Your U.S. Senate At Work: Maybe it's best D.C. doesn't have any members in the Senate, after all. Because if we did, they'd probably do embarrassing things like what Pennsylvania's Democratic Sen. Bob Casey did today, which was whine on Twitter about the Nationals' plan to sell advance tickets to a May homestand against the Philadelphia Phillies only to people whose credit cards match addresses in the D.C. region. "I'm calling on the @Nationals to reverse course on a reported plan to block @Phillies fans from buying tickets to games at Nationals Park," Casey blurted. ".@Phillies have some of the best fans in the world. They shouldn’t be left out in the cold because the Nats want a stronger home field adv." Of course, it's not like the people in the Senate have anything better to worry about than how many fans of their baseball team get to travel to another city to be obnoxious in person, right? -1

Brick City: On the eastern side of the District, transportation workers have been installing streetcar tracks for some time now. And on the western end, they'll soon be ripping them up—and then putting them back in—all for looks. An $11 million Georgetown streetscaping project will involve replacing brick streets with new, more historically accurate bricks, and regrading, but keeping, long-unused tracks. The first fully finished block opened this morning. +2

Free Money Here: This morning's Washington Post seemed thicker than usual, especially for a paper without a propaganda insert from China or Russia in it. Turned out there were 35 extra pages of agate type listing thousands of people and institutions with unclaimed assets that the District government is now trying to track down. Among the names on the list: Democratic powerbroker Harold Ickes (and also my younger brother, who is finally collecting his winnings from a sports bet he placed in Las Vegas several years ago). To see if there's a windfall coming your way, click here. +3

Type This Way: When word came that the District was switching the typeface on its street signs as it replaced broken ones, it seemed like good news. But now it seems the new design isn't quite as clean as it was advertised to be. The signs, which use mixed-case letters instead of ALL UPPERCASE as the old ones do, sometimes use mixed-case letters for quadrants, too, identifying streets as being in "Nw" or "Se" instead of NW or SE. And it turns out some of them also use different fonts within the same sign. So if you spot a sign that looks wrong, no, you don't have to rush out to buy new glasses. -1

Yesterday's Needle rating: 34 Today's score: +3 Today's Needle rating: 37

The Baltimore-Washington Newspaper Guild sent its members another memo this morning about the buyout offer at the Washington Post, clarifying a bit about who's eligible. Yesterday, the union indicated that six local government and politics staffers were exempt from the offer; the buyout is targeting a total of nine employees in the Metro department, out of 48 jobs targeted for elimination.

Editor Marcus Brauchli reportedly told Posties the paper was only offering buyouts to people in coverage areas where the Post "could afford to absorb reductions," and not in "core areas." So it seemed the local government beat was considered a "core area," despite the focus on Metro jobs.

Turns out that's not necessarily the case. Fredrick Kunkle, the Guild's co-chairman at the Post, says those local staffers are exempt either because they've been at the paper for too short a time to qualify for the buyout, or they're part-time, or they're out on leave—all categories that disqualify any Post employee from taking the buyout.

Full memo after the jump:

Colleagues,

We’d like to clarify something we said in yesterday’s Bulletin. We noted that the Post has listed, by age and job title, every position that is eligible or ineligible for the buyout. And this is true. But the Post has advised us that this eligibility list is only a function of hiring date, employment status — full-time v. part-time — and whether a person is on leave. That’s because it turns out that those who are on leave are also exempted, which is something that was pointed out to us after we put out the Bulletin.

So, in other words, there is a list that spells out, for those departments and units that are targeted for buyouts, which employees are eligible and which are not and lists them by age and job title. For example, the Post has exempted six employees on the Local Politics Government team and eight in the National Economics and Business team and listed their exact ages and job titles. But the Post has told us this is because those folks are either part-time, recent hires or on leave. The buyout offer is only for full-time staff hired before Jan. 1, 2010 in selected departments who are “actively working,” according to the Post documents.

We apologize for any confusion. We will try to keep you updated as we learn more.

Please remember we would also like to hear from you if you would like to join the bargaining committee. We will do everything in our power to secure the best terms for everyone.

