Comments on: Our Morning Roundup: Washington Times “Owns” Chas Freeman Story

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 06:19:51 +0000

If he had kept his mouth shut and never said anything bad about our leaders in Israel nobody would have cared about a thing he said about China or any connection to Saudi Arabia.

Heck our last president of two terms was buddies with the Saudi regime.

But god forbid anyone is not 100% in Israels corner.
My wife is Jewish so please dont call me a Anti-Semitic.

By: Mike Riggs

Mike Riggs — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:11:11 +0000

@Curm: Only the Washington Times has followed the Chas Freeman story with the intensity it deserves. Regardless of the ideological bent of Lake, Williamson, or the publications involved, that's news. I don't know if you followed the links or not, but here's just one reason why people are concerned: On May 26, 2006, Chas Freeman sent an e-mail to a confidential listserv called ChinaSec. The subject under discussion was the Tiananmen Square massacre, the 1989 Chinese government crackdown on peaceful democracy demonstrators. Sounding like a hard-line Chinese Communist Party flack, he referred to the young activists as constituting a “mob scene,” termed their appeals for liberalization “propaganda,” mocked the “goddess of democracy” they had erected in honor of the Statue of Liberty and deemed the government’s response — which resulted in over 2,500 deaths — “overly cautious. That's from Kirchick's piece in the Politico--a must read for anyone who doubts that Freeman was a reprehensible choice. Where was the Post on this? The New York Times? I think it's a fair question.

By: Michael Perkins

Michael Perkins — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:57:12 +0000

My point was that rail fares have pretty much stayed the same, but bus fares have decreased, necessitating large increses in government support. This year, those governments balked, making a debate about service cuts necessary. If bus fares had kept up with inflation, we would be discussing far fewer fare increases.

Unsuck's analysis was simple to the point of simplistic. He only looked at maximum rail fare, which is an arbitrary decision of the outer counties of how much they want to directly subsidize their commuters. Most people riding Metro do not pay maximum fare. He also failed to take into account that people in the past used to get a 10% bonus when buying reasonably sized farecards.

I understand my analysis was complicated, but WMATA has a horrendously complicated fare structure. If all rides on bus and rail were $2.50 (or something), it would make this all easier to understand, though a lot more expensive for a lot of people.

By: curm

curm — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:48:46 +0000

Why is it news that the conservative National Review's blog thinks the conservative Washington Times did good work on a story? Regarding the item, did any of them ever cover Bush family connections to China and Saudia Arabia?

By: jff

jff — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:42:12 +0000

Perkins gets too involved in Metro's arcane fare system, which fogs up what's really going on. The simple fact is that fares on ALL mass transit systems haven't risen enough relative to the expense of operating the systems. Fares alone provide only a part of revenue, but letting that part shrink relative to other sources is a bad idea, and users of WMATA know the effects: breakdowns, bad service, the list goes on. Unsuckdcmetr.blogspot.com, which certainly not as scientific a breakdown nails the key point here much better.