Washington Examiner Posts RSS Feed

D.C. United back on the road for U.S. Open Cup

Craig Stouffer — Thu, 24 May 2012 00:56:14 +0000

D.C. United will play its first U.S. Open Cup game away from home since 2007 when it travels to meet the Richmond Kickers at Richmond City Stadium on May 29 in the third round of this year’s retooled version of the storied knockout tournament.

United hasn’t played an Open Cup game away from Washington since a 1-0 loss to the Harrisburg City Islanders on a high school field in Lancaster County five years ago. Playing all home games, D.C. won the tournament in 2008 and advanced to the final in 2009. Changes this year mean that the venue is picked blindly if both competing teams wish to host. The tournament’s other major change is that instead of an MLS qualifying tournament just to get into the tournament, every U.S. team in MLS is participating in the third round.

The Kickers, who play in USL Pro, the third tier of American pro soccer, last met D.C. United in 2-0 loss at George Mason in 2010. They defeated the Dulles SportsPlex Aegean Hawks, 4-0, on Tuesday, to reach the third round.

Should D.C. United defeat Richmond, they’ll move on to the fourth round and host the winner of Philadelphia Union-Rochester Rhinos – who also play next Tuesday evening – at Maryland SoccerPlex. The match will take place on either Tuesday, June 5, or Wednesday, June 6.

With the potential of two Open Cup matches in consecutive weeks and a reserve match against Toronto FC on Saturday, June 9, United now has the chance to play three times during its break in MLS play following this weekend’s league game against New England.

D.C. and Richmond have met four times prior in Open Cup play. In 2001, United got two goals from Abdul Thompson Conteh in a 2-1 quarterfinal win at RFK Stadium. In 2004, Richmond, playing at home, got a goal on either side of halftime and defeated D.C., 2-1. The following year, two Christian Gomez goals and a tally from Freddy Adu in a 3-1 United victory in the fourth round of play.

D.C. United midfielder Dwayne De Rosario’s professional career took off when he signed with Richmond in 1999 at the age of 21. He had his breakthrough season in 2000, with 16 goals and six assists, leading the Kickers to a 20-7-1 record. The following year, he joined the San Jose Earthquakes.

The full schedule and pairings are here.

Jim Parsons comes out in New York Times profile

Jennifer Milbrett — Wed, 23 May 2012 23:03:18 +0000

"The Big Bang Theory" star Jim Parsons, 39, quietly came out of the closet during an interview with the New York Times on Wednesday.

Times writer Patrick Healy's profile notes, "Mr. Parsons is gay and in a 10-year relationship, and working with an ensemble again onstage was like nourishment."

Out.com says Jim "has lived as a gay man in his private life, but in his professional public life he skirted the issue."

For Trayvon, justice. For others, not so much.

Gregory Kane — Wed, 23 May 2012 22:00:00 +0000

Sybrina Fulton came to Baltimore on Sunday, to "see some of the thousands who have stood with her family to demand justice for her son," according to a story in the Baltimore Sun.

Fulton is the mother of Trayvon Martin, who was only 17 years old when he was fatally shot in Sanford, Fla., on Feb. 26. George Zimmerman has been charged with second-degree murder in Martin's slaying.

Martin -- or his death, at least -- has become a national cause celebre in the past few months. Fulton is right: Thousands have stood with her family to "demand justice." But I have some bad news for her.

None of them should have been from Baltimore. Residents of that city should indeed be demanding justice for someone, but Trayvon Martin isn't that someone.

I guarantee you that not one of the people who attended Baltimore's Empowerment Temple this past Sunday and gave Fulton a standing ovation when she visited the church can remember the names Jennifer Morelock and Jason David Woycio.

Morelock and Woycio were from Carroll County, Md. They were visiting a part of West Baltimore known for drug activity. And they were white, which is very pertinent to this story.

On that April day in 2006, some thug shot both of them, fatally. A police lieutenant acting on a tip stopped a 17-year-old black youth -- yes, his race is pertinent to this story too -- shortly afterward and got his consent to search his cellphone for other numbers that might have been those of gang members.