I would also like to remind you all — and especially those of you are covered by the Guild contract but do not pay your dues — that one of the main reasons the Post is offering buyouts and is not just tapping people on the shoulder and telling them to go, is because you have a union and a contract. In the past couple years, I have probably heard all the reasons why people do not do the right thing and sign up–(”Hey, I’m an Ivy League grad, a star, and my editor loves me–what me worry?”, “I can’t afford it,” “I have philosophical differences with organized labor,” “My generation doesn’t do unions,” etc.) — but that’s all just brave talk. If you’re not exempt, you do enjoy protections that you would not have if the Post, like any company, did not have to deal with an organized workforce. This includes news aides, columnists, editorial writers, video journalists and reporters of all kinds — including some who in their work seem highly sympathetic about American labor’s struggles but who are curiously uninterested in their own union–and commercial employees too. We are very grateful for those of you who already understand this. We’re only as strong as all of you.

Cheers,

Freddy

Photo by dionhincliffe via Flickr/CC BY-SA 2.0

The Post vs. Its Staff: The Post will be offering staff buyouts in an attempt to get rid of 48 employees, including Metro section staffers. Though the Metro staff is huge and covers a large region, we really hope the staff cuts don't mean stories about Falls Church dads who can't build treehouses go away. Also: We love a good acronym, but the so-called Separation Incentive Program, a.k.a. SIP, ought to come with a bottle of booze to sweeten the deal. These are journalists, after all. -3

Snow vs. You: It's wet and cold outside—and federal workers were allowed to work from home today in case the expected snow, which has yet to materialize, would lead to a repeat of last year's long march home. Heavy handed, yes, but better safe than sorry and all that. +2

D.C. vs. Harry Thomas Jr.: HTJ probably won't be paying the District back the $300,000 he owes, and going after his house isn't a viable option since it's in his wife's name. DCist notes: "Beyond what Thomas owes D.C., he's still on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid taxes on the money he stole. He's to be sentenced in May for stealing the money, and face anywhere from three to four years in prison." (And a theory from your Needler: There are very few cases in which someone whose name isn't on the deed of the house he lives in—and presumably pays—for isn't trying to get over, right?). -4

Cameroon vs. Harvard University: Harvard University wants the building currently being used by the Cameroon embassy vacated: "the university is arguing that the African nation's mission in Washington had the option to extend its lease for the building but failed to do so. And now Harvard wants Cameroon out. The embassy signed a lease with the university in April 2010 to use the entire Georgetown building as its chancery building on Massachusetts Avenue was being renovated." In the battle of diplomats versus the university with a multi-billion dollar endowment, we wonder if it's possible for them both to lose. -2

Monday's Needle rating: 41 Today's score: -7 Today's Needle rating: 34

The Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, the union for Washington Post employees, sent its members a memo this afternoon on the Post's buyout offer, announced this morning. The paper is trying to eliminate 48 jobs from about 200 people eligible to volunteer to leave.

The union says the Post is offering 2.5 weeks of pay for each year employees have worked at the paper, plus three months of health insurance, for people who have worked there fewer than 10 years, or six months, for veterans of over a decade.

The paper is trying to get rid of up to nine employees from the Metro section, more than any other department. (But it's exempted six Metro staffers who work on local government, and listed their ages and job titles.) That department is, though, bigger than most others.

The full memo from the Guild is after the jump:

Friends,

As you know by now, The Washington Post has proposed a newsroom-only buyout that targets only some departments and individuals. The offer is open to about 48 percent of Guild-covered newsroom employees, or 219 individuals. The Post is hoping that at least 33 people and as many as 48 people will voluntarily accept its offer, according to documents delivered to the Guild on Wednesday and remarks by executive editor Marcus Brauchli at a Town Hall Wednesday morning.

Those eligible to apply will receive an election form and will have 45 days to weigh the Post’s offer. The Guild will make every effort to improve the terms of the buyout over the next 10 business days, as required by the Guild contract.

Certain departments, departmental units, and positions have been exempt from the buyouts, including Foreign, Sports columnists, Style columnists, Outlook, National enterprise and politics teams, and others. Part-timers and recent hires are also exempt.

