Category: Marty Toohey
Maloney’s Last Days
By Marty Toohey
WASHINGTON, Dec. 04, 2002–Goodbye, Jim Maloney – at least ’til next week.
That’s when Maloney is expected to decide what he’ll do next year. And the recently defeated congressman couldn’t help blushing slightly when mentioning that he’s been contacted about several jobs, “which is always nice and a little flattering.”
But he’s pledged to stay in the public eye, and said he’s not inclined to return to his private law practice, where he spent 16 years as a real estate lawyer. He said he wants to stay in Connecticut, and he mentioned interests in higher-education administration and non-profit agencies.
He also mentioned the following public office possibilities “down the road”: running for mayor of his hometown, Danbury, next year; trying to win the 5th Congressional District seat in 2004; and possibly running for governor in 2006.
Public office “is something I will give serious consideration to, but it’s not the only thing I’ve thought about,” he said.
Maloney is not alone in looking for work after losing to his fellow incumbent, Republican Nancy Johnson, in the redrawn 5th Congressional District; members of his staff also are in the job market. Maloney’s offices, in Washington, Waterbury, Danbury and Meriden, will close in January, but staff members declined to discuss their job searches. Maloney’s Washington office has been moved into a cramped, temporary suite for outgoing members.
“Jim’s staff are very hardworking and valuable people,” John Olsen, chairman of the Connecticut Democratic Party, said in an interview about Maloney. “Too often we focus on the candidate and don’t talk about the staff and their efforts.”
Olsen and other Maloney peers praised his lawmaking ability and determination. Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd called him a “dogged” legislator, and Republican Rep. Chris Shays said he expects Maloney, whom he called “tremendously hardworking,” to remain in public life.
Democratic Rep. John Larson, who also served in the state legislature with Maloney, said Maloney was “a real tribune for his constituents.”
“Aside from being a workaholic, he was one of the most tenacious and talented people to serve in any legislature,” Larson said. “I don’t think he ever took a break.”
Maloney survived for three terms, Olsen pointed out, in a blue-collar district almost evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, a constituency for which he had to carefully craft his voting record. Satisfying that constituency, Larson said, was something only a representative intimately plugged into his district could do.
Ultimately, though, Maloney couldn’t sway enough of the newly drawn district’s swing voters to continue representing Connecticut in Congress. But despite the negative tone surrounding the recent campaign, he said he laid the groundwork for future public office possibilities.
He said that from the 30 towns incorporated into the new 5th District to the “hundreds of people I’d never met before” who worked on his behalf, his campaign “produced a significantly expanded network of friends and supporters.”
Until another run for public office, Maloney promised, he “won’t be bashful about letting people in the 5th District know what’s going on with their representatives in Washington.”
Maloney, who said his campaign knew it would face “an uphill battle,” had a simple formula to explain the outcome of both his race and elections around the country: significantly more money = significantly greater chance of winning.
As of the Oct. 16 pre-election-day campaign finance disclosure date, Maloney’s campaign had raised $1.7 million to Johnson’s $3.1 million. Estimates place spending nationwide at $95 million for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and $158 million for the Republican National Congressional Committee.
Maloney said Democratic polling showed Johnson ahead by about 10 points at the start of the campaign, and “their money advantage basically preserved their lead.” Johnson won, 54 to 43 percent. Maloney concluded that the Democratic Party must raise money more efficiently, and said that the Republican Party has a much better financial infrastructure.
But ever the optimist, he also said that incoming House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has her political roots as a party organizer rather than as a local politician like outgoing Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.), and that this will help the party overhaul its fundraising and organization.
He also said criticism that Democrats didn’t have a unified national message, as well as criticism in 2000 that they didn’t send enough grass-roots messages, are “missing the point.”
“It’s like saying the Titanic sank because it was going too fast,” he said.
Democrats around the state expect Maloney to remain an active voice in the party and probably to resurface in public office. Their message to him: Goodbye – at least for now.
Published in The New Britain Herald, in Connecticut.
Video Games: What Every Parent Should Know
By Marty Toohey
WASHINGTON, Nov. 21, 2002--Today is the biggest shopping day of the year, and between now and Christmas, thousands of parents will buy their children violent video games, unaware of a simple fact:
The U.S. military, history's most efficient killing force, uses commercial games like the enormously popular first-person shooter Doom to train soldiers to unhesitatingly pull the trigger in wartime. They call them "multipurpose arcade combat simulators."
But those games are used in conjunction with a whole range of training methods, including ones teaching restraint, so that fact alone doesn't link violent video games and violent behavior. Or does it? Many experts link violent video games with violent behavior, while others say there's no link at all. The evidence is inconclusive and open for interpretation.
So what's a parent to think?
Retired Col. David Grossman, formerly an Army Ranger and West Point psychology professor, says that violent video games, particularly arcade-style shooters with plastic guns, don't give children the desire to kill. But he says they give them the ability, just like military training, by imparting motor skills and conditioning to overcome natural inhibitions.
"Remember, these people are the professionals…and these games are good enough for them," Grossman said of the military. "Certainly, not every kid who plays violent video games will become a killer, but the risk is unacceptable."
His stance is mirrored by the American Medical Association and other public health groups but is questioned by many behavioral scientists and media critics. The common rebuttal, and one arrived at by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), is that yes, studies show that children who play violent video games exhibit more aggressive behavior. But those studies haven't established a cause-and-effect relationship. It could simply be that aggressive kids choose violent video games, or that any activity that stimulates children can make them more aggressive. There's also disagreement about whether laboratory aggression translates to real-world violence.
Video games are an $8 billion-a-year industry that is mostly self-regulated. In 1994 the industry established an independent agency to rate games for content, and even Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who holds an annual ceremony lambasting lowbrow forms of media, calls it the best rating system in the entertainment industry.
Not all video games are violent: 90 percent of games are rated acceptable for everyone.
But the ratings are advisory only and often moot in arcades, where most parents don't accompany their children.
