text:
Copyright© 2004, National Broadcasting Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
NBC News
MEET THE PRESS Sunday, August 1, 2004
Guests: Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.), Republican convention prime-time speaker, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), Democratic convention prime-time speaker, Ron Brownstein, Los Angeles Times, John Harwood, The Wall Street Journal, Gwen Ifill, PBS, "Washington Week"
Moderator/Panelist: Tim Russert, NBC News
This is a rush transcript provided for the information and convenience of the press. Accuracy is not guaranteed. In case of doubt, please check with:
(Sundays: (202)885-4200)
MR. TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday, President Bush in Missouri...
PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: After 19 years in the United States Senate, my opponent has had thousands of votes but very few signature achievements.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: ...Senator Kerry in Pennsylvania.
SEN. JOHN KERRY, (D-MA): I think you deserve a president who fights as hard for your job as he fights for his own job.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Ninety-three days to go. For the Bush campaign, he spoke at the Democratic convention in 1992. This year, he will speak at the Republican convention. With us, Senator Zell Miller, Democrat of Georgia. For the Kerry campaign, he spoke at the Democratic convention on Thursday. With us, Senator Joe Biden, Democrat of Delaware. Miller and Biden square off on Bush vs. Kerry.
Then Tom Brokaw goes on the bus with the Kerry-Edwards ticket. Insights and analysis from Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times, Gwen Ifill of PBS' "Washington Week," and John Harwood of The Wall Street Journal.
But first, Zell Miller may be a Democratic senator from Georgia but he has endorsed George W. Bush for re-election, and he will speak at the Republican convention at the end of this month.
Senator Miller, welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.
SEN. ZELL MILLER, (D-GA): Thank you, Tim. Good to be with you.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me take you back to 1992. Here you are at the Democratic convention, and this is what you had to say.
(Videotape, July 13, 1992):
SEN. MILLER: I am a Democrat because we are the party of hope. For 12 dark years, the Republicans have dealt in cynicism and skepticism. They've mastered the art of division and diversion and they have robbed us of our hope.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: You're talking about Ronald Reagan and former President Bush. What's changed?
SEN. MILLER: Oh, the Democrats have changed. This time, it's the Democrats who have the party of division and diversion. Have you ever seen anything like this Democratic convention? We've been going to them for a long time. This is the first time I've ever seen the speakers issued muzzles before they went up to the speaking platform. I mean, you have to give them a C+, I guess, for discipline, but it was a convention that was completely deceptive in every way. Somebody back in Georgia said that it's the Botox convention: cosmetically enhanced.
MR. RUSSERT: But they talked about a strong defense. They talk about reducing the top bracket of the tax cut, rolling it back. They talked about health care for the average man and woman like a U.S. senator gets. What's wrong with those issues for a Democratic Party?
SEN. MILLER: Well, there's a lot of difference between talking about them and then doing something about them. I mean, on the issue of defense, here is Senator Kerry, who voted to send troops to Iraq and then turned around and voted against financing the equipment and the ammunition and the benefits for the dependents that these troops needed. Now, he's saying he's going to do all of these things.
I found his speech amazingly evasive. It was the same gobbledegook, same baffle gab that you have always heard from John Kerry. He said that he had a plan for Iraq, but then he never got around to telling you what that plan was. He said that he was going to increase troops by 40,000, and special ops, he was going to double, but I'm not going to send them to Iraq. I don't know exactly where he stands on these things still.
MR. RUSSERT: It's interesting, because your views of Senator Kerry seemed to have changed. This is what you said of March of this year. "...after hearing the agenda [Kerry has] laid out for our country-I cannot support him in his race for the presidency. There are too many issues about which John Kerry and I disagree. And there are too few similarities between John Kerry and the great Democratic leaders I've known."
But here you are just three short years ago, with Senator Kerry, in Atlanta, Georgia. There's a picture of the two of you, and that night you said this. "My job tonight is an easy one: to present to you one of this nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best known and greatest leaders-and a good friend. ...In his 16 years in the Senator John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington. Early in his Senate career in 1986, John signed on to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Bill, and he fought for balanced budgets before it was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so. John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment."
That's not ancient history. That's 2001.
SEN. MILLER: That's also the press release they gave me to introduce him by. And I was very impressed with John Kerry when I first came to the Senate, because I knew this man was an authentic American hero. And anyone that has a Silver Star and Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, I respect and admire and thank them for their service. But later I got to serve with this served with this man and I saw what kind of record he really did have in the Senate.
But let's make one thing clear, Tim. I am not for President Bush's re-election because I am against John Kerry. I am for President George W. Bush because he is the right man in the right place at the right time. He is the man who has had the backbone to stand up and defend America in possibly the worst time in all of our history. That's why I'm for him, because he's a strong leader. He understood that the best way to keep money back with people is to leave the money in their pockets and never take it to Washington in the first place. I'm for George W. Bush because of positive reasons, not negative reasons against John Kerry.
MR. RUSSERT: You mentioned that John Kerry did call for an increase of 40,000 active duty troops and doubling the size of our Special Forces. He also said that we are using the National Guard and reservists almost as a back-door draft. About 30 percent of the reservists and Guardspeople from Georgia have been mobilized largely because of Iraq. Is he right about that?
SEN. MILLER: I have visited those troops in Iraq, and they are proud and honored to be serving their country there. Lots of good things have been happening in Iraq that have not been in the press. There are real advances being made, and I think they're going to continue to be made. And I think that eventually we're going to see that this war in Iraq was the correct thing to do because it kept it from being on the streets of America. I think we'd rather fight the enemy over there than over here. And I think that America is safer because we've done that, and I also think that it has the possibility of transforming the Middle East, which is what every president has wanted to do for many years.
MR. RUSSERT: Might we need more American troops in Iraq?
SEN. MILLER: I think you have to go by what the military leaders tell you. I don't think politicians make those kind of decisions. I think military leaders make those decisions.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Pat Roberts, Republican, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman, sat here a couple of weeks ago and said if the Senate knew back in 2002, October, that the weapons of mass destruction that the intelligence agency said existed, did not exist at the levels that had been said, the Senate would not have voted to authorize the war.
SEN. MILLER: Well, I'm not sure that's correct, but I know this, that John Kerry was on that Intelligence Committee for eight years. They had 49 meetings. He missed 38 of those meetings. And I also know that they had a number of meetings that were classified. We don't know how many of those he missed. I think he ought to tell us.
MR. RUSSERT: But you believe the Senate still would have voted for the war even in the absence of weapons of mass destruction?
SEN. MILLER: Oh, yes. I think so. I think that it was something that we needed to do both in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to the September 11 Commission. President Bush is expected to implement many of the recommendations the commission has put forward. Back in March, you had this observation: "I've come to seriously question this panel's usefulness. I believe it will ultimately play a role in doing great harm to this country, for its unintended consequences, I fear, will be to energize our enemies and demoralize our troops."
Do you still believe that?
SEN. MILLER: There's no doubt that it energized our enemy at the time that it was first set up, and there's no doubt that there was a lot of politics involved. But because of the great work of the chairman and the vice chairman, they were able to come up with some very good suggestions on what we need to do to strengthen our security and our intelligence, and I think that we're going to do that.
MR. RUSSERT: So the commission has been a net plus?
SEN. MILLER: Yes, I think you look at it now and say that, but I also said at that time that they could just say everybody was at fault, and move on, and I think that's what they finally concluded that, there were a lot of people that were at fault.
MR. RUSSERT: Should we have won one central intelligence czar?
SEN. MILLER: That's something that someone who knows more about this business than I are going to have to decide. I kind of think not, because I think that it's not good to have someone like that in a political White House.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to your standing as a Democrat. The Chatham County Democratic Committee down there in southeastern Georgia, near Savannah, issued this on their Internet. "Zell gets divorced, a loyal Democrat no more. The Democratic Party of Chatham County, Georgia, does hereby divorce former Democratic Governor Zell Miller. Statements and actions of the formerly-Democratic U.S. senator have irretrievably broken the bonds that formerly existed between us and we view any previous ties to Miller as null and void."
SEN. MILLER: Well, they let me keep my dogs, and I appreciate that. Look, these people are as out of touch as some of the Democrats are somewhere else. I can tell you right now that as far as the Democrats in Georgia are concerned, most of them agree with where I am on this, supporting President George W. Bush. There will be a lot of George Bush Democrats in Georgia, just like there were a lot of Ronald Reagan Democrats in Georgia.
And I also say this to you. There are three things I think in the South that are going to change this election as far as how people view it. One is this is a part of the country as you well know, Tim, that is very pro-military. And they do not understand a person voting to go to war and then not supporting the troops. It also is a highly agricultural area, and these people are--John Kerry is agriculturally illiterate. And it is also a part of the country that stands for American values. And how can a person say that they are for American values and for the American family whenever they vote or not vote but oppose an amendment to the Constitution that would define marriage as a union between man and woman? How can you say that you're for family values whenever you listen to Whoopi Goldberg get up there and talk about obscenities and vulgarities as far as the president is concerned and hear someone talk about the president being a thug and a murderer and then get up there and validate those remarks by saying these people represent the heart and soul of America? They don't.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Kerry says he's against gay marriage, and that he did distance himself from some of the comments made at that fund-raising event.