In those departments and units that are targeted for buyouts, the Post has already identified, by age and job title, which employees are eligible and which are not, according to documents given to the Guild. For example, the Post has exempted six employees on the Local Politics Government team and listed their exact ages and job titles.

The initial proposal is an offer of 2.5 weeks of pay for every year of Post service and some health care coverage. Unlike previous buyout offers, the Post is not offering additional retirement benefits as an incentive to take the buyout. In other words, the Post will not credit people with extra years of service that would increase a person’s pension benefits.

Here are the basic terms of the Post’s Separation Incentive Program (SIP):

- The initial proposal offers 2.5 weeks of pay per year of Post service.

- Three months of Post-paid continued health benefits (COBRA) for those employees with less than 10 years of Post service; six months of such health benefits for those with 10 or more years of service.

Here’s a breakdown of 33 positions targeted by the Post’s offer:

- Up to three employees from News Operations, Research and News IT

- Up to three employees from Style and Features

- Up to three employees from Investigative

- Up to three employees from Universal Desk and News Interactivity

- Up to two employees from Sports

- Up to seven employees from News Presentation and News Video

- Up to nine employees from Local, AKA Metro

- Up to three employees from National's Economy and Business, and National, Health, Science and Environment teams

The Post has the right to allow more eligible employees to participate, if necessary. Under the company’s initial proposal, The Post also has reserved the right to reject an eligible employee’s offer to accept a buyout for operational or coverage reasons. The following are some departments, units and job titles that are exempt:

- Employees hired on or after Jan. 1, 2010

- All part-time Newsroom employees

- National Politics and Government teams

- National Enterprise – all positions

- National Security – all positions

- Foreign – all positions

- Outlook – all positions

- News Presentation – Artists/Art Director (Graphics), Cartographer Artist, Designer, Graphics Editor

- Style – Critics/Columnists

- Sports – Columnists

- Capital Business – all positions

- News Columnists – Columnist

- Weekend – all positions

More hard times ahead at the Washington Post, which you may recall is the money-losing newspaper division of the Kaplan test prep and for-profit education empire. This morning, editors sent staff a memo offering a voluntary buyout, at least the fifth since 2004. All the staff reductions have apparently taught the Posties a lesson in efficiency; editor Marcus Brauchli reports that the latest cuts "won’t affect the quality, ambition or authority of our journalism. We believe this is possible, given the changes in how we work and the great successes we have had building our digital readership lately." As denizens of a smaller newsroom than in the past ourselves at Washington City Paper, we're curious to see how that works out for the Post.

UPDATE: Postie and former City Paper and TBD.com editor Erik Wemple has more details from the meeting the paper held to discuss the buyout offer. "We did feel there were coverage areas where we could afford to absorb reductions," Brauchli told staffers. "In general we want to maintain a strong newsroom across all of our core areas." What are those core areas? According to Jim Romenesko, "National politics, National enterprise, National security, Foreign, the Sports columnists, Capital Business, the Style critics, digital designers, graphic designers, Outlook and Weekend." What that list doesn't include? "Business, Metro, the Magazine, Style, news designers and copy editors on the Universal desk." Only staffers in the latter group of departments are eligible for the buyouts. Post ombudsman Patrick Pexton says the paper is looking to eliminate 48 jobs out of about 200 eligible positions.

Which means the Post doesn't consider local news coverage a "core area" for the paper anymore.

Read the full memo announcing the buyouts below:

To the staff:

Today, we are announcing that we will offer a voluntary buyout to some Newsroom employees. Our objective is a limited staff reduction that won’t affect the quality, ambition or authority of our journalism. We believe this is possible, given the changes in how we work and the great successes we have had building our digital readership lately.

To preserve that momentum, we do not intend to offer this program to every department or individual in the Newsroom. The reality is that we’re able to absorb staffing changes better in some areas than in others. In those departments where we do offer the buyout, there will be caps on the number of people who can participate, in order to moderate the impact and preserve our competitiveness in core coverage areas. In addition, we may turn down some volunteers if we feel their departure would impair our journalism. That said, it is important that we achieve real savings.

