrats took over.

I'm not even going to try and justify my position anymore because it is very clear to me that you have a double standard here. It appears that you are the only one here who can take "umbrage" at someone else's comments and then refuse to engage in further discussion. You sit silently when your rightwing collegues throw the same partisan stuff our way and, by your silence, condone associating the Speaker of the House with a child molesting group without a shred of proof to back up his scurillous allegations and the feeble attempt to smear a United States Senator with an anti-Arab brush (despite the fact he is an avowed Christian) because he has a Muslim name. There's plenty of "umbrage" to go around, sparky. If you want to make your stand on this one, knock yourself out.

All it tells me is that your side has no problem dishing it out but lacks the stones to take it. If this is all it takes for you to take "umbrage" with me, better put me on Ignore right now. I'm just beginning to wail on the Worst President Ever: George Walker Bush. To conclude the baseball metaphor: BATTER UP! The next one's going out onto Waveland Avenue.

[BoogyMan]

My, my, my. You sit there and fill up the crying towel with your crocodile tears that bad old hater ECW used a metaphor that implied that your illustrious WAR president was forced by the Liberals to sing the national anthem when he wasn't before. That partisan Liberal ECW allegorically stated that somehow this president wasn't all American until Democrats took over.

I'm not even going to try and justify my position anymore because it is very clear to me that you have a double standard here. It appears that you are the only one here who can take "umbrage" at someone else's comments and then refuse to engage in further discussion. You sit silently when your rightwing collegues throw the same partisan stuff our way and, by your silence, condone associating the Speaker of the House with a child molesting group without a shred of proof to back up his scurillous allegations and the feeble attempt to smear a United States Senator with an anti-Arab brush (despite the fact he is an avowed Christian) because he has a Muslim name. There's plenty of "umbrage" to go around, sparky. If you want to make your stand on this one, knock yourself out.

All it tells me is that your side has no problem dishing it out but lacks the stones to take it. If this is all it takes for you to take "umbrage" with me, better put me on Ignore right now. I'm just beginning to wail on the Worst President Ever: George Walker Bush. To conclude the baseball metaphor: BATTER UP! The next one's going out onto Waveland Avenue.


When you can actually address my concern and the question I posted we can continue this discussion. Again the abject partisanship and "how dare you question me" attitude have lost you another debate.

[lily]

When you can actually address my concern and the question I posted we can continue this discussion.Â*Â*Again the abject partisanship and "how dare you question me" attitude have lost you another debate.


Are these the questions?

BoogyMan Wrote:
Their national anthem, ECW?

Ahh so when he agrees with the democrat party he is now an American?

Actually Boogy, he did answer both of your questions. You made it clear that you didn't like both of his answers.

[BoogyMan]

When you can actually address my concern and the question I posted we can continue this discussion. Again the abject partisanship and "how dare you question me" attitude have lost you another debate.


Are these the questions?

BoogyMan Wrote:
Their national anthem, ECW?

Ahh so when he agrees with the democrat party he is now an American?

Actually Boogy, he did answer both of your questions. You made it clear that you didn't like both of his answers.


No Lily, I got an anti-conservative tirade because I had the temerity to question the use of the national anthem as an allegorical tool and the fact that it was most likely double entendre. Nice try though. :D

[ECW]

You got your knickers in a twist over a BASEBALL metaphor. Chimpster used to own a franchise at one time, and a not very good one at that. YOU read your own twisted partisan crap into it and now you've wasted everyone else's time with a Flea-like tirade that has gone on all day. I'm to a point where I no longer give a tinker's damn about your opinion and your misplaced "umbrage." F this noise.

[BoogyMan]

Wow, I never expected a hissy. Oh well.

[Elrathin]

Wow, I never expected a hissy. Oh well.


And I never expected someone to nitpick an obvious metaphor.

Admit it Boogy, you were arguing for the sake of arguing on this one.

[BoogyMan]

Wow, I never expected a hissy. Oh well.


And I never expected someone to nitpick an obvious metaphor.

Admit it Boogy, you were arguing for the sake of arguing on this one.


Look Elrathin, that is just silly. I took umbrage with the commentary as I see it being a double entendre. Your choice to try and turn that into something else to justify your dismissal of my concern is indicative of what I previously stated as a "how dare you question me" attitude.

[Elrathin]

Look Elrathin, that is just silly. I took umbrage with the commentary as I see it being a double entendre. Your choice to try and turn that into something else to justify your dismissal of my concern is indicative of what I previously stated as a "how dare you question me" attitude.