SEN. MILLER: Well, why doesn't he release the tape and show us what else was said there that he said was the heart and soul of America? And I'll tell you something else, I watched him very closely the other night. How can a person say--how can they talk about the glory of Old Glory whenever they voted three times for an amendment--against an amendment that would have protected the flag against abuse? He's not for family values. He's completely out of sync as far as...
MR. RUSSERT: You mean the constitutional amendment in terms of burning or desecrating the flag?
SEN. MILLER: Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: The Atlanta Constitution, your hometown paper--Atlanta--well, not your hometown paper, one of your papers in your state, let me correct that, said this. "In his seamless self-delusion over the last year, Miller says his Democratic Party has left him, not the other way around. On that score, he's like the out-of-step GI who insists it's everyone else in the platoon who's on the wrong foot. Soon, and very soon, Zell needs to come home and take to his rocking chair. Clearly the world is too much with him."
SEN. MILLER: That's the same newspaper that whenever I left the governor's office had a lot of good things to say about me. I'm not worried about those kind of comments. What I'm worried about is what's going to happen in the next five years in this country. And I am convinced that what happens in these next five years will determine what kind of world that my grandchildren and my four great- grandchildren are going to grow up in. And that's why I'm so strong for George W. Bush for president, because I think he's going to make this world safer for those precious children of mine.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you think the world's safer now than it was pre the invasion of Iraq?
SEN. MILLER: Oh, sure, I do, and I think that it's very obvious that it is. I mean, we have not had another attack since 9/11. And just think of the opportunities that they have--been out there. I mean, yes, it's safer than it was. This is one of those things where you've got to have continued vigilance, and we've got to do everything we can. But certainly it's safer, because the war is going on over there instead of over here right now.
MR. RUSSERT: John Kerry came out to address the Democrats and said, "I'm John Kerry," and he in fact is ready to serve his country, accept his duty as commander in chief. Do you have any doubt that he would not be a strong, effective commander in chief?
SEN. MILLER: Oh, yes, I have a lot of doubts. If you will look at his record in the Senate, which is something they didn't talk about at all during the Democratic convention, it was as if he has been in a witness protection program somewhere and didn't even exist, incognito somewhere. He has voted--he's been on the wrong side of foreign policy issues for the last 20 years. If he had had his policies adopted in the Senate instead of the Ronald Reagan policies being adopted, we would still be in the Cold War. We'd still have a Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall would still be up. This...
MR. RUSSERT: Now, Senator, how can you say that?
SEN. MILLER: Because this is a man...
SEN. MILLER: This is a man who voted to cut every single one of the weapons systems that won the Cold War.
MR. RUSSERT: But aren't you...
SEN. MILLER: This is a man that voted against the weapons system that we're using to fight the war on terror. This is a man who voted against increases in intelligence funding. He wanted to cut intelligence funding.
MR. RUSSERT: But on defense and intelligence authorization bills, you have the same voting record as John Kerry.
SEN. MILLER: I didn't try to cut--now ultimately he came along and voted for some, but I sure didn't try to cut this defense budget.
MR. RUSSERT: Some Democrats in Georgia--and here is John Lewis, who's the dean of the congressional delegation, believes that you were elected with the support of a lot of Democratic working people, black and white. This is what Mr. Lewis said. He "called Mr. Miller's decision to appear at the [Republican] convention on behalf of President Bush `a shame and a disgrace.'... This is the same Zell Miller who said 40 years ago that President Johnson had sold his soul when he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is the same Zell Miller who as elected by the working people of Georgia--the teachers, union members, farmers and both black and white voters in the state. I do no understand what he is so angry about, but apparently he has lost his way.'"
Why are you so angry at the Democrats?
SEN. MILLER: John is a very good friend, and I can remember another quote of not too long ago where he said, "Zell Miller was a courageous man who had led a courageous life." I'm not angry. I'm just disillusioned. I'm disillusioned with a party that has gone completely so far to the left that in the South we don't even have a chance of electing Democrats statewide anymore because they are associated with the National Democratic Party, they're associated with the Kerry-Edwards-Daschle wing of the Democratic Party. And this group is so far to the left that they are completely off the charts.
MR. RUSSERT: John Edwards is from North Carolina, Southern senator.
SEN. MILLER: Oh, he's got a good ZIP code and he's got a good accent and he's got a good smile. But he has voted very similar to the way that John Kerry has voted. He also voted to go to war and then voted against supporting the troops.
MR. RUSSERT: Is this what you're going to tell the Republican National Convention?
SEN. MILLER: No, I'm going to come up with something else to tell them, but it'll be along those lines. I'll talk about the journey that I've made in life and I'll talk about the journey that my Democratic Party has made.
MR. RUSSERT: The other prime-time speakers--Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain--are all pro-gay rights, and Schwarzenegger and Rudy Giuliani are pro-abortion rights and pro- anti-gun rights. Should they be speaking to a Republican convention, and are they out of sync with your thinking?
SEN. MILLER: Well, of course, I disagree with them on all those issues, but sure they should, because the Republican Party has become the party where diversity is accepted. You know, they talked about diversity at the Democratic convention. There was no diversity in ideology whatsoever. Can you remember when they wouldn't even let Bob Casey, a pro-life Democrat, governor of Pennsylvania-- wouldn't even let him speak at the convention in '92? They have completely pushed out any moderate to conservative Democrat. It's no longer the party of the big tent that it once was.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Zell Miller, we thank you very much for sharing your views.
Coming next, the view from the Kerry campaign. Democratic Senator Joe Biden of Delaware. And then our Roundtable, with insights and analysis, all coming up right here on MEET THE PRESS.
MR. RUSSERT: The response from the Kerry campaign with Senator Joe Biden. Our political Roundtable after this station break.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Biden, welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.
SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN, (D-DE): Nice to be with you, Tim.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you John Kerry at the Democratic convention on Thursday.
(Videotape, July 29, 2004):
SEN. KERRY: We will add 40,000 active duty troops not in Iraq but to strengthen American forces that are now over-stretched, overextended and under pressure.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Not in Iraq. Should Senator Kerry have taken that off the table?
SEN. BIDEN: Well, I think what he's talking about is the new troops he's talking about adding. We've got a big debate about adding a couple more divisions, and that's an amendment that I co-sponsored with three of my colleagues including John McCain. And I think in that convention he didn't want to make it sound like he was adding 40,000 new troops just to send to Iraq, but he hadn't taking anything off the table to the best of my knowledge about what he's going to need in Iraq.
And the bottom line, Tim, is God only knows what he's going to inherit on January 20th if he's sworn in as president of the United States in Iraq. I mean, who knows? I mean, this has not gone well; going a little bit better now. But we're just now beginning to train Iraqi forces for the first time. We've wasted a year and a half. We're just now beginning to train the police. So I don't think anything is off the table.
MR. RUSSERT: We may, in fact, have to send more American troops.
SEN. BIDEN: Well, let me tell you what our flag officers, generals, that I met with three or four Sundays ago in Baghdad told me. They said from their experience, they know, since there's going to be somewhere on the order of--there are going to be thousands of polling places, up to 25,000 polling places, for this election in January, that they're going to need a surge of force. Now, what they're planning on doing is they're planning on keeping people there a little longer and sending people a little sooner so you overlap with up to 20,000 to 30,000 additional forces. In addition to that, it's about time that the French and the Germans and the rest having voted for this resolution to turn this over to the Iraqis and the U.N. mandate here, that they come up with at least the 4,000 troops that are required to protect the U.N. forces. So the combination of additional forces from outside, possibility of this Muslim force, and probably the need to surge forces are all there.
MR. RUSSERT: Including Americans?
SEN. BIDEN: Including--look, I asked Sanchez: Is there any possibility over the next year of reducing the force levels in Iraq? He said no.
MR. RUSSERT: Zell Miller was just on.
SEN. BIDEN: Yes, he's a great guy.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you what he had to say about your candidate, John Kerry. "I think John Kerry made the right decision when he voted to authorize the war in Iraq. But then he went out on the campaign trail and started spending too much time with Howard Dean. And he came back to Washington and voted against the $87 billion the troops need for protective armor, combat pay, and better health care. That's the worst kind of indecisiveness, and the wrong leadership at this critical moment in history."
SEN. BIDEN: Well, the irony is that what Zell may not have remembered, but I'm sure he'll remember when he hears me say it, is that there was an attempt to break out that $87 billion. I voted for the $87 billion. I got in trouble with the Democrats immediately saying I would support it. But I understood their point. They said, "Look, let's take the $67 billion for the troops, the body and armor, etc.," and by the way, this is a president who sent our National Guard there without body armor, a lot of them without body armor. This is the president who sent the National Guard there without the adequate training. This is the president who sent a lot of the National Guard there without the Humvees that were capable of withstanding rounds.
By anyway, having said that, we said, John Kerry said and a number of others said, "Let's take the $67 billion and have two votes. Vote immediately for the $67 billion for the troops. The remaining $20 billion roughly, because we don't trust these guys that they're going to be able to manage it very well, let's attach conditions to it." They had $30,000 for pickup trucks, for example, in this thing. And so that was the big debate.
When faced with having to vote for that $20,000 that was going to be mismanaged, they thought, they decided not to vote for it. Now, I didn't vote that way, but there is a merit to their position. Of the $18 billion, Tim, we voted to reconstruct Iraq, that our military says they badly needed to help them secure order in Iraq, only $450 million have been spent so far. That's incredible mismanagement. And we voted that money last October.
MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, let me refer you to The New Yorker magazine article of July 26. "A deep vein of disapproval for [Kerry's] Iraq vote still runs through the Democratic base. That unease is compounded by the obvious political calculation of Kerry's vote last fall to withhold eighty-seven billion dollars of auxiliary support for the military in Afghanistan and Iraq. As one of his advisers put it to me, `Off the record, he did it because of Howard Dean. On the record, he has an elaborate explanation.' Kerry originally sponsored an amendment sponsored by Senator Joe Biden that would have funded the war by temporarily reducing Bush's tax cuts to the wealthiest one percent of Americans. But Biden's bill had no chance of passing in a Republican-dominated Senate. ...Biden himself ultimately voted for the money, and he confirmed that Kerry's decision not to was `tactical,' an attempt `to prove to Dean's guys I'm not a warmonger.'"
That's quoting you.
SEN. BIDEN: Well, that's paraphrasing me. I didn't say that. I was asked whether or not it was tactical, and I--unfortunately, I'm straight. I said I don't know whether it's tactical or not. The bottom line was I happen to disagree with the vote. But the irony of all ironies is that he was more right about their ineptitude in how to deal with it than I was.
MR. RUSSERT: But again, here's Time magazine. "John Kerry's judgment when it comes to the substance of policy is excellent. ... The truth is he usually spends more time talking about the politics of a vote...and that was certainly the case on the $87 billion. That told me this: John doesn't have as much confidence in his political judgment as he does in his policy decisions."
That's you.
SEN. BIDEN: I have confidence in his policy decisions, and I have confidence that when he's president he'll do a great job.
MR. RUSSERT: But it seems as if that the vote for the war in 2002 was a general election vote, thinking, I voted against the first Persian Gulf War, I better be for this one. And then when it came to the second vote of supplying money to the troops, he was in the midst of a Democratic primary where Howard Dean was hitting him hard for his support for Iraq, and he voted the other way. Doesn't this re-enforce the notion of flip-flopping...
SEN. BIDEN: No.
MR. RUSSERT: ...and inconsistency on a serious issue like war?
SEN. BIDEN: The answer is I don't think so, any more than George Bush talking about withdrawing troops from the Balkans, withdrawing troops from that area, and have him flipping and flopping, him saying that we're overextended and then us going in.
I don't think--look, political campaigns are tough. I love this position of being in an adviser, man. I'm the guy who didn't make it through Iowa. I got all the answers. I know exactly what John Kerry should do, and I suspect Bush advisers know exactly what he should do. But political campaigns are tough. The one thing I have no doubt about is John Kerry has steel in his backbone. John Kerry will, in fact, do whatever it takes for us to have our national interest succeed in Iraq as well as around the world. And John Kerry's going to end up as president of the United States, God willing, where he is going to have to tell the French and the Germans and the rest, "Get over it. You don't have George Bush as an excuse anymore. Move. Get moving."
And the fact of the matter is I see--from my perspective, Tim, trying to stand back from it is hard. I mean, I'm obviously partisan on this. But if you stand back from it, does anybody think there's any possibility in a second four years George Bush is going to be able to rally the world to help us carry the burdens on anything? I mean, I'm not being facetious. I see no reasonable prospect of that. John Kerry will. Now, maybe it won't all work out the way it's supposed to. It's the only hope we have, and we cannot carry this burden alone, and I don't mean just Iraq. You have to have international cooperation to deal with the big problems we're going to face, and they relate from terror all the way to HIV and infectious diseases to ethnic cleansing.
And the irony is, what frustrates me, is this president, God love him, has made us weaker than before. I was the guy, as you remember, that pushed the last president before him, Clinton, to get into Bosnia and Kosovo. I beat up and about the head everyone who would listen to get involved. Can you imagine after the way George Bush has handled Iraq, another Milosevic, Us being able to gain the support, Democrat or Republican president, to use force legitimately? I think he's--and we've got to restore that. We've got to restore our credibility. And I don't see how George Bush can do that.
MR. RUSSERT: Would it have been more intellectually honest for John Kerry to have voted against the authorization for war and then voted for the $87 billion once the troops were on the ground?
SEN. BIDEN: No. I think John Kerry believed we should have gone into Iraq. I think it would have been more intellectually consistent, and I made the case to him, just as I did to Wesley Clark when he was out on the stump, that in fact it's more intellectually consistent to say what we should do with regard to supporting the money, even though we had grave doubts about the management capacity of this president.
MR. RUSSERT: So that vote was a mistake by Kerry?
SEN. BIDEN: I didn't vote that way. Only history will judge whether it's a mistake. I think it was better to err on the side of giving the president who's demonstrated he couldn't manage very well the money than not give him the money.
MR. RUSSERT: Zell Miller said that a Democrat just can't win in the South, one because they're perceived as weak on defense, two, as he said, is illiterate when it comes to agriculture issues, and three, because of pop cultural issues, gay rights and others. Does he have a point?
SEN. BIDEN: The irony about agriculture is the Democratic Party has kept all of Southern agriculture alive and well for the past 50 years. Give me a break, number one. Number two, I think in the cultural issue of this notion of gay marriage, I think it probably is a liability to have the right position, to have John McCain's position, to have, you know, Schwarzenegger's position and a lot of other people. John's against gay marriage, but he doesn't think it should be in the Constitution.
And with regard to the issue of defense, I don't believe for a second that the South believes that the Democratic Party is weak on defense. I mean, is--remember--I remember being on your show. Remember it was Mr. DeLay and all those right-wing guys in the House who talked about the sovereignty of Milosevic, the sovereignty of Yugoslavia. We cannot bomb them. They wouldn't even allow a vote in the House of Representatives on ending the genocide that was going on; the same outfit who said when we used rockets into Afghanistan, we are violating Afghan sovereignty.
You know, so I don't--and by the way, we elect Democrats. The very point about, you know, we haven't elected Democrats, look at the South. We elected Democratic governors last time. We elected Democratic senators last time. I don't believe we're not going to elect people. I think we win Florida. I think we win South Carolina. I think we're going to win North Carolina. And I think we're going to win Oklahoma. And so the idea that this is, you know, I think...
MR. RUSSERT: But what Southern states will John Kerry carry?
SEN. BIDEN: Oh, I think John--it's all--look, it's very difficult. I think John Kerry will carry Florida. I think he's got a shot in North Carolina. I think he has a shot in Arkansas. But the truth of the matter is what states in the Northeast is George Bush going to carry?
MR. RUSSERT: If you knew now what you didn't know in October of 2002, that the weapons of mass destruction, as promised by the CIA did not exist, would you still have authorized war?
SEN. BIDEN: I voted to authorize the war, Tim, because I thought it armed the president the best he could to go to the United Nations and get the world support behind a guy who was a madman and who had violated every effective peace agreement he had signed, with those resolutions at the U.N. And the fact of the matter is, at the time, I remember Dick Cheney was on your program saying they had reconstituted their nuclear weapons. I was on a companion program saying I have no evidence, I see nothing that indicates that. Either Dick Cheney is wrong or they're not giving me the intelligence information.
What we all did believe is he had the capacity, he had the capacity to have the--he had material. But many of us believed he had weaponized it, and if we let him go for another three to five years, he would have had that capacity. But what we didn't anticipate, we didn't anticipate that they so incompetently used the authority that we gave them. The very time that Powell was up there trying to get international support and gaining it, every time it looked like he was gaining, Cheney would make some outlandish speech to a veterans group or the secretary of defense would talk about the old and the new Europe, and I think they went to war prematurely, without a--at a minimum, isolating the French and Germans. And, look...
MR. RUSSERT: Was going to war a mistake?
SEN. BIDEN: Going to war when we went to war and the way we went to war, that was a mistake, because when you go to war virtually alone, you inherit the requirement of the peace virtually alone. And Dick Lugar, Joe Biden, a lot of other people said before we went to war, it was going to take thousands upon thousands of troops. We needed our allies with us, not for the war but for the peace. We are inheriting the wind because we did not go about it the way that most of us thought the president would go about it and didn't.
MR. RUSSERT: What do you think the situation in Iraq will be on the ground in November?
SEN. BIDEN: I don't like to--it's kind of like, you know, when you ask me whether or not the University of Delaware, when they play some bigger team--whether we're going to win and I'm afraid in my heart they are not going to win but I don't want to say they're not going to win because I don't want to vote against my own team. I think there is at least a significant possibility we could inherit in January a Lebanon in Iraq. I don't wish for that. I don't--I think it's less than even chance.
If we radically ratchet up the training of the police--real training--and the training of the military, if we get NATO in, as we finally are--I remember being on this show and everybody saying, "You can't get NATO in." Guess what? They finally presented the plan like I suggested and NATO signed on; now they're training, the details of which are still left undone.
So if we get NATO in, in terms of the training, if we actually are able to move along and train real guys that can shoot straight, bring in some additional forces, I think we'll be in a position for an election to be held and we've got a better-than-even chance of succeeding by December of '05. Our ultimate exit strategy is training Iraqis to get out. We've botched that job so far. I think with Petraeus now, we're finally getting on track. It's a day late...
MR. RUSSERT: The general on the ground.
SEN. BIDEN: Excuse me, the general on the ground. It's about a year late. Hopefully it's not too short in terms of dollars; requires more money and requires us to level with the American people, which this administration has still not done in telling them, "We're going to be there at least for another year with 140,000 troops and it's going to cost a lot more money than we've already spent." If we do those two things, I think we have a 50:50 shot of making the peace work in Iraq. And let me explain what I mean: a secure Iraq, representative government, no pure democracy, no weapons of mass destruction and no haven for terror. That's my goal as to what I think a secure Iraq and a stable Iraq means.