The exact details of the buyout, technically a voluntary Separation Incentive Program, will come later, after the company talks to the Guild about its proposed terms. Here’s what we can tell you now: The program does not accelerate pension benefits. It will include enhanced separation payments and company-paid COBRA (health insurance) premiums for eligible fulltime employees. Post representatives will be discussing the proposed program with the Guild over the next two weeks, consistent with the terms of the labor contract. The terms they agree on also will be included in an offer to Newsroom editors in eligible departments.

This program will be available for a specified period of time only; employees will have 45 days to study this offer and decide whether to accept it or decline it. The Post will schedule the final date of employment for those who elect to resign as part of this program; for most employees this will mean a resignation date of May 31, 2012.

Any measure like this is difficult. But we believe this approach is a sensible and effective way of addressing the economic forces affecting our industry. We constantly rethink how we do certain things in order to become more efficient, agile and competitive; this will require more such thinking. The Post’s Newsroom remains formidable, and we will continue making tactical hires so that even as we get smaller, we get stronger.

We plan to distribute SIP packages to eligible employees in a few weeks. We will have two Town Hall meetings today, at 11 a.m. in the Community Room and at 4:30 p.m. in the Auditorium, to answer your questions.

Marcus Liz Shirley Peter

Is Our Deer Learning?: Maybe it's not too late to change the award-winning designs of some of the new libraries around town. Because, apparently, the local fauna have trouble with lots of windows. A deer crashed through the plate glass in the interim library in Washington Highlands today, shattering the window; the deer had to be put to death, after breaking its jaw. No word on whether it was rushing to return books to avoid an overdue fine. -1

McPherson Square, Preoccupied: Yesterday's deadline for Occupy D.C. to abide by rules banning camping in McPherson Square passed without too much trouble, as many protesters agreed to ditch things like stoves and sleeping gear in order to keep the U.S. Park Police from raiding the site. Today, the Occupiers failed to get a restraining order against the enforcement of the rules—but they did get a promise of advance warning before a bust. Which, among other outcomes, guarantees extensive media coverage if the cops ever do move to clear the park. +2

History Of Fiction: Republican presidential candidate and would-be moon colonizer Newt Gingrich has compared himself to everything from Moses to "a Viking." So it's almost understandable that Post reporter Stephanie McCrummen might have thought Gingrich was referring to another historical figure when he said he was a student of "the Japanese samurai warlord Toranaga." Unfortunately for McCrummen, Toranaga is a character in Shogun, a James Clavell novel published in 1975, not an actual historical figure. Fortunately for the rest of us, the correction noting that fact is quite amusing. +2

Save Us, Peyton Kenobi, You're Our Only Hope: Two seasons ago, the Washington Redskins signed Donovan McNabb amidst great preseason hype. Before the 6-10 2010 campaign was over, McNabb had been benched for Rex Grossman. So the news that the team is now doodling Peyton Manning's name and drawing burgundy and gold hearts on notebooks in Ashburn, Va., doesn't exactly inspire great confidence. Of course, the modern era being what it is, there is already a petition to bring Manning to town and a Twitter feed to promote it, complete with PhotoShopped images of Dan Snyder posing with his new QB. -1

Yesterday's Needle rating: 38 Today's score: +2 Today's Needle rating: 40

The Washington Post surveyed 800 black women—and published the wrong story about the results on A1 today. Readers learned that black women are more religious than white women, less worried about romance than others, and feel pretty good about themselves. But if they wanted to know how black women compared to other groups, they'd have to go online to look at the survey data—which paints a more useful "portrait."

For instance, the story and its accompanying graphic note that black women are more religious than white women. But it neglects to mention that 70 percent of black men also find it "very important" to lead a religious life—a sign that there's a clear balance being struck between whether and when black women identify as women or as black. Context-free data point after context-free data point make up the body of the piece. 

While black women are less interested in marriage, there's little context given beyond speculative quotes. There's no mention that marriage is on a downward trend for all Americans—particularly poorer Americans. (Black women, it's worth noting, are more likely to be poor.) Instead, the story compares black women (40 percent of whom think it's important to be married) to white women (55 percent of whom think it's important to be married)—rather than comparing black women to their most likely partners, black men. Only 47 percent of black men think marriage is very important.