While searching the phone for other numbers, the police lieutenant happened to find this text message:

"I shot 2 white people around my way 2day and 1 of them was a woman."

The lieutenant arrested the youth and charged him with murder. What looked like a slam-dunk, open-and-shut first-degree murder case went south when the state's attorney's office threw out the charges. The reason? The lieutenant had only received consent to search for phone numbers. The search for text messages was illegal.

I contended then and contend now that dropping the charges based on that reasoning was taking the exclusionary rule a little too far. And I also contended this: Had the races of the suspect and the victims been reversed, the charges never would have been dropped.

That's why Maryland Del. Patrick McDonough was perfectly justified when he issued a press release recently with the headline "Black Youth Mobs Terrorize Inner Harbor on Holidays."

McDonough, whose district includes eastern Baltimore County and part of Harford County, was called a racist for his candor. But McDonough knows, as do Baltimore's elected officials, that race determines what kind of justice you get in Baltimore, if you get any at all.

After six years, the families of Morelock and Woycio are still waiting to get the justice due them. Elected officials in Baltimore refuse even to acknowledge they were murdered, much less suggest they get anything resembling justice.

Gov. Martin O'Malley was mayor of Baltimore when Morelock and Woycio were murdered. He mumbled not one word about charges being dropped against the suspect.

Mind you, as mayor, O'Malley criticized just about every decision then-State's Attorney Patricia Jessamy made. Except that one.

Mayor Sheila Dixon, who followed O'Malley, has said not one word.

Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, who followed Dixon, hasn't said one word.

Current State's Attorney Gregg Bernstein, who somehow managed to run against, and criticize, Jessamy without once mentioning the names Morelock and Woycio, has been mum too.

And the Empowerment Temple's congregation is more upset about a murder that took place way down in Florida than one that happened right in their own town.

Trayvon Martin was black; Morelock and Woycio were white. Does ANYONE detect the stench of racism here?

Examiner Columnist Gregory Kane is a Pulitzer nominated news and opinion journalist who has covered people and politics from Baltimore to the Sudan.

Examiner Local Editorial: Civil war erupts over Alexandria's waterfront scheme

Examiner Editorial — Wed, 23 May 2012 22:00:00 +0000

A simmering controversy over the Alexandria City Council's decision to redevelop the city's historic waterfront erupted into open legal warfare on May 11, when the council and the city's director of planning and zoning filed a lawsuit against their own Board of Zoning Appeals and five private individuals. The suit asks the Circuit Court to reverse last month's BZA ruling that essentially invalidates the council's January approval of a waterfront development plan.

Two days before the council vote, nearby landowners who would be directly affected by the high-density development tried to file a protest petition against the proposed changes to the city's master plan. But Planning and Zoning Director Faroll Hamer refused to accept it -- twice -- claiming such a petition can be submitted only when the city's actual zoning map is being altered, as opposed to the text of the city's zoning law. After a marathon 11-hour meeting in which more than 100 city residents testified, including members of the Citizens for an Alternative Alexandria Waterfront Plan who accused Alexandria officials of "selling our city down the river," the council voted 5-2 to approve the new development, which includes two boutique hotels.

Irate citizens appealed to the Circuit Court and lost. They then took their case to the BZA, a quasi-judicial board that routinely provides the last word on disputes arising from Alexandria's often-confusing zoning laws. On April 12, BZA members voted 4-2 that Hamer had improperly refused to accept the citizens' protest petition. Had she accepted it, the council would have been required by law to come up with a supermajority of six votes to pass the waterfront plan, instead of the five they got.

The council's lawsuit offers several excuses as to why the BZA ruling should not be considered legitimate, including a hair-splitting distinction between "text" and "map" amendments. It also argues that the opinion of a city employee like Hamer is entitled to greater deference than an official vote by the public body charged with adjudicating the city's zoning disputes. Alexandria City Manager Rashad Young insists the city isn't suing itself, even though that appears to be exactly what it is doing.

As Alexandria officials turn on one another, at least one good thing has come out of this costly legal battle. "This has brought many local Democrats and Republicans together for the first time ever," one of the petition-signers wrote recently in a public letter. Hopefully, they will remain united long enough to choose new public officials who are more responsive to citizen input.