MR. RUSSERT: Before you go, if John Kerry wins, would you like to be secretary of state?
SEN. BIDEN: I'd like to be chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. And I'm not being a wise guy with you.
MR. RUSSERT: Would you prefer to be chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee...
SEN. BIDEN: I would prefer to be chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee...
MR. RUSSERT: ...rather than secretary of state?
SEN. BIDEN: Rather than secretary of state.
MR. RUSSERT: But if you're not chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee...
SEN. BIDEN: That's a different view.
MR. RUSSERT: ...you'd like to be secretary of state?
SEN. BIDEN: That's a different view. Well, I wouldn't refuse the job.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Joe Biden, we thank you for your views.
SEN. BIDEN: Thank you.
MR. RUSSERT: Next up, Tom Brokaw on the campaign trail with John Kerry and John Edwards. Our political Roundtable: Ron Brownstein of the LA Times, Gwen Ifill of PBS' "Washington Week," John Harwood, Wall Street Journal. They are all coming up right here on MEET THE PRESS.
MR. RUSSERT: And we are back. Welcome all.
Let's begin with the latest poll. Newsweek has it this way. If election held today, John Kerry, 49; George Bush, 42; Ralph Nader, 3. From three weeks ago, Kerry's up 2; Bush is down 2; Nader's the same. Look inside these numbers. Republicans, 7 are for Kerry, 90 for Bush, 1 for Nader. Democrats, now 86 for Kerry, 8 for Bush, 1 for Nader. Independents, 45 Kerry; 39 Bush; 7 Nader.
John Harwood, not a huge bounce. It's being called a baby bounce, but nonetheless, John Kerry in a slight lead.
MR. JOHN HARWOOD (Wall Street Journal): Well, nobody expected a bounce as big as, say, Bill Clinton got in 1992 because so many voters in this electorate have chosen up sides already, but that poll was taken before the historical peak of these bounces which ought to be this weekend when you have a lot of these low-information voters, don't play all that close attention, who are absorbing some of this information. That number, probably the Bush campaign's expecting maybe 6 points as a Kerry bump up from that 47 percent. Maybe he'll get in the low 50s.
MR. RUSSERT: In fact, the people who were surveyed, Gwen Ifill, on Friday after the speech, showed a 10-point spread. So there seemed to be some more movement.
MS. GWEN IFILL (PBS "Washington Week"): Yeah, and there's going to be more movement again because as we well know, there's going to be this wonderful lull, the Olympics, which both campaigns are going to be campaigning during, and then the Republican convention in which things could flip-flop the other way, and then what's going to happen, of course, is George W. Bush and he will come into Labor Day neck and neck. Now, it still remains interesting what happens with Ralph Nader 'cause the problem with Kerry in these polls up until now is he has been slightly ahead with Nader just always lurking in the background and this seems to be less of an impact now unless, of course, Nader can't get on the ballots.
MR. HARWOOD: Tim, I think we're beginning to see the point at which Ralph Nader's numbers start going down.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to the convention and bring in Ron Brownstein who's on the road in Columbus, Ohio, with the Kerry-Edwards ticket. This was John Kerry at the Democratic convention on Thursday the way he opened his speech.
(Videotape, July 29, 2004):
SEN. KERRY: I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Ron Brownstein, no doubt that John Kerry tried from the very beginning of that prime- time presentation to present himself as a potential commander in chief.
MR. RON BROWNSTEIN (Los Angeles Times): Absolutely, Tim, and that was not only in John Kerry's speech but the entire week was overwhelmingly focused on that single message, making John Kerry credible not only as an alternative to President Bush as commander in chief but arguing that he was superior. Former President Clinton really had the signature line of the week when he said "strength and wisdom are not opposing values," and the argument that the entire Democratic convention sought to make was that Kerry would be as strong as Bush but more judicious.
Can I go back very quickly to your point about the polls? It sounds a little odd to say, but often the horse race is a lagging indicator in the presidential race. And I agree with John that the real impact we won't know until early next week, but if you look inside the Newsweek poll, what's interesting is that it continues to send the message that President Bush is still facing a slight majority of the country that is open to change, 53 percent saying they want somebody new, only a 45-percent job approval in that poll, 58 percent saying that things aren't going well in the country. To me that is the real challenge he faces more than John Kerry at this point. He's got to make a stronger case for continuity.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to Iraq, the 800-pound elephant in the room that people don't want to talk about at the convention. Tom Brokaw was on the campaign trail on the bus with John Kerry and John Edwards. There he is there, and he asked Senator Kerry about Iraq, and here was Senator Kerry's response.
(Videotape, July 30, 2004):
SEN. KERRY: We were misled with respect to the way in which the president said he would go to war. He said he would build a true international coalition. He said he would exhaust the remedies of the United Nations. He said he would go to war as a last resort. I don't know many Americans who believe he really went to war as a last resort. He rushed to war without a plan to win the peace.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Gwen Ifill, is that enough to criticize the conduct and the management of the war, even though John Kerry had voted for it?
MS. IFILL: You know, it's very is interesting. I spent the week on the floor of the convention talking with delegates every single day, and the one thing--even the ones wearing the Kucinich peacenik buttons, even the ones who really hated the war and thought we shouldn't have been there, didn't want to talk about it. You're right. They did not bring it up. They decided they were just going to be united behind him.
I think Democrats are hoping that by the force of that unitedness--What is the word I'm--unity, they're going to be able to somehow not talk about this at all and they're going to be able to gloss over John Kerry's seeming inconsistencies on it. That's not what the Republicans are going to let them get away with. We heard Zell Miller getting to that point today.
MR. RUSSERT: John Harwood, the White House advisers were saying, "President Bush was for the war then, and he's for the war now, and what is John Kerry's position? We didn't hear that in his speech."
MR. HARWOOD: Well, John Kerry is hugging close to George Bush, and George Bush has moved a little bit toward Kerry. They're both agreeing that Iraq needs to be stable. It needs to be moving toward democracy, that we can't cut and run and bring our troops out. John Kerry said he wasn't going to put those 40,000 additional troops into Iraq, but he wasn't going to take 40,000 out, either. But look, every campaign's a two-way conversation. Every convention generates a counterargument, and the counterargument from the Bush campaign is John Kerry, you voted for this war, and they won't say it but it was pretty obvious to everybody in the country that George Bush intended to take the country to war against Iraq at that time. John Kerry's probably going to have to give a fuller explanation of why he did that.
MS. IFILL: And can I just add on the Iraq point...
MR. BROWNSTEIN: Time, can I...
MS. IFILL: Just one second, Ron. The really important part about the Iraq issue is that events could change everything, and it won't matter how you voted or how you didn't vote. If things on the ground don't improve or if they get on page one, it doesn't matter what the politicians are saying.
MR. RUSSERT: Go ahead, Ron.
MR. BROWNSTEIN: It seems to me this debate about Iraq, right now at least, is less about Iraq itself and what you would do next than about the broader question of character and leadership. And the basic debate that's being set up out of this Democratic convention, I think, between the campaigns is how do you judge John Kerry as a commander in chief? The convention spent an entire week saying all you need to know about John Kerry as commander in chief you could learn 35 years ago in Vietnam with the way he performed under fire. He was steadfast, he was resolute, he made decisions that saved men's lives under the most arduous conditions imaginable. That was the presentation from the Democrats. The Republican argument is that all you need to know about John Kerry as commander in chief is contained in his struggles over Iraq and indeed, in his Senate voting record. More generally, they're arguing that it makes the opposite point, that he is someone who can't be counted on in a pinch. When things get tough, he kind of scatters and tries to please everybody. And I think that this is the basic framework, the argument that we're going to have the over next several weeks.
MR. HARWOOD: We saw it in the first ad the Bush campaign released after the convention, which is these times are big change, a lot of it's terrifying, you need somebody with conviction.
MR. RUSSERT: Also the economy emerged as a big issue yesterday. Here's George Bush in Missouri followed by John Kerry in Pennsylvania, this two-way virtual exchange you talked about, John Harwood. Let's watch.
(Videotape, Friday):
PRES. BUSH: We are turning the corner and we're not turning back.
(End videotape)
(Videotape, Saturday):
SEN. KERRY: Let me tell you something. The last time we had a president who talked about turning the corner and ran on the slogan of turning the corner was Herbert Hoover.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Gwen Ifill?
MS. IFILL: You know, it's interesting to listen to them. We've heard a lot of this before, this turning the corner stuff. In that point, John Kerry's right. But like Iraq, events on the ground matter, and because you're speaking to this narrow little slice of America who have not made up their mind who are-- I saw an interesting article this week about the people at the convention itself, and how some Democratic delegates were staying in dorms and paying for their own coffee and a lot of really rich Democrat delegates were taking the glittering conveyor belts, all the big financial fund-raisers. And to me that is a metaphor for what's happening in this country as well. Depending on where you are, the economy will look different and determine what your vote is, and people who are in that narrow group, who they're trying to woo in these battleground states they're all touring this weekend, they're the ones who are going to decide, and many of them don't feel so good about the economy and don't feel like they're turning the corner.