Author Krissah Thompson says there are "a number of significant differences in the outlooks and experiences of black and white women," but she fails to point out that in most of the questions where black and white women's opinions diverge, black women's responses tend to be in line with black men. Which is to be expected, but bears some exploration. (The group most frequently out of touch with everyone surveyed? White men. Still waiting on the story about their hopes and dreams.)

While black women and white women tend to align when it comes to domestic or "women's" issues, black women and men are more similar on race and self-perception questions. Ignoring that is a glaring omission in an article that purports to tell the whole story. It would have been far more interesting to explore where and why black women line up with other surveyed groups, and then hone in on questions where they are truly unique.

For example, 73 percent of black women are worried about not having enough money to pay their bills. Considering that the majority of poor people in the U.S. are women, this isn't a surprise, but it's an important question that gets the short shrift in the article in favor of platitudes about how black women are strong yet neurotic. Meanwhile a question about stress begs for an exploration that never comes: Women are more stressed than men, but why are black women less stressed than white women?

The editorial direction for the first story in their "Black women in America" series (tomorrow, they're writing about Michelle Obama, who is so unique that it's hard to believe there could be a relevant argument made about perceptions of her) is bizarre. Thompson opts to go over the data points in only the most superficial manner, pulling quotes like, "According to the stereotype, African American women—educated women—are b——, and they run men out of their lives because they are so mean and they don’t want a man and blah, blah," from one Atlanta lawyer. But that's a trope that frequently applies to educated women of all races. It may be more common for black women—or not, depending on who you ask.

And she quotes one student who says, “You still have to make sure you lay all of your credentials out there — your transcript, your portfolio, your résumé. They show why I am here.” But who doesn't have to do that? Again, you could argue that black women have to do it more often, but as presented, it's pure speculation and no proof or context. What about young black men? Or Latinas? Do some of them feel the same pressure? Probably. Does it depend on the field they're going into? Possibly. Each quote just brings up more questions and very few answers.

Photo by Matt Dunn

Writers didn’t stop at condemning Ivie for divorcing her first husband, an act that they said violated her marriage vows. They went on (and on), in one sanctimonious posting after another, to paint her as a selfish, promiscuous publicity hound.

“Talk about immoral and sleazy. This woman covers all the bases,” one posting said.

“Nothing like a disability to get in the way of your dating,” another said.

Or how about my personal favorite: “This woman has absolutely no right to any happiness whatsoever.”

These writers have every right to voice their disapproval of Ivie’s actions on the grounds that their view of the marriage covenant is different from hers – and, given the national divorce rate, different from that of most Americans.

But if they’re too cowardly to write under their own names and accept some accountability, then they ought to try to be constructive rather than just cruel. The Post and other media companies open these forums to all comers with little censorship, but that doesn’t relieve the writers of the obligation to exercise some self-restraint.

I'm sorry—maybe McCartney is new to the world of Internet comments, but if one thing is true, it's that very few commenters feel an obligation to do anything but express their opinions. Anonymity helps them go further than they would normally. While we allow anonymous comments at City Desk, we also moderate them based on a few rules. The Post, however, expects to have a civil discourse without any moderation, and that's not how it works in the real world.

A friend who contributes to the Post told me last year that editors have asked regular contributors to start participating in the comment sections of their columns. My friend refused because the comments are essentially going unmoderated and getting in there means becoming a punching bag for really angry people. I'm not sure why the Post expects it can have good discussion without actively moderating. As City Paper alum Ta-Nehisi Coates (known for having one of the most thoughtful comment sections around) told On The Media, "I spend at least as much time in curating and hosting as I do writing." And that's hard to do—especially on a site as large as the Post's—but it's effective. If the Post is going to let its comments section run free, they shouldn't complain that commenters are rude.