The media's religion deficit

Cal Thomas — Wed, 23 May 2012 22:00:00 +0000

Big media has a bias against religion that doesn't advance the secular and liberal agenda of the Democratic Party -- the evidence is beyond dispute. Any faith attached to a conservative agenda is to be ridiculed, stereotyped and misrepresented. (Islam is a notable exception. The media appear to bend over backward not to offend Muslims.)

The Washington Post on Monday, reporting from Carrollton, Ark., uncovered an event that occurred nearly 155 years ago, and then sought to link it to the presidential candidacy of Mitt Romney: "On Sept. 11, 1857, a wagon train from this part of Arkansas met with a gruesome fate in Utah, where most of the travelers were slaughtered by a Mormon militia in an episode known as the Mountain Meadows Massacre."

The Romney connection? "There aren't many places in America more likely to be suspicious of Mormonism -- and potentially problematic for Mitt Romney, who is seeking to become the country's first Mormon president."

As Carrollton, Ark., goes, so goes the nation? Would the Post question the legitimacy and faith of a Muslim candidate for Congress, or any office, because of 9/11? Do you even have to ask? Should the Spanish Inquisition reflect on a Catholic candidate?

Since Jimmy Carter announced during the 1976 presidential campaign that he was a born-again Christian, the media have been fascinated by religion, but not so much that they would labor to understand it. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is a devout Mormon, but Reid gets a media pass on his faith because he toes the line on the secular left's agenda, from abortion to same-sex marriage, which Reid endorsed last week. That his church teaches the opposite of the way he votes doesn't appear to concern him. Senator Orrin Hatch, also a Mormon, is running for re-election in Utah. Hatch is less scary to the media because he made friends with the late Senator Ted Kennedy, with whom he occasionally cooperated on legislation.

Former New York Governor Mario Cuomo, a devout Catholic, opposes the death penalty, as does the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church also opposes the "death penalty" for the unborn, but Cuomo challenged the Church's position on abortion in his speech at Notre Dame in 1984, titled "Religious Belief and Public Morality: A Catholic Governor's Perspective." Why did no reporter press Cuomo on his "cafeteria theology"? Answer: because his positions on both the death penalty and abortion reflect the views of most in big media.

The questions reporters should be asking Mitt Romney are not about his style of worship or about Mormon theology, but rather, which of his Church's beliefs he thinks are connected to earthly policies and which ones, if any, he will attempt to implement should he become president.

On her Washington Post blog, Jennifer Rubin says the media has a "Mormon Obsession": "In sum, the left's obsession with Romney's faith tells us more about their ignorance of faithful people of all religions than anything else. ... Whether born of ignorance (i.e. that other faiths don't share these essential values) or rank bias or intention to paint Romney as weird, the definition of Romney as nothing more than a Mormon stick figure is pernicious in our political culture and begs the question: Why is the media entirely uninterested in Obama's religious influences, and indeed has dubbed such discussion racist?"

Journalists and media organizations should be required to take advanced religion courses so they can better understand faith, explain it accurately and ask the right questions of candidates who believe in an Authority higher than the state.

Examiner Columnist Cal Thomas is nationally syndicated by Tribune Media.

Dim Bulb: Charles Worley

Commentary Writer — Wed, 23 May 2012 22:00:00 +0000

Who: Pastor Charles Worley, Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, N.C.

What: "Build a great big, large fence -- 100 miles long -- put all the lesbians in there, fly over and drop some food," Worley said during a sermon earlier this month. "Do the same thing with the queers and homosexuals and have that fence electrified so they can't get out ... and in a few years they will die out."

Why it's dim: This doesn't sound like the sort of thing Jesus would do. Once the video of this sermon was posted on Drudge Report, it only helped foster the false impression that all opponents of same-sex marriage are hateful bigots.

Cure: Apologize. Retract. Resign. It's not your place to cast the first stone.