Industry statistics show that 90 percent of households with children have video game systems. Children in those households play the games an average of 10 hours a week. This year, almost half of all parents expect to give a video game as a present.
THE PERFECT RATING
Joanna Dark strides through the laboratory halls and past the bodies of guards she's gunned down, her path illuminated by the flickering overhead lights, her echoing footsteps the only sound.
Dark, star character of the video game Perfect Dark, is controlled by a human player seeing through her eyes and down the barrel of her assault pistol. She can't find anyone left alive; she's killed even the harmless scientists. Blood from victims is splattered on the walls.
But she hasn't found the data chip she's looking for. It's very frustrating.
As she retraces her steps, Dark pauses over the crumpled body of one of the scientists, aims and blows an extra hole in his skull.
As blood pools around the scientist's head, a hail of unseen gunfire rips into Dark. The control pad convulses and a curtain of blood drops across the screen.
These scenes litter Perfect Dark, and Sonny, a 12-year-old in Eugene, Ore., said he and his friends used to play the game fairly often. Perfect Dark, one of the top-selling Nintendo games of 2000, and Half Life, a similar personal computer game from 1999, are rated M, meaning they may contain content unsuitable for children younger than 18.
Yet Sonny has downloaded Half Life variants online, and his friend traded with a schoolmate for Perfect Dark. He also could have purchased it in many stores around the country.
IT'S UP TO YOU …
Video game ratings are advisory only, meaning a store can sell any game to anyone, regardless of age or game content.
"We're giving guidelines for parents," said Doug Lowenstein, president of the Interactive Digital Software Association, which represents the video game industry. "What we're saying is, 'This game may be unacceptable for children under 17.' "
Despite no proven cause-and-effect link between violent video games and violent behavior, the industry wanted "to give parents the tools to make their own decisions about what to buy their children," Lowenstein said.
In the early 1990s, the industry identified adults as a potentially lucrative market and began producing edgier games. But it wasn't always clear which games were designed for adults; in response to public pressure, the industry created the Entertainment Software Rating Board in 1994. The average age of video game players is now 28, according to industry statistics.
The board used movie ratings as a model, but parallels must be drawn carefully; video game content is not always analogous to movie content. A video game rating of M does not equal an NC-17 movie rating.
The video industry says it's spending more than $1 million annually on public service advertising. Towering images of Tiger Woods are currently appearing in movie theaters around the country, urging parents to check the ratings.
"We definitely have a responsibility to ensure parents know what they're buying," Lowenstein said. "But let's not forget that 82 percent of parents," according to the FTC, "are involved in the purchase or rental of games. So this notion that millions of 12-year-olds are out buying violent games without any supervision is just one of those great myths of game retailing."
Lowenstein continued: "There's nothing mysterious about picking up a game like Grand Theft Auto: Vice City and seeing an M rating on the box and descriptions on the back," which include warnings for blood and gore, violence, strong language and strong sexual content. "Those make it awfully hard for a parent to look at a game later and say, 'I didn't realize.'"
Industry research concluded that randomly sampled parents find the rating system both adequate and user-friendly, but an American Academy of Pediatrics study found that 90 percent of parents don't check the ratings on video games their children wish to buy.
Virginia, Sonny's mother, is among that 90 percent of parents. She keeps a close eye on what games Sonny plays, but that it's tough sometimes, because he can play them at friends' houses or over the Internet when she's not around.
"I just don't see anything good coming from playing those violent games," she said.
TARGET MARKETING
In 1999, following the spree of school shootings around the country, the FTC found that the video game industry actively marketed violent games to children like Sonny.
In the following months, the industry created the Advertising Review Council, which works with the rating board and is empowered to penalize companies on behalf of the industry. It has decreed that video game companies should not advertise M-rated games in magazines where 45 percent or more readers are younger than 18, or on television shows where 35 percent are younger than 18.
Although violations aren't common, the council can levy penalties ranging from a simple fine to refusing to rate future games produced by the offending company, which would damage the company's reputation.
Still, the FTC and the video game industry don't always see eye to eye. The FTC makes it known occasionally that it would like to see advertising that children could potentially see cut back even further.
But "there is no [law] that establishes what percentage of readership will make a publication suitable to advertise in," Lowenstein said. "More than half of the readers of these magazines are adults, and they're seeing an advertisement for a product that is perfectly legal."
IN STORES NOW
Grossman says government should make the product illegal, at least for children. Like cigarettes, alcohol and pornography, he says violent video games are only acceptable for adults. He also argues that First Amendment rights didn't extend to items like "The Assassin's Handbook," and shouldn't apply to violent video games, either.
Lowenstein disputed this, saying: "If they start censoring video games, where will they stop?"
Many stores, like Circuit City, order their retailers not to sell video games to children younger than the age recommendation, and Lowenstein said the industry supports their efforts.
The FTC said stores frequently sell games to children who don't meet the age recommendation, but that industry efforts are resulting in less of these sales.
Connecticut Gov. John Rowland vetoed a bill in 2001 that would have prohibited arcades from letting children play shooter-style games, saying, "I believe that violence in our society is a real problem that deserves meaningful answers, not new feel-good laws that are impossible to enforce."
The American Medical Association (AMA) advocates increasing public debate about violent video games, but said censorship isn't the answer.
DEBATING THE EFFECTS
Virginia, Sonny's mother, had this to say about violent video games:
"When the boys play video games for a length of time that's overboard, they get kinda snappy and grumpy, and it just seems like it escalates to a lot of hitting and aggression.
"But," she continued, "I can't really prove if it's the games or just too much of the games."
That's the ongoing argument in a nutshell.
Here's a snapshot of opinions:
In 2000, the AMA and several other public health groups said violent media, including video games, can lead children to aggressive behavior, desensitization to violence, nightmares and fear of being harmed.
Dina Borzekowski, a Johns Hopkins University professor who studies the relationship between media, children and violence, said that even without a proven cause-effect relationship, the research correlating aggressive behavior and violent video games should give parents pause.
