| Potomac Confidential
With Marc Fisher
Post Metro Columnist
Monday, April 28, 2003; Noon ET Potomac Confidential fills the midday lull with discussion of the latest news and a rigorous slicing and dicing of the issues that define who we are and where we live. In his weekly show, Washington Post Metro columnist Marc Fisher veers wildly from serious probing to silly prattle, and is open to topics local, national, personal and more. The transcript follows. Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Marc Fisher: Welcome aboard, all, on an irregular day for Potomac Confidential--I'll return to the usual Thursday noon time next week.
Lots going on today, starting with your reactions to the column about Chief Moose's book project. Let's see where we go from there ...
Washington, D.C.: Chief Moose -- it's looking like the general consensus is leaning toward allowing him to write the book, do the movie deal. It still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. And you have to wonder ... won't this make the next high profile case be played out for the media with an eye toward the eventual book/movie deal? If I were the surviving loved one of a victim in this, I'd be livid. Marc Fisher: Really? I don't get the sense from readers that there is a Let Him Laugh All the Way to the Bank attitude. Most of the folks I've heard from seem to think that if Moose wants to be police chief, fine, but if he wants to be a book and movie guy, then he should just go do that.
But you're absolutely right -- just think of how you'd see this if your family were victimized by the sniper attacks. Seeing this man who was supposedly working on your behalf go off on his ego-mad profit march would be rather upsetting and disillusioning, I'd think.
Re: Chief Moose: Marc, Sorry to disagree with you, but Chief Moose knew all the rules when he accepted his position. He's no different than anyone else. Should he decide to retire, there'd be no problem. Marc Fisher: I don't think you're disagreeing with me -- I believe he should give up either the book or the police job, and I believe that in good part because the county has been clear with its employees: They may not abuse the knowledge they gain while serving the public for their own personal gain.
Not Montgomery County, TG ... : Marc, did you see your employer's opinion about Chief Moose? What are they thinking! Out there in what some call the "heartland", where most of my family lives, they immediately recognized Chief Moose as an idiot. I wouldn't want to be unnecessarily harsh on Moose or the Post, but I think both are being selfish. Moose wants to keep feeling like the hero (where'd he get that idea, anyway?), and the Post wants access to better information. Gee, I'm re-thinking my plan to start my teaching career in Montgomery County ... Marc Fisher: I can't speak for or explain the positions of the paper's editorial board, which, it's worth repeating, is separate and apart from the newsroom operation of the Post. I agree with them that Moose likely has a legal right to write his book; we differ on whether it is morally correct or acceptable for a public official to take such advantage of the public trust.
But I don't see the analogy to the newspaper's interests. As representative of the voters, the paper obviously wants more information about the sniper investigation -- that's why we exist. And if Moose really wanted simply to inform the public, he has a wealth of choices of news outlets through which he could do that. If he mistrusts the Post, he could take his case to television, radio, etc.
Washington, D.C.: Marc -- I can understand columnists like yourself writing about the Moose publishing effort as your column is in Metro, but, is it really an issue for the Washington Post editorial board? Marc Fisher: Absolutely -- it's the job of the editorial board to take on issues that matter to our readers and to present their argument on one or another side of those issues. The idea is to spark debate and to advocate on behalf of the positions that the board feels would improve life in these parts.
Derwood, Md.: About yesterday’s column: In response to their inevitable cracks about Montgomery County being in the “Nanny State”, Virginians should note that the purpose of the county’s ethics commission is to prevent stenches like the one currently emanating from Fredericksburg City Hall. Officials Jobs Raise Eyebrows, Ethical Issues (Post, April 27)).
Second, there would be NO problem if the Chief were writing his book for love, not money. If the Chief were to give the book away for free -- by posting it on the Internet or giving the book to a victims foundation, for them to publish and sell -- there would be no problem whatsoever. (Incidentally, I think that is what a great man, such as Dr. King, would do.) So, Marc, you are wrong: Nobody is impairing the Chief’s “Freedom of Speech”. Rather, by signing his employment contract, the Chief GAVE UP his “Freedom to Profit”.
Marc Fisher: I agree entirely, as I wrote in yesterday's column. This is not about freedom of speech, it's about propriety of speech, and Moose is abusing his position by seeking to gain from the very information that he has to date claimed he cannot divulge to the public because it might jeopardize the investigation.
Washington, D.C.: Re: Moose's book/movie. I think I would feel much better about the whole thing if he would donate at least a portion of his profits to the victim's families or do something worthwhile with the money. Keeping the small fortune he'll undoubtedly make seems shallow and money-grubbing. As a Montgomery County resident, I'm disappointed that he jumped on the bandwagon so quickly. Marc Fisher: Well, in Moose's defense, he has indeed said that he plans to donate a portion of his profits to the families of the victims -- but he hasn't said how much.
And I think it is unfair to assume that he'd make any fortune from this venture. He may think he's going to strike it rich, but if you look at the track record of books about such crimes, he's looking at very modest winnings, at best.