Examiner Editorial: No taxpayer money for Obamacare propaganda

Examiner Editorial — Wed, 23 May 2012 22:00:00 +0000

PRWeek magazine announced this week that the federal Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, had signed a $20 million contract with the public relations firm Porter Novelli to "educate" the public about Obamacare. This means that if you pay taxes, President Obama is using your own money to propagandize you and your family, in an election year, in favor of the unpopular health care law that probably cost his party its majority control of Congress in the last election.

Liberals are defending this. The Center for American Progress argues that more than $262 million has been spent "campaigning against Obamacare so far. Educating people about the benefits of Obamacare, such as that preventive services are available at no additional cost, and counteracting the misinformation campaign will be vital to the law's success."

But there is a very clear difference between this PR contract, which is paid for with your money, and the millions of their own money that Obamacare's opponents invested to educate Americans about the law.

This isn't the first time Obama has spent your tax dollars promoting his political agenda. His $831 billion stimulus package contained more than $33.5 million for Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide, including $17.9 million for a "publicity center" promoting HHS products. During the 2010 election season, the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services spent $3.1 million on television ads in which Andy Griffith reassured seniors that Obamacare "guaranteed Medicare benefits will remain the same." At the time, FactCheck.org noted that "the words in this ad ring hollow," and that it contained "weasel words" to "mislead" seniors.

Under a completely separate Ogilvy contract, HHS New Media Communications Director Julia Eisman coordinated with the PR firm to drive Internet traffic to an HHS website promoting Obamacare just in time for election day. "Given the high performance, we're wondering if we should we consider reallocating resources from the lesser performing words and put more $$ to 'Obamacare' -- at least for the next 7 days," Eisman wrote in an email to an Ogilvy executive, exactly seven days before the November 2012 election.

The Eisman email may violate the Hatch Act, the 1939 law that prohibits employees in the executive branch of the federal government from engaging in partisan political activity. But even where there are no legal questions, government propaganda is, at best, a waste of money. A March 2012 Congressional Research Service Report found government agencies spent more than $900 million on contracts for advertising services in 2010 alone. Aside from the Pentagon, which uses advertising to recruit, the biggest spenders are HHS and the Treasury Department. Is any of this really necessary?

Americans still hate Obamacare. According to a recent survey by Rasmussen Reports, 56 percent of likely voters want it repealed. It is bad enough that American citizens have to pay for the management and execution of federal programs they never wanted. They shouldn't have to pay for propaganda promoting these programs as well.

In the Romney era, Dems could be conservatives' best friends

Philip Klein — Wed, 23 May 2012 22:00:00 +0000

If Mitt Romney is elected president, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid could become conservatives' new best friends.

Admittedly, that might be a bit of an exaggeration -- but only a bit. The ironic truth is that if congressional Democrats pursue an obstructionist strategy in a potential Romney administration, they could give conservatives in the House and Senate more sway over policy.

In my new e-book, "Conservative survival in the Romney era," I argue that even though Romney is now the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, conservatives must keep the pressure on him from the Right.

Short-term political considerations caused conservatives to remain silent when Bush and congressional Republicans tossed aside limited government principles. Partly as a result, federal spending soared, rising from $1.86 trillion in 2001 to $2.98 trillion in 2008, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That's an increase of 60 percent in just seven years, and it doesn't even include TARP, which went out in fiscal 2009.

If Romney believes he can take conservative support for granted, it's much more likely he'll migrate leftward as Bush did and embrace big-government policies, should he become president.

Though many conservatives have memories of Democratic judicial filibusters during the Bush era, Democrats did not obstruct Bush as much early on. He received crossover support for "No Child Left Behind," which passed on an overwhelming bipartisan basis. Though the Medicare prescription drug law, which added $14.3 trillion to the long-term entitlement deficit, was a much closer shave, 16 House Democrats broke ranks to support the legislation, enabling Bush to get it over the top. (The Medicare bill passed the House in 2003 after a marathon three-hour vote, by a slim 220 to 215 margin, with only 25 Republican defections.)

Democrats were less willing to cooperate with Bush as his presidency wore on, and the trend toward increased partisanship in Washington carried over into the Obama presidency.