"Given that there is a proven association, why buy them?" she said.
But other experts disagree.
The high-profile Canadian psychologist Jonathan Freedman has been called "the anti-Grossman" because of his contention that violent video games do not cause violent behavior. But Freedman, who is highly respected in many circles, has also had his credibility questioned because the Motion Picture Association of America, an entertainment industry lobbyist group, funds him.
Experts outside industry payrolls also dispute Grossman's theories. Vaughn Rickert, president-elect of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, said people certainly can be conditioned to commit violent behavior, but also called Grossman's cause-effect thinking too simplistic and "speculation at best."
"It's too big a leap for me," Rickert said. "There are too many other variables involved."
Author Douglas Rushkoff, who has studied and written extensively on media's impact on society, also said a cause-and-effect assessment is too simplistic.
"Of course parents should be involved in their children's media choices - particularly children under the age of 13," Rushkoff said. "But…young people understand the difference between play and reality."
Several studies, including one by the U.S. surgeon general in 2001 and another by the Australian government in 1999, found that evidence linking violent video games and violent behavior is minimal at best.
Army spokesman Ryan Yantis also disputed Grossman's line of thinking, particularly the assertion that soldiers are conditioned to kill.
"Our simulators train our marksmen to become better marksmen," Yantis said. "That's it. A soldier may have to make the decision to use deadly force, but it's never an easy one to make."
American Medical Association spokesman Edward Hill has compared Freedman and like-minded academics to scientists paid by the tobacco industry to prove that cigarettes aren't harmful. Lowenstein counters that the AMA is "furthering an agenda of preconceived notions and appealing to ignorance and fear."
MYTHICAL QUALITIES
A theory known as catharsis and touted by the video game industry suggests that video games help people blow off steam and work out aggression.
Although Freedman has said his training as a psychologist leads him to believe that theory is probably not true, he also said it's just as likely that video games help people vent aggression as build it.
"My guess is that both sides are right," he told pop culture magazine The Adrenaline Vault: "that some individuals, under some circumstances, at a given moment in their lives, are on the verge of committing a violent act. And some of those people are pushed over the edge, perhaps, by violent television…and some of them are prevented from going over the edge, cathartically, by it."
But that theory was discredited long ago, and research actually suggests the opposite, that we learn behaviors by seeing them and practicing them, said Antonius Cillessen, a psychology professor at the University of Connecticut-Storrs. His opinion is shared by many mental health professionals.
The video game industry "is just wrong" about catharsis and "the science just doesn't support it," Cillessen said.
Statistics also debunk another myth: that society has become more violent as video games have become more popular. The murder rate in the United States has declined since the 1980s, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Justice Department statistics show that since 1994, the year video game sales boomed, the aggravated assault rate among 10-17-year-olds has slowly declined. So as video game popularity has increased, youth violence has actually decreased.
Some experts say the decline is proof that violent video games haven't increased violence. Others argue that societal efforts, such as education, prevention and increased incarceration, have simply offset the effects of violent media.
A COMPELLING ARGUMENT …
In late 1997, 14-year-old Michael Carneal, a freshman at Heath High School near West Paducah, Ky., son of a prominent attorney and allegedly an avid player of violent video games, left his family's large brick home and arrived at school as an early-morning prayer session was ending. He walked into the crowded foyer and fired eight shots from his .22 caliber Ruger semi-automatic pistol, killing three girls and wounding five other students.
His accuracy rate was a staggering 100 percent. Eight shots, eights hits. Five head shots. Three to the upper torso. He shot his girlfriend between the eyes.
In Oct. of 1998 Carneal pleaded guilty but mentally ill to three counts of murder and six lesser charges, and was given a life sentence, the maximum penalty.
Grossman, the former West Point psychology professor, cites this incident in support of his theories and points out two unusual things, in addition to Carneal's uncanny accuracy: First, while the normal tendency is to shoot a target until it drops, Carneal calmly shot each victim only once, according to eyewitness accounts, a practice mirroring video game tactics, where hordes of enemies require just one shot to kill. Second, Carneal's shots were either to the head or torso, areas that many shooter games award bonus points for hitting.
Grossman also provides the following FBI data: Untrained shooters have an accuracy rate of about 7 percent at a distance of 21 feet in real-life situations; trained law enforcement officers have an accuracy rate of about 20 percent under those circumstances.
"I trained the Texas Rangers, the California Highway Patrol and a battalion of Army Green Berets," said Grossman, who hails from Jonesboro, Ark., site of a 1998 middle school massacre in which four girls and a teacher were shot to death and 10 others were wounded. "When I told them of Carneal's accuracy, they were stunned. Nowhere in the annals of military or law enforcement history can I find an equivalent 'achievement.' "
Carneal had learned to shoot a rifle at 4-H camps, but apparently his only experience with handguns like the Ruger, which he stole from a neighbor, was at a practice session a few days beforehand targeting a rubber ball.
School shootings, like ones perpetrated by Carneal or Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris in Littleton, Colo., in 1999, are complicated, and even the world's foremost authorities are engaged in a fierce debate about the causes and solutions. Was it violent media? Was it social estrangement? Bad parenting? How are they linked?
Grossman's point: Video games didn't make Carneal want to kill. But they gave him the skill with the lightweight, low-recoil Ruger .22, which Grossman called "the perfect weapon to transfer skills learned in arcade shooters."
BUT …
Carneal, who is now 19, recently told the Louisville Courier-Journal that all sorts of things affected him, including bullying and perceived parental neglect. But he said violent media wasn't one of them.
"People want one simple answer - I can't give it," he said.
And courts recently dismissed a $33 million lawsuit the families of the slain girls brought against two Internet pornography sites, three violent video game-producing companies, including the maker of Doom, and New Line Cinema, which produced the 1995 film "Basketball Diaries," in which a character dreams of gunning down his high school teacher and several classmates. The courts concluding that the companies couldn't have known that somebody would commit such a crime after viewing their products.