“Measure us on the things I said we were going to do,” Gray said at the beginning of January. The problem: For all the bullet-pointed plans that any competently managed campaign can produce, he never announced some broad governing agenda. Instead, his victory was based on an implicit political promise. Unlike his polarizing predecessor, he would treat with appropriate deference the institutions and individuals — unions, clergy, longtime pols, neighborhood activists — who have dominated local politics in 30-plus years of home rule. And, by doing so, he would express appropriate humility to the largely African American, middle- and working-class voters who identify with those figures, and who remain the largest chunk of the electorate.

If that agenda was enough to defeat a shockingly tone-deaf incumbent, it hasn’t been much to govern on. In the District, like other places, most successful leaders have a goal that can be boiled down to a single sentence. Marion Barry was going to make government serve a long-neglected majority. Tony Williams was going to tidy up the city’s books. [Adrian] Fenty was going to improve its schools.

Gray, by contrast, conveyed no similar, singular passion. (Even if he had, the budget deficit that Fenty left behind would have crimped most ambitions.) “There is far more that brings us together than there is that drives us apart,” Gray said on inauguration day. “Whether we get around by car, bus, train, foot or bike, this is one city — our city.” See anything in there to disagree with?

Read the rest; and as our commentariat is far more knowledgeable about D.C. than the Post's, weigh in below.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

The Post's new ladyblog—She The People—has a post musing on why Callista Gingrich, third wife of GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, isn't acting like The Other Woman. It includes such gems as:

Whether intentionally or not, the image she presents is all wife and no mistress. Formal and reserved in her red blazers, ruby lipstick and stunningly coiffed platinum hair, Gingrich does nothing if not project the portrait of political spouse. One wonders if she does so precisely because she is debuting in the role after all those years as the other woman.

Perhaps Gingrich, who has been married to her husband for nearly 12 years—three political lifetimes, and twice as long as they had an affair—is acting like a politician's wife because she is a politician's wife?

Photo by Gage Skidmore via Flickr/Creative Commons Attribution Generic 2.0 License

What's far more interesting is that statistics show black kids get suspended for the same kinds of minor infractions that white kids get a pass for. Author Donna St. George touches on that in her piece, but it's only in the comments that she highlights actual numbers from a study of 21 Maryland schools. Catherine Bradshaw, a researcher at Johns Hopkins, found that, "even after controlling for the student's level of teacher-rated behavior problems, teacher ethnicity, and other classroom factors, Black students were significantly more likely than White students to receive [office disciplinary referrals]. Results also suggested that ethnic match between students and their teachers did not reduce the risk for referrals among Black students."

And yes, that may complicate the idea that it's white-on-black racism that's getting these kids punished unfairly, but it seems safe to say that there appears to be a commonly held belief that black kids should be punished harder for minor offenses. But why? That's a question worth exploring in depth, in a way that both the Post and its readers seem unprepared to do.

Photo by Colette Cassinelli via Flickr/Creative Commons Attribution Generic 2.0 License

The Post has a new report up showing that black students in the Washington area are suspended and expelled "two to five times as often" as white students:

Last year, for example, one in seven black students in St. Mary’s County were suspended from school, compared with one in 20 white students. In Alexandria, black students were nearly six times as likely to be suspended as their white peers.

In Fairfax, where the suicide in January of a white high school football player who had been suspended brought an outcry for change, African American students were four times as likely that year to be suspended as white students, and Hispanic students were twice as likely.

The problems extend beyond the Washington area to school districts across the country and are among a host of concerns about school discipline that sparked a joint effort by the U.S. Justice and Education departments in July to look into reforms.

Experts say disparities appear to have complex causes. A disproportionate number of black students live below the poverty line or with a single parent, factors that affect disciplinary patterns. But experts say those factors do not fully explain racial differences in suspensions. Other contributing factors could include unintended bias, unequal access to highly effective teachers and differences in school leadership styles.

Donna St. George interviewed an array of school officials and parents who note that a huge part of the problem is the suspension-happy treatment of discretionary offenses. When committing these non-violent infractions, black students are far more likely to be punished more harshly than whites who commit the exact same offenses. Meanwhile, poverty and its attendant behavioral issues don't entirely explain why, as one researcher pointed out, "affluent black kids get suspended more than affluent white kids."