When President Obama came into office in January 2009 with sky-high approval ratings, Republicans faced a choice as to whether to provide votes for his agenda or to oppose him vigorously. The GOP remained united against his policies, at the risk of being labeled "The Party of No." Policy considerations aside, it was an objectively smart political calculation. Had Obama's policies proven popular, Democrats would have maintained power even if Republicans had gone along with them. Because Obama's policies proved unpopular, Republicans were in a strong position to run against them.

A perfect example of this came with the health care reform bill. Not a single Republican voted for the final bill in the House or Senate, and so the GOP was able to batter Democrats on the issue. In 2010, any one of the Democrats seeking re-election in the Senate could be described as the deciding vote for Obamacare.

Given the increased polarization between the two parties, a President Romney would likely face the same kind of lockstep resistance from Democrats, who will seek to deny him any easy victories. This would not only be payback for Republican behavior toward Obama, but also a gamble that they will be able to capitalize when Romney's political fortunes sour.

And this is where conservatives can benefit. If Romney enjoys bipartisan support for his initiatives in Congress, he can credibly threaten wavering Republicans to support big-government policies as Bush did: "If you don't support this bill, I can cut a deal with Democrats that would be further to the Left." But if Democrats are completely intransigent, congressional conservatives can reply: "Good luck with that."

As long as a bloc of conservatives stands firm in the House and Senate (should Republicans take control), they'll wield tremendous influence over the legislative agenda in a prospective Romney administration.

Philip Klein is senior editorial writer for The Examiner. He can be reached at pklein@washingtonexaminer.com.

Indians, Orioles sitting in first, at least for now

Brian McNally — Wed, 23 May 2012 21:48:01 +0000

No one actually believes the Baltimore Orioles or the Cleveland Indians are going to win their respective divisions. The American League East is too tough, the thinking goes, and the AL Central -- well, Detroit is clearly better than Cleveland anyway.

But a hot start still does wonders. Both teams are in first place on May 24 and show no signs yet of faltering. The Orioles last had a winning season in 1998. The Indians last had a winning season in 2007 when they made the playoffs.

But Cleveland has been here before. Last season it was in first place on May ?20 with a 27-15 record -- the exact record Baltimore had on May 20 this season. The Indians actually were in first place as late as July 20. But while they eventually finished with a losing record, it wasn't until injuries crippled them in the second half that they fell below .500.

The Orioles, given the dire predictions for them before this season, probably would take a winning campaign and run with it.

The problem for both teams is depth. Cleveland has top prospect Lonnie Chisenhall waiting to take over an infield spot, if needed, but most of its best minor leaguers are in the lower levels and of no help this summer.

The Orioles' lineup is solid, but the rotation, while better than expected, has little behind it. Jason Hammel, acquired from Colorado in a trade and pitching beautifully, already has had his knee drained. Baltimore has top prospect Zach Britton making a rehab start at Double-A Bowie this week, and he could be ready to return from a shoulder injury early next month. But it's not a group that can survive much injury or regression.

- Brian McNally

bmcnally@washingtonexaminer.com

For Bird, Bird, Bird, the word is soft

Craig Stouffer — Wed, 23 May 2012 21:48:01 +0000

The only problem with Larry Bird calling out the Indiana Pacers was that it may have come one game too late.

"I can't believe my team went soft," the Pacers president told the Indianapolis Star late Tuesday. "S-O-F-T. I'm disappointed. I never thought it would happen."

But the Miami Heat's 115-83 rout over Indiana in Game 5 of the Eastern Conference semifinals was merely a continuation of what had begun in Game 4 -- after the Pacers mistakenly believed they had clinched the series by winning Games 2 and 3.

It was after a 137-104 loss to the Lakers in Game 3 of the 1984 NBA Finals that Bird called his Boston Celtics teammates "sissies." They went on to win in seven. The Pacers, down 3-2, don't have any margin for error.

The Pacers are young and inexperienced, so perhaps they don't know better. And as impressive as he has been, perhaps Indiana coach Frank Vogel has a little too much good cop in him.

Which makes Bird's swooping in with a dose of tough love all the more appropriate.

- Craig Stouffer

cstouffer@washingtonexaminer.com