SO…
What is a parent to think?
The few unanimous conclusions: Know the rating system used for computer games and know what your children are playing and watching.
The Entertainment Software Rating Board maintains a web site, www.esrb.org, which explains the rating system and has a searchable database. The board also maintains a hotline: 1-800-771-3772.
Beyond knowing the rating system, opinions diverge.
Virginia, for her part, is trying to keep violent games away from her boys, at least until they're older.
For now, it's up to parents to decide whom and what to believe. But no matter the final decision, know the ratings.
Otherwise it's a shot in the Dark.
Published in The New Britain Herald, in Connecticut.
Senate Loss Strips Dems. of Powerful Positions
By Marty Toohey
WASHINGTON, Nov. 08, 2002--Tuesday's elections didn't just hand Senate control to Republicans. They also stripped Connecticut Democratic Sens. Christopher Dodd and Joseph Lieberman of their committee chairmanships, significantly reducing the clout of two of Congress's most influential lawmakers.
Lieberman chaired the Governmental Affairs Committee, and the presidential hopeful was able to use the position to press legislation while maintaining a high profile. But chairmanships go to members of the majority party-and voters turned to Republicans this year.
In losing his chairmanship, Lieberman also loses the power to decide when and where his committee will meet and what it will talk about. He also loses the power and visibility of running its hearings, some of which garner national attention, like those on the Enron crisis and on homeland security.
"Some hearings are very high profile," said John Fortier, a political analyst with the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute.
Dodd, who is occasionally mentioned as a future presidential candidate, chaired the Rules and Administration Committee, which allowed him to play a key role in reforms of election and campaign finance laws. He also played an important role as chairman of the Senate Foreign Rules subcommittee that deals with Central and South America.
The chairmanship losses will almost certainly result in budget and staff reductions for Lieberman and Dodd.
Both senators continued their silence Thursday about their party's losing the Senate. Lieberman would also not comment on how the chamber's new makeup could affect his efforts to eliminate or modify a piece of legislation that would allow President Bush to remove workers within a new Department of Homeland Security from union protection for purposes of national security.
Thus far, disagreement between Democrats and the White House over that authority has kept a homeland security bill from passing.
The White House has placed passage of that bill, as well as the federal budget, as the top priority of a lame-duck legislative session expected to start Tuesday.
"I want it done," Bush said Thursday. "I want it out of conference and to my desk."
Fortier said that Democrats will probably acquiesce to Bush's version of the bill. Not only will Republicans hold both chambers, but the election also provided "a sense of mandate" that will give Bush a "honeymoon period similar to that enjoyed by newly elected presidents to advance their agenda," Fortier said.
That probably means passage of a homeland security bill in short order, experts say.
"I don't think Democrats will lift a finger against it," Fortier said. "I think they'll roll over and hope the president offers a compromise."
Despite Republican control of both the chambers of Congress and the White House, the GOP won't run wild or unchecked with its agenda. It takes 60 votes to pass most legislation in the Senate, and Republicans will probably only hold 51 seats of Louisiana Democrat Mary Landrieu wins a runoff election Dec. 7.
"You need 60 votes to pass most anything," Fortier said.
Unlike the House, the Senate "is uniquely organized to allow substantial room for members of the minority party," with filibusters always possible, said Tom Mann, a political analyst with the Brookings Institution, a Washington-based think tank.
But in addition to controlling the chairmanship, Republicans will also control the floor schedule and can decide which bills can come to the Senate floor for a vote. Republican control also could mean a wave of approvals for Bush's nomination of conservative judges, such as controversial nominee Priscilla Owen of Texas to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.
Published in The New Britain Herald, in Connecticut.
Election Reform Bill Promises Upgrades for Disabled Services
By Marty Toohey
WASHINGTON, Oct. 31, 2002--When Janet Wallans goes to the voting booth next Tuesday, she'll bring a braille-covered piece of paper to help her remember the ballot layout.
She used to memorize the ballot, but it's difficult to remember everything, she said. So now she calls the county clerk's office on Election Day and has someone read the ballot to her over the phone. She transcribes what she hears into braille.
Wallans, who is from Hartford, is legally blind. She can operate the voting machines, which use levers, "but it's tricky sometimes" and maybe even a little inaccurate because she can't see her choices, she said.
But Wallans is fiercely protective of her right to privacy in the voting booth and won't allow anyone to assist her with the equipment.
"A person's vote is private," she said.
Statistically speaking, Wallans is an exception: A person with a disability who votes. Nationwide, there are an estimated 30 million eligible voters with disabilities of various kinds, but a 1999 Harris Poll showed that fewer than 30 percent of them cast their ballots. By contrast, 51.3 percent of eligble voters cast their ballots in the 2000 general election. Connecticut Secretary of State Susan Bysiewisz said that 200,000 to 300,000 of the state's 400,000 eligible voters with disabilities don't participate. For all eligible voters in the state, 58.4 percent voted in the 2000 general election.
But thanks to national legislation authored by Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) and efforts within the state to reform the election process, this may be the last time that Wallans will have to call ahead or use antiquated machines.
The $3.86 billion election reform bill, which President Bush signed into law on Tuesday, requires every precinct in the country by 2006 to have at least one machine for people with disabilities. Connecticut is considering implementing ATM-style touch screens, which Bysiewisz's office hopes to test in the 2003 elections. The machines would have braille keys and auditory cues telling voters what they're selecting. They would also be provided by the manufacturers for testing at no taxpayer cost, Bysiewisz said.
"I think the new machines could be very helpful," said Wallans, who heads a commission in Hartford advising the city on services for people with disabilities "The equipment is definitely there. It's just a matter of buying it."
The new reform law authorizes $100 million nationwide in grants to improve polling places for voters with disabilities, and authorizes another $40 million in grants over four years for state entities to assist voters with disabilities. It also requires states to establish centralized voter databases, patterned after Connecticut's,Bysiewisz said/ Shegave advice on the voter registration portion of the bill, and was at Bush's signing ceremony. It's uncertain how much federal money Connecticut could receive, though, because the commission to oversee the reform law hasn't been formed, and the grant formulas haven't been calculated.