MR. RUSSERT: Tim, turning the corner isn't enough. One of the things that Republican as well as Democratic polling has shown is that if you just say the economy's better, voters want to hear more. They want to hear what you're going to go, and here's where George Bush faces a real conundrum. He's got to start outlining what he's going to do in a second term. What he really wants to do and what he and his strategist Karl Rove believe in both as a matter of politics and policy is Social Security reform. They've got to figure out whether voters can tolerate the anxiety that that issue might bring, to put that at the center of the table. George Gush has been a gambler throughout his presidency. He may roll the dice on that.
MR. RUSSERT: Ron Brownstein, you're on the campaign trail, as I mentioned, with John Kerry and John Edwards. They're inseparable on the campaign trail, in fact, since he's been selected as his running mate. Here's Tom Brokaw talking to the ticket of the Democratic Party and having some fun with it.
(Videotape, Friday):
MR. TOM BROKAW: So you're on your honeymoon, the two of you, and you've been at it now for a couple of weeks. No squabbles?
SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS: Oh, no. This has been very, very good.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Dressed exactly alike. Now, here's George Bush...
MR. BROWNSTEIN: They...
MR. RUSSERT: ...on his running mate, Dick Cheney, and we'll come back, Ron. Here's George Bush.
(Videotape, Saturday):
PRES. BUSH: I'm running with a really good man. I know he's not the prettiest face on the ticket.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Ron, what's going on?
MR. BROWNSTEIN: Yeah. Well, first of all, they did have different color Gore-Tex on yesterday, Kerry and Edwards, so you could tell them apart. Look, I mean, John Kerry hired an advocate when he chose his vice president. It's hard to make the case that John Edwards is really going to deliver a region.
Zell Miller's right. It's going to be very tough for John Kerry all across the South, even with John Edwards on the ticket. You know, there's some hope that he's going to perform well with rural communities and help win those voters. We'll see. The record on that was mixed in the primaries. What John Edwards can do is make a case. I don't think he had his best night of his career Wednesday night at the Democratic convention. I think many people, Democrats included, felt that he was a little rushed. Maybe he didn't project as much command as they hoped. But day in and day out, what John Edwards can do, as we saw him do yesterday in three well-attended rallies in Republican-leaning counties, was make a case for John Kerry. He makes John Kerry more energetic. But alas, the honeymoon is ending and they are getting off on their separate campaigning, I believe, later this afternoon.
MS. IFILL: And if I might add to that, also, it's important for us to remember, we watch this so closely, our eyes cross, our noses are pressed against the glass all the time. For most people, this week was a first date with these guys. They hadn't been paying attention. They didn't know who they were. And it's almost the same in seeing George W. Bush in campaign mode with Dick Cheney. They are wa--it's like a Rorschach test. There was a Rorschach test in how people re--like Teresa Heinz Kerry's speech-- peach--speech--I'm still tired and can't speak--to people who related to John Edwards' speech. Everybody saw it differently, whether they were at a hall, whether they were at home, whether they had been watching before or not.
MR. RUSSERT: You mentioned Teresa Heinz Kerry.
MS. IFILL: Yes, I did.
MR. RUSSERT: Matthew Dowd, one of the president's principal political advisers, wrote a famous memo where he said that if George Bush got the same percentage of women, blacks and Hispanics in 2004 that he got in 2000, he wouldn't lose the popular vote by 500,000. He'd lose it by three million because of the changing makeup demographically...
MS. IFILL: Right.
MR. RUSSERT: ...in the country. Teresa Heinz Kerry made a very open appeal for support for women voters at the convention. Let's watch.
(Videotape, Tuesday):
MRS. TERESA HEINZ KERRY: My right to speak my mind, to have a voice, to be what some have called "opinionated" is a right I deeply and profoundly cherish. And my only hope is that one day soon, women who have all earned their right to their opinions, instead of being called opinionated, will be called smart and well-informed, just like men.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Gwen Ifill, you're smart and well-informed.
MS. IFILL: Thank you, Tim. He doesn't always say that.
MR. RUSSERT: Did it work?
MS. IFILL: You know, it's interesting. That's a perfect Rorschach. I was in the hall that night, and the response seemed muted. There were a lot of empty seats. You could kind of only hear her, because she speaks so softly. And I thought, jeez, that wasn't much of a speech. I called my friends at home who watched it on television, and they were blown away.
MR. RUSSERT: Ron Brownstein, let me bring you in here. The Newsweek poll has Kerry-Edwards up amongst women by 16 points, 53-37.
MR. BROWNSTEIN: Absolutely. And...
MR. RUSSERT: And Bush ahead amongst men by 5 points. Big gender gap.
MR. BROWNSTEIN: Look, Teresa Heinz Kerry, cue the e-mails. Teresa Heinz Kerry is not running for anything. Most of the women who would respond to an argument like that, I think, are already in the Democratic camp. Her job was more to do what the daughters did on Thursday night, I think, to humanize John Kerry and to show the side of him that you don't see when the spotlights are on. She did almost none of that. And I think for that reason, the speech was a wasted opportunity.
MS. IFILL: I disagree with you, Ron. I really disagree with you. I have talked to women who would not necessarily be in the Kerry camp, who haven't made up their minds, who were introduced to Teresa Heinz Kerry for the first time and thought she was kind of impressive.
MR. RUSSERT: All right, Harwood, break the tie.
MR. HARWOOD: Tim, Laura Bush is a spectacularly good red-state spouse. She's smart. But she's also a bit subdued and supportive of her husband. Teresa Heinz is a very good blue-state spouse. She speaks not only to women but also to that larger immigrant story. There's a lot of immigrant voters in this race. She's urbane, she's sophisticated, she's strong. She's going to be an asset for him.
MR. RUSSERT: Last word, John Harwood. Gwen Ifill, Ron Brownstein.
We'll be right back after this.
MR. RUSSERT: Start your day tomorrow on "Today" with Katie and Matt. Then the "NBC Nightly News" with Tom Brokaw.
That's all for today. We'll be back next week. If it's Sunday, it's MEET THE PRESS.


text:
Optimize your real estate transactions and holdings
Whether you are buying or selling real estate, you need a partner with real-time knowledge of global capital and market trends, deep financial acumen and the right relationships to source opportunities and maximize value and returns.
Avison Young's Capital Markets group offers comprehensive real estate transaction services to a global client base. A trusted advisor to real estate owners and operators for more than 30 years, Avison Young sources investment opportunities and provides investment sales execution for clients throughout Canada, the U.S., Europe and Asia.
Our capital markets experts are senior professionals who work seamlessly cross-border to deliver real estate solutions. Our expertise has expanded organically in all asset classes, including office, industrial, retail, multi-family, hospitality, leisure, land development. We have a proven track record in representing an international range of buyers and sellers, including REITS, pension funds, insurance companies, private equity firms, opportunity and hedge funds, and both public and private companies. Our success is measured by our clients' results, with more than US $5 billion in transactions annually.
We combine Avison Young's local, national and international experience with our research tools and teams to gain exceptional access to both domestic and international buyers seeking investment and development opportunities. We have also built valuable relationships bringing off-market investment and sales transactions to private and institutional clients.
We specialize in innovative debt financing solutions, advising clients on a variety of financing options including acquisition, refinance of conventional insured loans or CMBS debt, pre-sale debt alternatives and sell versus finance analysis. Whether by offering alternative solutions to raising equity, or facilitating a higher asset sale price by providing debt solutions on disposition, we offer our clients maximum flexibility for their transactions.
For more information about real estate capital markets services contact your local Avison Young office or click here for our Capital Markets contacts by site.
Investment sales/portfolio sales
- Investment advisory
- Corporate finance, including sale/leaseback
- Asset disposition
- Asset recapitalization
- Market research
- Strategic consulting, valuation and appraisal
- Transaction management, due diligence, financial analysis
Debt and mortgage services
- Credit tenant lease structured finance
- Conventional and CMHC-insured loans
- Mezzanine financings
- Second mortgages
- Portfolio financings
- Bridge financings
- Participating loan
- Construction and term mortgages
- Credit facilities

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Delivery delays
Free delivery on orders over £50
Extended returns
Whatever you need to complete your look you can find it here, from shopping bags to umbrellas in our specially-designed prints or classic neutral colours. Our accessories make great gifts too.
1-31 of 31 results
Hide out of stock items


text:
Illustration depicting atomically thin two-dimensional material, such as graphene, sandwiched between boron nitrite crystals, with electrical contact made along the material's one-dimensional edge.
As postdoc at Columbia, CCNY physicist Cory Dean and colleagues devised new method that addresses graphene's contamination problem
Dr. Cory Dean, assistant professor of physics at The City College of New York, is the lead author of a paper published November 1 in the journal "Science" that demonstrates it is possible for an atomically thin two-dimensional (2D) material to have electrical contact along its one-dimensional (1D) edge. The contact architecture offers a new assembly technique for layered materials that prevents contamination at interfaces.
Professor Dean conducted the research as a postdoctoral fellow at Columbia University, working with Professor of Electrical Engineering Ken Shepard and Professor of Mechanical Engineering James Hone, the paper's co-authors. The new method, which was developed using graphene as the two-dimensional model, resulted in the cleanest graphene produced to date.
"Two-dimensional materials such as graphene, which are just one atom thick, can have their electrical properties externally modified," Professor Dean said. "However, because the materials are extremely sensitive to the environment, any external contamination quickly degrades performance."