Again, that is your choice Boogy, but after I defined it for you and then ECW defined it for you, you still wouldn't accept it as being nothing more than a metaphor. So again, arguing for the sake of arguing. Anyway if you wish to deny that, it's fine, but to a lot of people it looked nothing more than a Flea tactic. I'm not alone in that observation.

But I'm done with this now, however, I am quite disappointed in your actions to take it this far.

[BoogyMan]

Look Elrathin, that is just silly. I took umbrage with the commentary as I see it being a double entendre. Your choice to try and turn that into something else to justify your dismissal of my concern is indicative of what I previously stated as a "how dare you question me" attitude.


Again, that is your choice Boogy, but after I defined it for you and then ECW defined it for you, you still wouldn't accept it as being nothing more than a metaphor. So again, arguing for the sake of arguing. Anyway if you wish to deny that, it's fine, but to a lot of people it looked nothing more than a Flea tactic. I'm not alone in that observation.

But I'm done with this now, however, I am quite disappointed in your actions to take it this far.


Egads Elrathin, I guess I am not allowed to have a view of something that is different than that of the liberals who post commentary or to question it.

[piratemonkey]

Egads Elrathin, I guess I am not allowed to have a view of something that is different than that of the liberals who post commentary or to question it.


Not when the writer of the metaphor told you it's a metaphor.Â*Â*;)

[BoogyMan]

And then in his own commentary, while claiming it to be a metaphor, made comments that intimate his belief in what I had originally taken issue with. :D

[Elrathin]

Egads Elrathin, I guess I am not allowed to have a view of something that is different than that of the liberals who post commentary or to question it.


Noone said you couldn't have a different view, however, when the author and another person (me) have explained that it was a metaphor and you STILL question it, it becomes a Flea tactic in your posts. Ie. arguiing for the sake of arguiing.

[BoogyMan]

Elrathin, words have meanings. Sometimes more than one. I perceive bias as my commentary with reference to the double entendre points out. You may not feel it is such, but you are not the original poster and you didn't write the original commentary. I am not arguing for the sake of arguing, I am pointing out what I perceive.

[NortheastCynic]

So, uh, are we going to debate the content of what ECDub said, now that we know it's a metaphor...Not that this grammar debate isn't riveting.

-NC

[BoogyMan]

So, uh, are we going to debate the content of what ECDub said, now that we know it's a metaphor...Not that this grammar debate isn't riveting.

-NC


Grammar debate? Egads NC. Who cares if the commentary ECW provided belies an attitude other than that which he has now claimed? Moving on.....

ECW ranted thusly:

Only a political hack like a former speechwriter for a chimp to come up with such a sack-o-crap. Chimpy exceeded expectations by delivering a coherent speech that nevertheless confused the War On Terror with the War In Iraq. He never mentioned New Orleans (a part of the Union last time I checked) and he took up Democratic causes all up and down the board. Did the Democrats applaud? You damn tootin' they did because they realized the Commander In Chief was in THEIR ballpark now, singing their national anthem and playing by their rules. Ignore all this at your own risk.

What part was the sack of crap ECW? Is it the part where he realized that he doesn't have a republican majority in the senate any longer and is now making an attempt to work with what he got handed to him?

As for Jim Webb, former Republican who quit the party over this ill-begotten war, discarding his speechwriter was the best thing he could have done because his speech came off as true, honest, devoid of phony sounding platitudes, and, best of all, real. That's something no Republican speechwriter in the world can duplicate. The jealousy is obvious even way down here in Texas.

Jealousy? What a ridiculous comment.

You must have listened to a different Webb speech than I did. What I heard was what dump the country is and that only the democrat party can save us. I also heard a bunch of classist warfare garbage that does little more than stir up hatred towards those who may have more than others.

[NortheastCynic]

Grammar debate?Â*Â*Egads NC.Â*Â*Who cares if the commentary ECW provided belies an attitude other than that which he has now claimed?Â*Â*Moving on.....I've watched as this debate has gone four pages concerned exclusively about what ECW meant by "our national anthemn"...Egads indeed.
You must have listened to a different Webb speech than I did.Â*Â*What I heard was what dump the country is and that only the democrat party can save us.Â*Â*I also heard a bunch of classist warfare garbage that does little more than stir up hatred towards those who may have more than others. There's no such thing as the Democrat Party.Â*Â*I understand how this may seem hypocritical for me to say after just complaining of the grammar debate here, but "Democrat Party" is quickly becoming a slur for the Democratic Party.Â*Â*Moving on, I don't disagree with you.Â*Â*Webb was a new face with some of the same old stuff.Â*Â*He echoed the Democratic line about the middle class and the Republican "attack" on them.Â*Â*Not all that much substance to it, but then again, there wasn't much substance to the State of the Union he was responding to.