Congress has not appropriated money for the bill yet, but its advocates, including Dodd, have pledged to fund the bill to the full amount, and point to the overwhelming support it received in both congressional chambers as evidence that the money will go through.
Published in The New Britain Herald, in Connecticut.
The Anatomy of an Attack Ad
By Marty Toohey
WASHINGTON, Oct. 29, 2002--Grainy footage and unflattering photographs. Bold letters jarring a viewer's attention. A stern voice attacking a candidate's political record.
Attack advertising. It's a campaign technique that's proliferated over the past 20 years, and it's dominating the House race in the recently redrawn 5th District, a place where even beer and bikini babes are losing airtime to attacks on Republican Rep. Nancy Johnson and Democratic Rep. James Maloney.
Attack ads have furthered the perception that politics is a dirty game, but they have also proven an effective way to differentiate one candidate from another, most experts agree. But the ads work by distorting the issues and appealing to fear over intellect, and they create a population disenchanted with American politics, experts warn.
"The thing people need to remember is, these commercials are constructed very carefully, by very skilled people, to manipulate viewers' sensibilities and sell them a point of view," said Paul Petterson, chairman of the political science department at Central Connecticut State University. "Nothing in these ads is there by accident - every sound, every image is there to evoke a response."
The ads use some obvious techniques, like Johnson and Maloney accusing each other of gutting Social Security and forgetting the interests of the district.
"What's unfortunate is that a lot of these ads have no explanations," said Cindy White, professor of political communication at CCSU. "They're designed to give the average voter a very specific and neat peg to hang their vote on, like, 'Oh, that's the tax candidate.' They train us to think politics can be contained in a 30-second ad."
But attack ads also include subtle techniques, White said.
"When you see one of these ads, you see the worst possible photos while a voice attacks a candidate's record," she said. "Really, what they do is try to associate an ugly face with an ugly message.
"I saw an ad against Johnson with a photo that made her look like she had been up all night drinking," White continued. "And Maloney has been portrayed just as badly."
Appealing to fear is another technique commonly used, White and Petterson said.
That means ominous sound effects, threatening music and bold, shocking headlines. The color red frequently appears in attack advertisements; that color is used as "a red flag" that immediately puts viewers in an information-receiving mode, a mode in which they're a less discriminating audience, White said.
"They jar our attention, then use effects to bolster the notion that we can't trust this person or should even fear them," she said.
The ads are all about doing what it takes to differentiate a candidate from an opponent, Petterson said.
"What they're saying is, basically, 'I'm a good and decent person, while my opponent would try to sell you a broken car,'" he said. "I think in the case of Maloney and Johnson, their message has been lost in attack after attack after attack."
Despite the proven effectiveness of attack ads, first used on a large scale in the 1980 elections, Petterson and White warned that the ads can create disenfranchised and disgusted voters. Sometimes that's intentional and can favor a candidate; in the 5th District, that effect is probably unintended, White said.
"There is evidence linking attack ads to lower turnout," she said. "And my personal feeling, in talking with friends, co-workers and students, is that we're sick of them."
Published in The New Britain Herald, in Connecticut.
Of Helicopters, Pork, And An Age-Old Argument
By Marty Toohey
WASHINGTON, Oct. 24, 2002--It's only seven extra helicopters.
It's only $116.5 million in a $355 billion defense budget.
And it's seven extra choppers that the Army is delighted to have, especially with so much dysfunctional equipment and a war brewing.
But the inclusion in the military's budget of seven extra Black Hawk UH-60 helicopters, manufactured in Connecticut, is also the crystallization of an old argument between fiscal responsibility groups and policymakers - an argument about congressmen's power to send federal dollars to their home state, a power its critics derisively call pork barreling.
Whatever you call it, the result of an appropriations request made by Connecticut lawmakers on Capitol Hill is seven more helicopters than the Army requested in this year's budget, with the $116.5 million the choppers will cost going to Connecticut helicopter manufacturer Sikorsky, whose parent company, United Technologies Corp., contributes heavily to nearly every member of the state's delegation.
The Army calls the extra helicopters an unexpected bonus. The Connecticut delegation calls them a boost for national defense and the state economy. Watchdog groups call them pork from politicians to the companies that bankrolled their elections. Defense experts call them all of these things.
They also call it business as usual.
"This is pretty typical" and non-controversial, said Tom Donnelly, a defense analyst with the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank. "There is no doubt that the Connecticut delegation, and especially Senator (Joseph) Lieberman, have an influential voice in getting money for their home state. But at the same time, it's not like they made the Pentagon bend over and cry" for more helicopters.
Indeed not. In their budget request, the Army asked for 12 such helicopters, and receives about 10 to 15 of them annually, according to an official in the Army's force development department. The official also said the Army is 90 helicopters away from fulfilling a contract to purchase 1,680 Black Hawks.
Lieberman, a Democrat, requested the seven additional choppers in this year's budget, and with President Bush signing the military budget Wednesday, the Army this year will receive 19 of what Donnelly calls "one of the most useful tools they can have."
"This is really a good deal," said Army spokesman Major Rudy Burwell.
But one group crying out is Citizens Against Government Waste, a watchdog group that says it's ridiculous for Congress to spend more money than the military asks for.
"We have very smart people at the Pentagon to determine what we need to defend this country," said David Williams, vice president of policy for the organization. "I'm sorry, but members of Congress don't have that expertise."
Even more egregious, he said, was $3.29 billion appropriated for 15 C-17 Globemaster III cargo planes, which are constructed mainly in California. The military didn't request the planes, and the House didn't include them in its version of the defense budget. But California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee, added the extra planes and the extra money for her state, Williams said.
Feinstein's office did not return calls for comment.