The need to protect the material from contamination while still allowing electrical access has been a roadblock to development of graphene-based technologies, he added. "By making contact only to the 1D edge of graphene, we have developed a fundamentally new way to bridge our 3D world to this fascinating 2D world without disturbing its inherent properties. This virtually eliminates external contamination and finally allows graphene to show its true potential in electronic devices."
"Our novel edge-contact geometry provides more efficient contact than the conventional geometry without the need for further complex processing," added Professor Shepard. "There are now many more possibilities in the pursuit of both device applications and the pure physics of clean systems."
The researchers fully encapsulated the 2D graphene layer in a sandwich of thin insulating boron nitride crystals. To do this, they employed a new technique in which the top boron nitride crystal was used to sequentially pick up the other layers in the stack. "This technique completely eliminated any contamination between layers," Professor Dean noted.
Once they created the stack, they etched it to expose the edge of the graphene layer. Then they evaporated metal onto the edge to create the electrical contact. By making contact along the edge, the team realized a 1D interface between the 2D active layer and 3D metal electrode.
Even though electrons entered only at the 1D atomic edge of the graphene sheet, the contact resistance was remarkably low, reaching 100 ohms per micron of contact width—a value smaller than what is typically achieved for contacts at the graphene top surface.
Continuing their collaboration, the team is now working on applying these techniques to develop new hybrid materials by mechanical assembly and edge contact. They plan to draw from the full suite of available 2D layered materials, including graphene, boron nitride, transition metal dichalcogenides (TMDCs), transition metal oxides (TMOs), and topological insulators (TIs).
"With so much current research focused on developing new devices by integrating layered 2D systems, potential applications are incredible, from vertically structured transistors, tunneling based devices and sensors, photoactive hybrid materials, to flexible and transparent electronics," added Professor Hone.
On the Internet
About The City College of New York
Since 1847, The City College of New York has provided low-cost, high-quality education for New Yorkers in a wide variety of disciplines. More than 16,000 students pursue undergraduate and graduate degrees in: the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences; the Bernard and Anne Spitzer School of Architecture; the School of Education; the Grove School of Engineering; the Sophie Davis School of Biomedical Education, and the Colin L. Powell School for Civic and Global Leadership.
Set on a striking, 35-acre hilltop campus in upper Manhattan, CCNY has produced more Nobel laureates than any other public institution in the United States. The College has been touted as one of America's Top Colleges by Forbes, one of the Best Colleges in the United States as well as one of the Best Value Colleges by the Princeton Review, and ranks among U.S. News' top regional universities.
Ellis Simon
p: 212.650.6460
e: email@example.com


text:
Grouped together or on its own, this giclee glow mini pendant light with Terrazzo pattern is a fresh, illuminating accent.
Additional Info:
Add a dash of stylish lighting with this sophisticated and compact pendant light. The design features an exclusive Terrazzo pattern custom giclee printed on a translucent shade. This high-quality material allows warm light to shine through the shade, illuminating the pattern and creating a spectacular look. This stylish fixture is custom made-to-order. Shade printing process U.S. Patent # 7,347,593.


text:
The Wild Things led the box office debuted with $32.5 million this weekend.
"Where the Wild Things Are," Maurice Sendak's children's book classic, was brought to the silverscreen in a live-action adaptation by Spike Jonze and Dave Eggers.
The runner-ups were Jamie Foxx and Gerard Bulter's thriller "Law Abiding Citizen" with $21.3 million and the surprisingly the low-budget horror film "Paranormal Activity" at No. 3 with $20.2 million.


text:
Click here for an alternate registration form.
Shopping cart not working? Are you having trouble checking out? Are you adding items to your shopping car and the cart is showing empty? Use this alternate registration form to purchase courses.
If you need assistance, click on the Live Student Support Chat button on the bottom left side of the web page or call (360) 602-0960.


text:
|Sports My tribe can beat up your tribe
|Thread Tools
|Display Modes
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: somewhere in between
Posts: 995
That's ironic griff, cuz right now I have an old model of that specialized saddle on my Lemond. I do have a fancy san marco racing saddle, but I swapped it out with the specialized one because its rails are a tad longer and the positioning felt better. I also don't really have a need to use it right now .. figured I would save my ass as much as possible until component weight becomes an issue.
I recently read somewhere that those wide granny saddles are actually worse for you, because it's not natural for the body's positioning (think how your ass gets really sore from sitting on a bench or a flat chair for a while). The narrow racing-style saddles actually support all that needs to be supported - and puts less strain on your ass muscles because of the greater range of motion.
If your tail hurts, get a good pair of cycling shorts with nice modular padding. Performance's elite series is on sale for about $40 and for me has a great fit in the crotch region, though I'm not very particular about what I wear to ride.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: somewhere in between
Posts: 995
Anyone want to share their highest milage? I've ridden the Suncoast Parkway two times in recent years -- 55 miles, total. I'm never in shape for it, either. I collapse and hurt for a good three days afterwards and I'm never sure if it was really worth it. I have no idea how people can ride century rides.
I've gone about 90-95 miles, just shy of the full century. Griff's right - once you hit the 40/50-mile barrier, pretty much any distance after that can be handled very easily (with proper training of course).
So, here's my question to those of you that own $1000+ bikes: does it really help? I know actually getting in shape is the best option, but do the lighter bikes make a huge difference? If someone can crank out 10 miles on a normal bike, will they be able to do many more on a racing bike?
Of course it's mostly the kind of thing where if you understand the technical stuff, you'll mentally feel better about your riding. :P
The most notable difference though is frame material - higher priced bikes are just so incredibly well engineered. It's particularly important for carbon, and slightly so for titanium. For example, the Trek 5900 is made with OCLV 110 carbon, which is extremely light yet very sturdy. You could be riding on a 6 percent uphill grade, give one heavy pedal stroke and the bike will literally take off from underneath you (frame stiffness factors into how responsive the bike will be to your pedaling). Aluminum, on the other hand, won't have this kind of zip, but ppl say it handles cornering well and has a very soft overall ride.
Titanium is not as light as carbon, but stronger, which is important when you are exerting a lot of stress on the bike, such as fast downhill corners/turns/sweeping bends. And when climbing hills out of the saddle ("jogging" on the bike, as Mr. Armstrong calls it), stronger materials won't sag. That's something I didn't notice until i tried my other brother's aluminum Cannondale R1000, which felt kinda flimsy when I was out of the saddle and cranking hard on the hill in Central Park. I weigh more than he does though, which is why it probably works better for him.
Then there comes the components. If you can afford nicer stuff, great. Otherwise making sure all the parts fits YOU is the most important thing. If you find a bike doesn't fit well, ask about changing some of the parts - longer/shorter pedal cranks, obtuse or longer stem (part that holds the handlebars), different styles of handlebars, different saddles, different seatposts, taller/shorter headsets. Buying expensive components won't necessarily mean that they fit - unless you ride for U.S. Postal (soon to be Discovery Channel) and Shimano *custom* makes parts specifically for you.
This is all highly technical stuff that I hardly think about. Some of it didn't even become apparent until watching the technical spots on the Lance Chronicles. Bottom line is a more expensive ride will get you better handling, better feeling, stronger acceleration, but it takes a while before any of that makes a difference.
still says videotape
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 26,813
Tyler Hamilton won the Olympic time trial yesterday and Bobby Julich took third. The US is turning into an absolute force in cycling. Anybody watch Paolo Bettini using Sergio Paulinho to take the Gold in the mens road race? Pretty interesting strategy conflict between the two of them.
As far as saddles hurting, there really is a break-in period for both the saddle and your butt. Thats one of the things I've been worried about going into Saturdays ride, my butt isn't in the condition it should be because of lack of training. It's tough for shop owners because by the time you really know a saddle isn't going to work for you, it's used merchandise. Pete bought a Terry saddle that never really worked for her but then picked up an inexpensive Nashbar saddle that really is comfortable. Terry is a pretty cool company, it is run by women for women. They were still new in the business way back when I was a shop guy. They are all about lady cyclists getting the right equipment, bikes, saddles, and clothing.
My father-in-law switched to a recumbent after his back surgery as well. He claims that hills are not a problem but I haven't seen him on any. He really likes the bike though and it brought his leg around after it had atrophied pretty badly.
If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you.
- Louis D. Brandeis
still eats dirt
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 3,031
Damn you guys! After reading this thread, yesterday, I couldn't resist: I pulled the bike out, cleaned it up, and braved the roads and traffic. I only did seven miles, but it still felt great!
The bike had a little bit of "sand squeek" in the chain, which I managed to clean out with a bit of oil and a brush. While it still looks good, I think it might need replacing at some point in the near future. The brakes also feel a bit loose. Do you guys take your bikes into a shop to get them "tuned up" or do you do it all yourself? How often do you replace parts and what do you replace? Rather sadly, I always wait until something actually breaks before I replace it and since I started doing trips over twenty miles, I realize that isn't the best plan, anymore. Walking home that far with a broken bicycle really ruins a day.
Somethings, I guess, can't be fixed on the road. My friend lost a pedal while we were out on a long ride, once, and the crappy little toolkits we all carried didn't have what we needed to reattach it. Note: a leatherman tool is a really good thing to have on a ride.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: somewhere in between
Posts: 995
Little spurt of ethusiasm, eh Kit? I'm hoping to get out for a bit tonight, but the forecast is for more rain here in NYC. I really should drag a camera along the next time I do a ride through central NJ - some really beautiful scenary up in the "mountains" of Princeton.