-NC

[BoogyMan]

I don't disagree with you. Webb was a new face with some of the same old stuff. He echoed the Democratic line about the middle class and the Republican "attack" on them. Not all that much substance to it, but then again, there wasn't much substance to the State of the Union he was responding to.

-NC


I am resisting the urge to laugh at the previous hypocrisy. :D

The SOTU was essentially the same speech given the last two years. I NEVER intimated that the SOTU was a great speech.

Webb however truly surprised me. I cannot imagine that someone like Webb truly believes the classist warrior garbage he was delivering.

[NortheastCynic]

I am resisting the urge to laugh at the previous hypocrisy.
I can understand that. Just understand that my point about "Democrat Party" becoming a slur for the Democratic Party. This isn't a matter of grammar, but a matter of fact...After all, is it really that hard just to type the "ic"?
The SOTU was essentially the same speech given the last two years. Webb however truly surprised me. I cannot imagine that someone like Webb truly believes the classist warrior garbage he was delivering.I'm with you all the way there, Boogy. Cynic as I am, I just think they're doing it to gain votes. If they can convince the Middle Class [who, as polls have shown, inidividually think that they are doing well financially] that they are being attacked, they will then panic and vote Democrat-ic :P. It's all a ploy for votes, in my view.

-NC

[BoogyMan]

I can understand that. Just understand that my point about "Democrat Party" becoming a slur for the Democratic Party. This isn't a matter of grammar, but a matter of fact...After all, is it really that hard just to type the "ic"?

I find this to be ridiculous.

[NortheastCynic]

That's fine. Ask any Democrat here "Is the term 'Democrat Party' being used as a negative term by Republicans or those on the right?" I don't understand why, I don't know when it started and I don't know why people continue to use it, but they do. But I suggest we agree to disagree about this...otherwise it'd might go on for 4 pages.

Anyway, we are on the same page in terms of the actual topic, which is nice. I really hope that such a tactic doesn't work, but I'm not optimistic.

-NC

[BoogyMan]

That's fine. Ask any Democrat here "Is the term 'Democrat Party' being used as a negative term by Republicans or those on the right?" I don't understand why, I don't know when it started and I don't know why people continue to use it, but they do. But I suggest we agree to disagree about this...otherwise it'd might go on for 4 pages.

Anyway, we are on the same page in terms of the actual topic, which is nice. I really hope that such a tactic doesn't work, but I'm not optimistic.

-NC


Debate is debate, why does half the commentary on this board directed at conservatives call us neocons? THAT term IS used in a derogatory way where the other is most often not, at least when used by myself in any case.

Webb has me confused and a bit off guard at the commentary, especially if he wrote it himself which I am starting to doubt. Wolf in sheeps clothing? Could be.

[NortheastCynic]

Debate is debate, why does half the commentary on this board directed at conservatives call us neocons? THAT term IS used in a derogatory way where the other is most often not, at least when used by myself in any case.Agreed. I don't like the use of that pejorative either. Terms like that are useless.
Webb has me confused and a bit off guard at the commentary, especially if he wrote it himself which I am starting to doubt. Wolf in sheeps clothing? Could be.Possibly. But as I said earlier, I just think it's a ploy to gain back the middle class that the Democrats have lost over the past elections. Either way, it just seems like fluffy rhetoric to me.

-NC

[ECW]

That's fine.Â*Â*Ask any Democrat here "Is the term 'Democrat Party' being used as a negative term by Republicans or those on the right?"Â*Â*I don't understand why, I don't know when it started and I don't know why people continue to use it, but they do.Â*Â*But I suggest we agree to disagree about this...otherwise it'd might go on for 4 pages.

Anyway, we are on the same page in terms of the actual topic, which is nice.Â*Â*I really hope that such a tactic doesn't work, but I'm not optimistic.

-NC


Debate is debate, why does half the commentary on this board directed at conservatives call us neocons?Â*Â*THAT term IS used in a derogatory way where the other is most often not, at least when used by myself in any case.


'Democrat Party'

While Bush may have softened his belligerent style slightly since the Republican defeat in the November 2006 elections, he still couldn’t muster enough politeness to refer to the “Democratic� Party in his State of the Union.

For years, tough-talking Republicans have made it a point of insult to drop the “-ic� and use “Democrat� as the adjective. This phrasing has become a mark of the swaggering Republicans who have dominated this era of U.S. politics. It's the partisan equivalent of willfully mispronouncing the foreign-sounding name of a disliked neighbor.

So, even as Bush was supposedly trying to be gracious to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, he couldn’t stop himself from congratulating the “Democrat majority.�

~link~ (http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/012407.html)