"It's trying to curry favor back home," Williams said. "This is money that could be used to raise the salaries of soldiers living on food stamps. It seems to me like their biggest concern is defending the interests of the state's businesses instead of the country."
But that's how these things work, defense experts say.
Donnelly said that sometimes, to keep its total requests down, the Pentagon will ask for less than it wants in areas where it has a sympathetic ear, such as Feinstein on the Appropriations Committee or Lieberman as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Airland Subcommittee.
"There's a certain ritual aspect to this," Donnelly said. "They might say, 'We'll only ask for a dozen Black Hawks because we know we could get more.' "
The extra helicopters seem to be a hit in military circles, including the Pentagon, which has given some brutal assessments of Army programs recently, like the canceled $11 billion Crusader mobile artillery system that Oklahoma's congressional delegation is still fuming about losing.
"We certainly haven't heard anything negative about the added helicopters" within the Defense Department, said Pentagon spokeswoman Susan Hansen, who deferred to the Army for an official statement but said, "We're certainly delighted with the president's budget."
In total, House appropriators added $619 million to the Pentagon's request, while their Senate counterparts added $768 million, some of which overlapped with the House bill. An additional $38.8 million was added in the conference between the two chambers. The defense appropriations bill - which included the Black Hawks - is $355 billion, and total defense spending increased $45.9 billion from last year's budget, including an average 4.1 percent raise for military personnel, well above the current inflation rate of about 1.5 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The other Pentagon spending bill that Bush signed Wednesday, the military construction appropriations bill, is $10.5 billion.
It's the largest military spending increase since President Reagan and the Star Wars ballistic missile defense program.
Lieberman and Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) aren't shy about touting the money headed to their state. A joint release from their offices details $15 billion in projects either mostly or entirely done in Connecticut, the bulk of which went to defense contractors Electric Boat, Pratt & Whitney, Goodrich and Sikorsky.
The 15 Globemaster IIIs were mentioned in the release because Pratt & Whitney, another United Technologies subsidiary, makes their engines.
The Connecticut delegation usually divvies up appropriations requests. A spokeswoman for Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-3), who sits on the House Appropriations Committee, said office policy is to not comment on appropriations requests, but also said, "Rosa fights hard for the Black Hawk."
Published in The New Britain Herald, in Connecticut.
Campaign Comes Into Home Stretch
By Marty Toohey
WASHINGTON, Oct. 23, 2002--Debates. Disagreements. Door bells. And a deluge of attack ads.
That's what people can expect over the next two weeks as the race for the redrawn 5th House District, in which two incumbents are facing off, hits the home stretch.
Especially the ads.
WVIT 30, an NBC affiliate, says it contracted to run 167 spots, each 30 seconds, from Republican Rep. Nancy Johnson between Oct. 11 and the election, while Democratic Rep. Jim Maloney is running 150 such spots over that time.
Although neither campaign will divulge the details of the advertisements yet to air, they'll almost certainly run attack-style ones like those viewers already have become accustomed to, said Paul Petterson, chairman of the political science department at Central Connecticut State University.
"The race has gotten really dirty, and I think that reflects how nervous both sides are," Petterson said.
And it's not just the ads.
"I think you'll see even more ratcheting up of a 'my opponent did this' and 'my opponent did that' type of campaign," even in public events like debates, Petterson said. "Unfortunately, I think what voters can expect is charge and counter-charge."
That style, especially in the advertising, is proof that despite Johnson's lead in most polls, as well as in overall money, the race should be close, Petterson said.
"If it weren't close, they wouldn't be pumping the massive amounts of money they are into the final days of the campaign," he said.
As of Sept. 30, Johnson had raised just over $3 million in this election cycle, while Maloney had raised about $1.7 million, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Johnson reported having a little more than $1 million on hand, and Maloney reported having about $150,000, money that could buy last-minute advertising.
Those reports don't take into account money spent or raised since the first of the month, though, and neither campaign would reveal how much they've spent since then.
National observers have Johnson as the favorite at this point, but most also are predicting a finish much closer than most polls have indicated, with the final outcome hinging on things as small as weather and last-day handshakes.
"For Maloney to win this thing, he needs something to break for him," which could easily happen in a district with 13,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans, said Amy Walter, an analyst for the Washington-based Cook Political Report, widely regarded as the premier election-tracking publication. But "I think Johnson has set the agenda for this campaign" because she's raised more money and skillfully answered every one of Maloney's criticisms, Walter said.
Most polls show Johnson with a lead, but there's really no consensus about the size of it.
Recent polls by the University of Connecticut and Quinnipiac University show Johnson with a lead of 16 to 18 percentage points. Maloney's campaign has written those polls off as the work of amateurs, though, because they use student callers. The campaign instead lauds a poll done for several Connecticut newspapers by the polling company Research 2000 showing Johnson with a 7-point lead.
But all of the polling is complicated by the fact that Connecticut maintains a no-call list, which people can join to avoid solicitation or polling calls. That means that polls will miss any citizen on that list, skewing the polling sample.
Regardless of the poll results, the TV spots have been purchased and for the next two weeks viewers can look forward to more political advertising. In addition to ads running on WVIT 30, WTIC, the Fox affiliate, says it is running 53 spots from Johnson and 12 from Maloney between Oct. 1 and Nov. 4.
And the national Democratic and Republican Parties, which already have been running ads, said they will continue to do so, although they wouldn't say how many or what tone they would take.
Both campaigns will continue holding fundraisers, and both probably will receive money from their respective state and national parties, although that money probably won't be publicly disclosed until after the election.
Ultimately, the race should have a tight finish simply because of the nature of the district, said Walter of the Cook report.
"Johnson's not going to win by 20 points, as some polls indicate," she said. "It really could come down to who rings the most doorbells."
Stay tuned.
Published in The New Britain Herald, in Connecticut.
Slade Students Weigh in on Obesity Bill
By Marty Toohey
WASHINGTON, Oct. 20, 2002--As mounds of legislation sit unfinished today in the nation's capital, a bill introduced by Sen. Christopher Dodd aimed at reducing obesity rests somewhere in the paperwork pile.