I take my bike in sometimes once a year for a major cleaning. Not always necessary, but a good preventative measure. Plus once your bike is disassembled, shop will sometimes find damage you wouldn't otherwise notice. Otherwise I maintain everything myself, which is actually pretty easy, but should only be done after some experience with tune-ups.
Bike should always be inspected before/after every ride (often can give a quick glance, and you'll learn to notice something quirky right away after you start pedaling). Check brakes, derailleurs, cables, and make sure your quick-release wheels are properly seated. My rear wheel popped out last summer when I hit a pothole - not only did I mangle my wheel (wobble wobble), I came to a dead stop in the middle of a busy intersection and nearly tumbled.
Always ALWAYS take a bike to a shop to be checked out after crashing or taking a severe beating. Many offer a "crash check-up" - the shop near me in NJ does it for $30-35.
still eats dirt
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 3,031
I'm hoping to get out for a bit tonight, but the forecast is for more rain here in NYC. I really should drag a camera along the next time I do a ride through central NJ - some really beautiful scenary up in the "mountains" of Princeton.
This is why my bike has sat on the deck and needed serious cleaning: we've had rain in Florida every afternoon now for two months! And while rain makes riding difficult on the roads, it has aboslutely killed what I love to do, which is ride the bike paths in the parks which are all closed due to flooding -- nearly all of them are currently underwater, so they've locked the gates and I've been forced to hit the streets. The problem is that I'm very nervous in traffic, perhaps because I'm not so used to navigating it yet and wet roads compound the danger. It didn't take me long to see why many people dish out good money for disc bakes! That, and the rain streak up the back is always ugly. Note to self: fenders wouldn't hurt.
God, I hate riding in traffic. I've never felt so close to death so many times in so few miles.
So I've taken to riding my bike around campus, which has lighter traffic in the evenings that permits lots of bicyclists and rollerbladers. And I should take my camera, too, for the, uh, "scenery". Its the only thing that breaks up the monotony of riding around in circles on the streets.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: somewhere in between
Posts: 995
The time trial looked to be a solid course. I expected more from Ullrich, but I suppose you have your up and down days. Julich really turned it on, even with the broken wrist, which now is casted.
Something interesting was Julich's chain rings. He's been using these ovular rings all season, similar to Shimano's biopace design (Kit, your Trek should have them). I always though they made a lot of sense, but they haven't made their way into the mainstream for some reason.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: somewhere in between
Posts: 995
Oh, the scenary is central park is definitely worth the trip.
I thought I changed this.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: western nowhere, ny
Posts: 412

I bought it a few days ago. $75 from a yard sale. The rust sort of worries me, and I had to replace the springs on the brakes (the plastic that held them had broken on all four, so neither adjustment screw accomplished anything.) Additionally, the handlebars squeak a little under vertical strain (pulling up/pushing down). Future projects include reseating the front brake pads (they jitter a lot), setting the rear indexing, and aimlessly dismantling the front shifter in the hopes that I will incidentally make it less finnicky.
However, I figure it'll be stolen in a few months, so what the hell. It's fun to ride, problems aside.
As far as traffic goes, I find people to be fairly observant. I think Eugene has enough bike lanes, sidewalks, and other bikers that people tend to avoid me more than, say, Astoria, where I once had someone pull up alongside me in a large, commercially-marked panel van on a two-lane one-way street with cars on both sides (and no bike lane) in order to suggest I ride on the sidewalk.
Last edited by Skunks; 08-20-2004 at 03:36 AM.
still says videotape
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 26,813
Are Eugenes bike lanes legit or are they door zone lanes? A lot of towns put a bike lane along side parked cars, which is much much worse than no lane at all. If its there cars expect you to use it and if you use it you will eventually get creamed by a door. I try to stake out a place for myself in traffic but let people pass when safe.
If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you.
- Louis D. Brandeis
Resident President
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 81
Last edited by Pete; 08-20-2004 at 10:30 AM. Reason: hee hee - I said cyclically
still says videotape
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 26,813
Well we're about to jump in the car to head up to Seneca Falls. Looks like a rough night for camping and maybe a wet start in the morning. It's cycling! There is no bad cycling! later g
If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you.
- Louis D. Brandeis
lobber of scimitars
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Phila Burbs
Posts: 20,774
I love Seneca Falls. Friends owned a house right on Van Cleef Lake, across from the Lutheran church that's on the cover of nearly all the tourist brochures for the Finger Lakes Region.
If you weren't riding, I'd suggest you do the wine tour. You might have to teach one of the girls to drive a little early, thoug.
wolf eht htiw og
"Conspiracies are the norm, not the exception." --G. Edward Griffin The Creature from Jekyll Island
High Priestess of the Church of the Whale Penis
LONG LIVE KING ZIPPY! per Feetz
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,661
longest ride , probley about 50-60 miles ,
Now biggest climb on a bike , i rode up the mountin to cades cove Tn once 9 miles up and 2 miles down 11 miles around the loop 2 miles back up , then 9 miles down the hill FAST !!!!!! A station wagon tried to pass me but i kept pulling away !!!! Thank GOD i had had my wheels trued befor we went .
From what i understand they don't allow folks to ride the hill any more , something about falling a few hundred feet if you mess up or some such .
This ride was on a Motobican nomad , steel frame , i have since aquired a fuji olimpian 12 speed . I unforntuently haven't ridden any distance in more than a few years
"Success is getting what you want. Happiness is wanting what you get. "
Brother Dave Gardner
still says videotape
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 26,813
Get on that bike Zip!
It turns out that not doing any long training rides didn't destroy our weekend. Day One. 103 miles.
We took off in the rain around 7am with a belly full of bananas and gorp. It was under 60 degrees F. Pete can correct my misrememberins'. I think it rained until 9:30-10:00. This was actually kind off ideal for me. Heat is my enemy, if I can keep my body temp reasonable I can ride and ride. One guy with us was suffering pretty badly at the rest stop having lost too much body heat, I was suprised since he was a pretty beefy guy, although he has little body fat. The rain stopped a little earlier in Seneca Falls itself at which time the bulk of to 100 milers left but it was too late we were way ahead of the speedsters and would not be caught! This is not a race but it still hurts to have someone pass. Cayuga Lake is gorgeous with low cloud cover. There were many stunning vistas but we didn't carry the camera in the rain.
The first 80 miles reeled off pretty easily. The keys are to stick to a good pace, stand on the pedals occasionaly to get the blood moving, and eat and drink plenty of water and bananas. There were a lot of volunteers from Lions Clubs etc... who were invaluable. We then got to the last 20 odd miles feeling good I even considered skipping the last break area. I bonked at mile 97. The last 20 miles were brutal going right into the teeth of an headwind which kept shifting in intensity. We couldn't maintain a steady pace because the shifting intensity kept us from settling into a good gear. This is where I paid for my lack of training. One guy we ride with commutes 45 miles a day by bike whenever the roads are not snowy. He breezed the whole ride on a bike with full rear and handlebar packs carrying stuff for some other folks. We hit the cafeteria only to find that being wheat free my only choice was salad, since cyclists often gorge on pasta for energy. Pete and I ran down after dinner where we went to Baileys Ice Cream Shop. They've changed locations to the canal side of the building while they refurbish the old place into some sort of cyber-cafe'. Its a nice place to hang out when calories don't count. We made it back and got into the wine tasteing followed by the awards for fundraising. We hit the sack about the time the band started their second set. Don't blame the band, we were tired.
Day Two. 57.7 miles.
Contrary to expectations, we were not balls of pain needing to be extracted from our tent Sunday morning. We both had a little right knee pain which we blame on driving not cycling. The weather was gorgeous as we rode along the shore of Cayuga Lake then passed across to Seneca Lake and back to Seneca Falls. more later g
If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you.
- Louis D. Brandeis
|Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|Thread Tools
|Display Modes
Linear Mode


text:
This is an archive page. The links in this content are no longer being updated.
Joelle Hayden (301) 851-4040
Lyndsay Cole (970) 494-7410
WASHINGTON, Aug. 1, 2012—The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has worked in conjunction with federal, international and industry partners to arrange for the release of 209 shipments of American products valued at more than $39 million in 2012. The goods had been detained at foreign ports of entry pending resolution of various animal and plant health questions. In addition, APHIS has helped to open or maintain more than $51 million in overseas markets for U.S. agricultural products. Under Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack's leadership, USDA has aggressively worked to expand export opportunities and reduce barriers to trade, helping to push agricultural exports to record levels since 2009. The work of USDA agencies, including APHIS, and other federal partners helps to prevent and remove unwarranted barriers to trade, saving and securing American jobs and businesses, and supporting President Obama's goal of doubling American exports by the end of 2014.
"APHIS works diligently every day to help ensure overseas markets for our country's agricultural products," said Rebecca Blue, deputy undersecretary for marketing and regulatory programs. "In the past six months, APHIS has negotiated to reopen the Chinese market for U.S. log exports in a six-month pilot program, facilitated the first export of 1,400 cattle to Angola, helped California producers ship their stonefruit to important markets in Mexico, and arranged for the release of six shipments of cherries and $1.5 million of cotton held at Chinese ports."