It's always dangerous to dive into the comment sections of newspaper stories, but the piece has picked up a notable 3,400 comments since it ran yesterday. Unsurprisingly, nearly everyone in the comment section is an expert on the behavior of blacks, and it doesn't take much to find miles of racist and uninformed musings. A sampling:

Ms. St. George... Has it occurred to the you that "In Washington area, African American students suspended and expelled two to five times as often as whites" because African American students COMMIT OFFENSES warranting suspension and expulsion with two to five times the FREQUENCY of whites?

And:

The problem is that Blacks break the rules more often so they get suspended more often. Its time we teach all of our children ethics and morality and how to act properly. This problem can be fixed if we fix the overly permissive, excuse making culture in our society. (Basically liberal Democrats) This corrupted culture seems to be negatively affecting minorities much more than whites.

And:

Is Donna St. George aware that black people refer to making good grades and attending school every day, "acting white"? If so, she failed to mention it in her article. For anyone wanting the answer to this "problem", simply Google "black pathology".

And:

This article is ridiculous. Black students get suspended more because their behavior is awful. Their culture has been corrupted. They are mostly being raised by a mother only. They have no positive male role models. The women are getting pregnant on a whim. The morals and ethics of the poor black person is horrific. Stop blaming the schools for mythological racial bias. Start blaming black people who just simply have worse behavior. Liberals are just making the situation worse for Black people.

Obviously, race-based stories like this tend to attract the angry id of racism, but when these kinds of viewpoints still exist, it's not a surprise that black kids are being sent to the principal's office and getting written up more frequently than their white counterparts. The comments, in other words, may do an even better job than the story does of explaining the phenomenon.

Photo by Colette Cassinelli

My colleague Jonathan L. Fischer talks with the Post's Ned Martel, who says D.C. should be on par with New York and LA when it comes to getting first-run indie films:

So are Martel and his sources right? I called Peter Knegt, a box-office analyst and associate editor at Indiewire, who says that generally speaking, D.C., Chicago, Boston, and Austin have the highest indie-flick box office following the Big Two. He's sympathetic to the local cinema owners quoted in Martel's piece, who complained about losing out on press buzz and national campaigns. He points out that some limited release films, like TheDescendants recently, do open in cities besides New York and L.A. But Knegt mentions a few reasons why most indie movie distributors aren't about to ditch their tiered release system.

Opening only in New York and L.A. is a way for distributors (particularly smaller ones) to limit their risk, especially if they're worried a film might not have legs. "It’s risky to put a film in 10 or 20 theaters in its first weekend," Knegt says. "If it sort of tanks, you’re screwed." Good box office in New York and L.A. can help prove a film is viable. "Some people might want to see Shame right now, but there are people at bigger theaters who want to see" how the film sells out of the gate, Knegt says.

Jon has lots more over at Arts Desk. Read the rest.

Pelosi remains a political powerhouse, yet a story about her current legislative interests gets relegated to a page that also has a review for the latest Twilight film. It's hard to imagine a similar story on a high-ranking congressman being placed there. Still, story author Melinda Henneberger writes via e-mail, "Seriously, have no complaints ever about being published in the Style section."

Meanwhile, the Post lady blog Henneberger's working on that was supposed to be launching this week has been delayed. She writes, "As one of our writers said, it wouldn't be a blog if it launched on time!"

Photo by jennifer donley via Flickr/Creative Commons Attribution Generic 2.0 License

Ann Taylor is the capital of Appropriate Attire. It’s where aspiration meets motivation meets resignation, and that is why it is perfect for Washington. It represents the vision of what having a Big Job in Washington should look like — how it will involve breakfast meetings and shell tops, policy change and wide-leg trousers. Your life is about to catch fire, and when it does, you are going to be wearing a prim new pencil skirt.

Though I wish to hate on this, I cannot. My first year back in D.C. post-college was spent working downtown, about a block over from "Ann." Now that I'm enjoying my career in a far less reputable field, may those shell tops never see the light of day again.

Photo by cmurtaugh via Flickr/Creative Commons Attribution Generic 2.0 License