Meanwhile, in the Slade Middle School cafeteria, a pair of eighth graders will go about their day as usual, one eating a lunch of greasy pizza and candy, the other a chicken patty and fruit.
Their diets are as different as Kentucky Fried Chicken and skinless, boneless chicken breast. Ally (not her real name) has poor eating habits and an insatiable sweet tooth, but is thin, has plenty of energy and doesn't see her diet as a problem. Kelly (not herreal name either) eats healthy and credits her parents for it.
Ally's habits are more typical of their age group, both girls agree, and so she's the demographic Dodd and Surgeon General Richard Carmona hope to reach with the legislation. A large portion of it, and the portion that would most affect the two girls, would authorize $175 million for education efforts "to assist local communities in promoting good nutrition and increased levels of physical activity among their citizens."
.
Neither girl, however, sees the additional efforts affecting their own eating habits or those of their peers much, , especially with pizza, candy and soda available the moment they step out of health class.
"I think it really depends on the parents," said Kelly, whose own parents have emphasized healthy eating "as long as I can remember. Kids will eat what they want, and if parents don't have healthy food for them, they won't eat healthy."
Ally put it a little more bluntly.
"It really hasn't affected me at all," she said of the school's healty-eating campaign.
It's the bill's emphasis on exercise that might make a difference, both girls said. Al Sullivan, a health and physical education teacher at Slade, agrees. It's by no means a revelation, but nonetheless telling.
"Classes haven't changed how I eat, but I don't really like to exercise, so I'm glad we do it in school," Kelly said. "I'm probably healthier because of it."
But Sullivan, who said his own family worried about his developing weight-related health problems when he was a child, still cautioned against quick judgments of a child's health. Different builds and metabolisms of students make an across-the-board health standard nearly impossible to achieve, he said.
"It's difficult to gauge," he said. "The standards aren't universal, and can even be misleading."
Despite their differing diets, Kelly and Ally both seem healthy, by all accounts. They're savvier than most adults give teens credit for; and both take the long view when discussing how they'll eat in the future.
Kelly said she eats healthy now specifically to stay healthy later.
And Ally acknowledges that she may have to switch her habits.
"I think a lot about why I eat so much junk food," she said. "I know that candy and stuff isn't good for me. But if I start eating differently later I think I can stay skinny and healthy."
Published in The New Britain Herald, in Connecticut.
A Day in the Life of Jim Maloney
By Marty Toohey
WASHINGTON, Oct. 20, 2002--At first glance, Jim Maloney seems to be in one heck of a hurry.
Brisk, brusque and burly, Maloney's usual greeting lasts less than two seconds, with eight words or fewer run together in a booming, continuous string.
"Hi, how are you?" comes out as "Hihowareya?" and he'll answer that question with "Finehowareyou?"
That's not unusual for a United States congressman, whose days are a blur of buzzers, beepers and bustle. They're days crammed with subcommittee hearings and votes and meetings, lots of meetings, formal and casual, planned and spontaneous, Democratic Caucus meetings and staff meetings and every other kind of meeting imaginable.
And that's only Tuesday through Thursday. The other four days a week Maloney is back in Connecticut campaigning for reelection in one of the country's most hotly contested districts.
It's a jam-packed lifestyle, and Maloney certainly packs a lot into a day, hustling from commitment to commitment with a furrowed brow and hunched shoulders.
But then an apologetic follower sets off the Capitol Building's metal detector four consecutive times, delaying Maloney for several minutes on the way to a vote.
And Maloney, who blows in and out of the office like a huffing hurricane, leans back, smiles broadly at the observer's ring-around-the-metal-detector and cracks a joke to a security guard.
Turns out he's not always in such a big hurry after all.
***
On Capitol Hill, Maloney's mannerisms switch, like a VCR, from fast-forward to play. At first, or when he's coming off the House floor, he'll click the two little arrows like he's trying to speed through the small talk.
It's not unusual; many congressmen talk at an accelerated pace. They're busy people.
But give Maloney a minute and he'll find his spot in the conversation, click the play button and slow to a thoughtful and articulate pace.
A man who taught American history at Newton's St. Sebastian School while attending law school, Maloney, 54, seems most comfortable in explanation, whether with a dozen George Washington University students or with reporters during his evening press calls.
Talking in his office with the students on the evening of Oct. 9, he reclines in a leather chair, his weight resting on his right arm. His left hand cradles his cheek while listening, and then dots the air to emphasize points of his explanations.
He asks where each student is from, and ticks off the names of the congressional representatives from each hometown.
He tells the students about the three-hour trip from the Capitol to his doorstep in Danbury, and his struggle as a Harvard undergrad to find a suitable major. He elicits warm laughter when he acknowledges that 1994, when he ran a failed House campaign, was "probably the worst possible time" for him to run for office because of nationwide dissatisfaction with Democrats.
It's not immediately apparent whether it's the joke or Maloney's broad grin that the students respond to.
Maloney shakes each student's hand as they shuffle out, his own meaty paw enveloping theirs. He then begins making his daily press calls; the issue of the day is a set of polls released a day earlier, one of which shows him trailing Republican Rep. Nancy Johnson by 16 percentage points.
Maloney, who settled on an undergraduate degree in history, is well versed in polling nuance and lore. He seems to recall polls dating back to antiquity, and mentions to a reporter a 1936 Literary Digest poll declaring Republican Alf Landon the clear favorite for president.
But the magazine mailed the survey to names taken from telephone and car-ownership lists. Turns out that in 1936, during the middle of a depression, a good number of Americans couldn't afford cars or phones, and they tended to vote Democrat.
Landon won only two states. Franklin D. Roosevelt became president. The poll was wrong.
Maloney declares the UConn poll wrong. Over and over.
He tells reporters that, because of surveying methods, 5 percent of the time the UConn polls are inaccurate far beyond the built-in margin of error.