APHIS addresses animal and plant health concerns that limit the export of American agricultural goods and negotiates with international trade partners to remove trade barriers and resolve trade-related issues. APHIS personnel stationed in countries overseas work closely with foreign regulatory counterparts to exchange information on agricultural health issues and ensure the safe trade of agricultural products. By working on these technical trade matters with overseas officials, as well as within international standard-setting organizations, APHIS personnel are in key positions to support U.S. agricultural exports and ensure that trading partners adhere to agreed-upon standards.
When American shipments are detained at foreign ports of entry, APHIS and other USDA officials negotiate with international officials to resolve the issue. APHIS' team of technical experts certify that U.S. animal and plant products are free of pests and diseases and meet the entry requirements set by our trading partners. In negotiations to protect, expand, and open new trade markets, APHIS advocates on behalf of U.S. agricultural industries to ensure a free flow of American agricultural products in international markets.
APHIS has launched a new website that will contain trade related information and accomplishments. The website will help exporters find information on APHIS's services, including trade information and regulations. It also serves as the news hub for APHIS trade updates, with links to trade-related feeds from the APHIS' Newsroom, Twitter, and the USDA blog. The website is located at: /trade/
U.S. agriculture is currently experiencing one of its best periods in history thanks to the productivity and resourcefulness of America's producers. Today, net farm income is at near record levels while debt has been cut in half since the 1980s. Overall, American agriculture supports 1 in 12 jobs in the United States and provides American consumers with 83 percent of the food we consume, while maintaining affordability and choice. Strong agricultural exports contribute to a positive U.S. trade balance, create jobs, boost economic growth and support President Obama's National Export Initiative goal of doubling all U.S. exports by the end of 2014.
USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. To file a complaint of discrimination, write: USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (866) 632-9992 (Toll-free Customer Service), (800) 877-8339 (Local or Federal relay), (866) 377-8642 (Relay voice users).
USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. To file a complaint of discrimination, write: USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (866) 632-9992 (Toll-free Customer Service), (800) 877-8339 (Local or Federal relay), (866) 377-8642 (Relay voice users).


text:
One week ago, a red-ringed Xbox 360 met its fate under a firing squad from Kansas City. At the same time, a frustrated Dutch demolitionist packed his malfunctioning console with an illegal Italian pyrotechnic, the Cobra 6.
I don't know the exact size of the charge here, but as you can see in the video, that ain't no Black Cat. What's most curious to me is not the destruction of the console but all of the background explosions you hear. Sounds like this was done in a war zone.
Note: Stuffing illegal fireworks in your console will violate your warranty. Don't do it.
Cobra 6 vs. Xbox 360 [Eigenwereld.nl]


text:
Ross Douthat in the New York Times agrees that immigration alone is not the magic fix and supports the case for Republican reform argued in Why Romney Lost:
The problems that middle-class Americans faced in the late 1970s are not the problems of today. Health care now takes a bigger bite than income taxes out of many paychecks. Wage stagnation is a bigger threat to blue-collar workers than inflation. Middle-income parents worry more about the cost of college than the crime rate. Americans are more likely to fret about Washington's coziness with big business than about big government alone.


text:
The English major, leading to the B.A. or B.S. degree, consists of thirty-three semester hours of upper-division course work. Austin Peay College offers a minor in professional writing.
The English major, leading to the B.A. or B.S. degree, consists of thirty-three semester hours of upper-division course work: nine hours of English literature, six hours of American literature, three hours of linguistics, three hours of advanced writing, and twelve hours of 3000-4000 literature courses approved by the department. There is no required sequence for these courses; however, students should be aware of the typical sequence of scheduling since not every course is offered every semester. English Majors must also complete one year of foreign language (1010 and 1020 or 2010 and 2020), ENGL 1100, and a minor. If Writing is selected as the minor, it must consist of courses that are not used for the major.
This minor prepares students from various majors to enter the worlds of industry, business, and science with a strong foundation in writing. Courses taken for this minor may not be applied towards the English major.
Website: http://www.apsu.edu
Email: email@example.com
Main Contact:
Languages and Literature,
PO Box 4487,
Clarksville, TN 37044


text:
My column this week is my attempt to do something different with the overdone topic of "loot boxes suck and I wish publishers would knock it off".
Really, I think this entire topic just loops back to the point I was making a year and a half ago when I said that the people running these companies are not gamers, which makes them prone to expensive blunders that would be obvious to someone who knows the products and the culture. If the leadership at EA understood their customers, they could have introduced loot boxes in a way that didn't make such a mess of things.
I obviously object to loot boxes because they tend to turn a game of system mastery into a slot machine. If a game has loot boxes, then the designer has a strong incentive to un-balance the game as a way to push you into using them. But let's assume for a moment that I'm an amoral jackass that doesn't care about videogames. All I want is piles of money. How would I expand the usage of loot boxes across the industry?
How to Infect the Industry With Loot Boxes
For this to work, we need to rewind to about three years ago, because the dual Battlefront / Shadow of War controversies have since poisoned the waters. Let's assume this is a do-over of the attempt to put loot boxes in everything.
- Do it incrementally. Whatever we do, it needs to be slow. It's the old how to boil a frog analogyIt turns out the experiment is useless for explaining the behavior of frogs, but REALLY good at explaining the behavior of humans.. People are bad at reacting to incrementalism. It's hard to get people fired up to take action when there's no single event to rally around.
- Keep it optional. (At first.) Put loot boxes in into alternate game modes, and then make sure those game modes get the most interesting content and updates. Make sure we don't cut down on the amount of content going into the non-loot box modes, because our customers are not children and they are really good at remembering things. If loot boxes really are bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars, then it should be trivial to scare up some extra funding to make the optional game mode a little larger and more attractive. Over time that "optional" mode can gradually grow in importance to become the "real" mode.
- Stick to cosmetics. (At first.) Obviously our ultimate goal is to become virtual arms dealers and sell power to players, but that should be a long-term process. We should not introduce an entrenched player base to loot boxes by rolling out pay-to-win mechanics. Again, they're not stupid. The best way to do this is to blur the line between power and cosmetics. One year we just offer "unlock new cosmetic outfits through grinding or by using the slot machine". The year after that we make some outfits objectively better than others. Perhaps a few rare outfits have smaller hitboxes or blend into the levels a bit. The year after that we do the same with weapons. Mostly you're unlocking paint jobs and flair for your guns, but a few rare items will speed up reload times or boost fire rate. The next year is the same, except we have a higher (rarer) tier of gear for them to chase after. And so on.
- Make them generous. (At first.) If a player puts down a few dollars for a handful of loot boxes / spins on our slot machine, we want them to get something good. That's how you trap gambling addicts. You let them win quickly, and then you string them along, making them chase that initial high. Since we control the payout system on our servers, we can manipulate the system to work any way we want to. It doesn't need to play "fair". It can make sure new players are "lucky", and that the odds of getting goodies will gradually decrease over time. This behavior of lowering the payout rate over time would be very hard for users to detect and prove. Someone investigating this would need to buy dozens of copies of the game and then spend money unlocking dozens of loot boxes for each account. That means it would take a serious financial investment to do the experiment. We'll get caught eventually, because we're up against millions of people who enjoy learning systems as a hobby. But as long as we make the gradient subtle enough we should be able to squeeze a lot of people for several years.
- Start with titles where it makes some kind of sense. It's easy to add a loot box element to a multiplayer game. Blizzard already has a solid template for us to follow. It's a lot more tricky to add loot boxes to a narrative game. If we can get a solid foundation of loot boxes in our other titles, and if millions of players get used to them, then we can claim that we're simply responding to "demand". We can claim that players have been asking us for loot boxes in Dragon Age or Mass Effect. (Fun fact: Mass Effect Andromeda actually has a loot box mechanic. It's not tied to a system of microtransactions, which means you can't buy them directly, but it's possible EA was taking my advice here and giving the players the first hit for free, with plans to have paid loot boxes in later entries.)
This is Still a Terrible Idea
I still think loot boxes are a terrible idea because they run counter to the immersion we need in narrative games and the level playing field players are looking for in multiplayer games. We'd lose customers over time and come to depend more and more on whales for our income, which is a more precarious position to be in. But still, if we could show some basic cunning, patience, and understanding of how people play games, then we ought to be able to enjoy a few sweet years of exploiting whales before general audiences catch on. Then we can roll back some of the more problematic aspects and portray it as generosity on our part.
Lucky for us, EA is literally too stupid to get away with this. They're clumsy in their approach, their lies are transparent, and their PR does more harm than good.
The actions of the last year makes it pretty clear that EA is in full-on retreat. No loot boxes in Anthem or Battlefront. They're acting like they're listening to the users, but what they're really doing is trying to protect their sports-based cash cow. Their sports titles were filled with pay-to-win bullshit and nobody cared. Now they're worried because this backlash might threaten those properties as well.
[1] It turns out the experiment is useless for explaining the behavior of frogs, but REALLY good at explaining the behavior of humans.
My Music
Do you like electronic music? Do you like free stuff? Are you okay with amateur music from someone who's learning? Yes? Because that's what this is.
Civilization VI
I'm a very casual fan of the series, but I gave Civilization VI a look to see what was up with this nuclear war simulator.
Top 64 Videogames
Lists of 'best games ever' are dumb and annoying. But like a self-loathing hipster I made one anyway.
Ludonarrative Dissonance
What is this silly word, why did some people get so irritated by it, and why did it fall out of use?
How to Forum
Dear people of the internet: Please stop doing these horrible idiotic things when you talk to each other.