"We don't think there's anything wrong with the way UConn conducted their poll," he said to reporters three different times. "We think it's just a bad sample. It's like flipping a quarter. The odds say you'll get heads half the time and tails half the time. But sometimes you get a run of five heads or ten tails."
Even the George Washington students can't resist asking about the polls. And Maloney's response, for at least the fourth time that day, is margin of error, bad sample, heads or tails.
***
On most mornings in his Capitol Hill office, Maloney starts work around 8 a.m., either taking care of morning meetings or heading into the office. At some point, an office buzzer indicating a vote in 15 minutes will interrupt him.
"All members must report to the floor for a vote in 15 minutes," a voice will crackle from a pager at Maloney's belt.
"Okay," he says to anyone unfamiliar with the office's rhythms. "That means we've got 10 minutes" until he has to leave.
After those 10 minutes, he'll walk briskly from his office to the Capitol building, preferring the sunshine to the short subway ride.
"I get out every chance I get," he says.
The warm and muggy early fall weather is a little hot for him, though, even with a breeze ruffling his silver, slightly wavy hair.
"I'm a New Englander," he says. "I like the cool weather."
***
Much of the time, the result of a vote is certain long before it's called. The House leadership often calls a vote to "get the sheep into the barn" and out of the office to talk, Maloney says.
"When (members) are in their offices, they've got projects going and they're busy. But here," he says, motioning through a bronze-gilded double door to the House floor, "you can talk without worrying about interrupting them in the middle of working on something."
Maloney , for his part, is hoping to catch John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), a member of the House Appropriations Committee, and talk to him about funding for laser detectors manufactured in Connecticut.
Maloney disappears onto the floor for a few minutes, and emerges out a side door.
"Imustamissedhim," Maloney huffs. "Butthat'sokay. I'llgethimlater."
Maloney beelines for the elevator that will take him to a meeting of the Financial Services Committee, on which he sits.
The third-term lawmaker's pleased with his committee assignments-he also sits on the Armed Services Committee--and says his dual role is "where the action is" for a Connecticut congressman.
Armed Services deals heavily with defense contracts, and Financial Services deals heavily with banks. Both are major industries in Connecticut.
"It's not an accident I'm on these committees," Maloney says. "If I were from Texas, I'd try to get on the Agriculture and Energy Committees."
If Maloney is reelected and Democrats gain control of the House, the party leadership will probably name Maloney chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity. There, he says, he could put to use his experience as a real estate lawyer and director of anti-poverty programs.
"Committee assignments are fluid, but it's probably a pretty good bet that would be his assignment," said Kori Bernards, a spokeswoman for Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.).
***
After leaving the floor Maloney clicks his play button, but his pace to the elevator stays swift and his interaction with other members is nearly supersonic. A typical exchange goes like this:
"Hihowyoudoing?"
"Justfinesirhowareyou?"
"Goodthanksgoodtoseeyou."
Most members seem stuck on permanent fast forward. They tap their shoes impatiently or mutter grumpily while waiting for the elevator. But Maloney doesn't fidget. He can't go anywhere, so he's in no hurry. The wait's not that bad, he says.
"It's a good opportunity to catch your breath," he says. "Besides, it's just like any other
job--you still have to wait for the elevator."
Published in The New Britain Herald, in Connecticut.
West Nile Money Held Up in Washington
By Marty Toohey
WASHINGTON, Oct. 20, 2002--The West Nile virus has infected 13 Connecticut people and knocked countless birds from the sky this year. Meanwhile, relief money is languishing in Congress and will almost certainly stay there until after the November elections.
An appropriations bill stuck in the federal government's budget logjam could send $350,000 to Connecticut researchers studying the virus, and a bill that would authorize the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to give substantial grants almost definitely won't make it out of committee before the Senate adjourns.
The CDC bill, introduced by Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), would allow the national health agency to make loans that would match state funding for the virus. The matching-fund grant would supplement standard grants from the CDC, such as a recent $200,000 grant to Connecticut for West Nile.
But the House adjourned Wednesday night until after the Nov. 5 elections, and the Senate could do so any time, so Dodd's bill probably won't even make it out of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee before November.
The $350,000 is part of the House version of the agriculture appropriations bill, one of the 13 federal spending bills that finance the federal government. The money would go to the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, which has studied the virus and its carriers in its labs since the first case recorded in the United States, in 1999.
But it's still uncertain if the money will ever make it to the station. The House hasn't approved its version, and the Senate's version doesn't even include the grant. Both chambers must agree on a final bill before it goes to the president for signing.
"If it's delayed a couple of months, it probably won't affect us," said John Anderson, director of the station. "If it's eliminated, that's another matter."
The station currently has what Anderson describes as a "relatively small lab jam-packed with equipment," like biosafety hoods that allow him and the other two researchers to work directly with the virus, studying how it's transferred and whether it's mutating.
The station will soon open a new building with enhanced facilities, but if the bill doesn't pass, the support staff will be cut back significantly. The staff runs the lab equipment, collects field samples and distributes pesticides to keep mosquito populations down.
That staff helped the station isolate the West Nile virus in a Connecticut mosquito within a few days of the first case's detection in New York. Since then, the station has identified strains of West Nile in 14 of the state's 42 varieties of mosquitoes, and is studying how the naturally occurring virus jumps between different breeds and between animals.
Those mosquitoes have proved resistant to pesticides as well, Anderson said.
And although winter is coming and the mosquito season is nearly over, Anderson warned that West Nile won't go away.
"When spring comes, the mosquitoes will come out of dormancy in large numbers," he said. "The number of humans affected continues to rise, and more than likely we'll still have the West Nile virus" once winter ends.
Nationwide, the virus has killed 164 as of Wednesday night and has been diagnosed in 3,052 others, according to the CDC.
The state Department of Environmental Protection maintains a Mosquito Management Program, which has a mosquito information hotline at 1-866-968-5463.
Published in The New Britain Herald, in Connecticut.