Vienna, Va.: Marc, I think you're going way overboard on the Moose thing. When you start getting all huffy in print, tossing around terms like "morality", you're upping the argument WAY beyond its import to anyone around here. You jump on Moose's wife for equating him with MLK, but you don't seem to be bothered about holding him up to a "moral" standard that you have set up. The guy's trying to make a buck and get around the rules; it ain't life and death. Maybe he deserves your contempt, but save the moral outrage for something important. We're spending too much time in this country on hyperbole. Everyday people are "heros", "martyrs", "great patriots", "give aid and comfort to the enemy", etc. What absolute garbage. It cheapens our language and, eventually, our vision of ourselves.
Marc Fisher: I like your spirit, and in most cases, I'd be with you on piercing overblown rhetoric. But in this instance, I do see this as a question of morality. The central question here is what do we expect of our public officials? Does it disturb you when Supreme Court justices and U.S. senators are spending their time hawking their books on TV? Even if they're not writing about current cases, I think there's something more than unseemly about those entrusted with the nation's business spending their time as latter-day carnie barkers. It's an abuse of trust, and it's driven by greed -- there's plenty of time for them to write valuable memoirs after they leave office.
Crystal City, Va.: I don't see why Chief Moose has more freedom of speech than I do as a public (federal) employee. I am not allowed to profit from my job -- I can't write a book or accept an honorarium for speaking -- why should he be able to as a public official? If he (or I) wants to write about Rose care, or write romance novels that's fine. But no profiting from our jobs. Marc Fisher: Yes, the fairness question is an important one -- a good point that was in today's Post editorial. The same rules should apply to boss and the rank and file.
Tenleytown, Washington, D.C.: Marc, Of course, if Chief Moose gets a large enough advance, then perhaps he won't be dependent on his salary and will then step down to pursue his scholarly interests of writing and teaching. Marc Fisher: If I recall correctly, his advance is in the low six figures, so he probably wouldn't want to depend on book writing for the rest of his working days. But there's no doubt that he'd be able to get a good law enforcement job even after he took a year or so off to follow his Hollywood dreams.
Ballston, Va.: Chief Moose writing this book would be like your surgeon writing about your operation. His position relies on the trust of the citizens of Montgomery County. That trust is not compatible with his efforts to capitalize on a coincidence not of his making (i.e., the snipers choose Montgomery County to target, NOT Chief Moose!). Marc Fisher: Pretty good analogy. And that's the sort of approach the county Ethic Commission was getting at when they said that he's free to write generally about police investigations, but not specifically about this case.
Arlington, Va.: Marc, would you approve of Chief Ramsey writing a book, How I Got Lots of Publicity, Still Have An Unsolved Case, But Got Rehired Anyway? Marc Fisher: That would be a pretty short book, no?
Herndon, Va.: Re: Moose The problem I have with his book is that he is part of the judicial system and the judicial system has not finished its job yet. These men have not been tried. It seems wrong to me for someone within the judicial system to write a book about this or any case before the defendants have been tried. Marc Fisher: Another important aspect of the situation, yes. It is the job of the news media to report what the public needs to know, and so the pre-trial reporting on the case can be valuable to readers, but there is something quite wrong about someone who is intimately involved in the prosecution of the case jeopardizing its successful resolution by hurrying out with his own book. To be fair, Moose has said that he would give his manuscript to the county to vet pre-publication to make sure that nothing in it would jeopardize the trials.
Arlington, Va.: Monday? Marc Fisher: I have a schedule conflict that prevents me from being with you at our usual time Thursday, and this was the available substitute slot from our good friends at washingtonpost.com
Alexandria, Va.: How is our friend Congressman Moran faring? Are people forgetting his most recent blame-Jews-for-the-Iraq-war scandal? Are Kate Hanley and/or Leslie Byrne going to stick to their guns and give us 8th District Democrats a real primary choice of who we want as congressperson? Marc Fisher: From what I hear, Moran is getting beat up pretty badly over those remarks, and he seems to be running scared and hard as he looks toward 2004's reelection bid. He will almost certainly face some serious opposition, led by those folks you've named. Moran obviously would love to have numerous opponents, the better to dilute the anti vote. The real early test will come as Moran, Hanley and the others raise funds for what is likely to be a very expensive primary.
Burke, Va.: Hey Marc, I'm reading your last online chat a little late here ... I live in Burke and had the same issue with the low flying jets that night. I was already up ... it was SO loud, I ducked under my desk. It just kept getting louder and louder. I live near a field, a police helicopter has landed in ... it was at least twice as loud. It was very scary. Any answers yet?
Marc Fisher: I've heard from a number of people since Thursday's chat who've had very similar experiences with these low flying aircraft around Burke and environs. The theories we batted around last week don't seem to have won much support. New ideas are welcome.
Clifton, Va.: Now would be the perfect time to push for widening Rt. 66 inside the Beltway. With fears of terrorist attacks and the recent criticism by members of Congress on traffic problems, plans for the Feds to pay for the widening stand a good chance of passing the Congress. With national security as the basis for the widening opponents would stand a chance in court. Marc Fisher: Your reasoning works well, except for one thing -- the economy. States are in no position right now to take on big new projects, even if they were to get 90 percent federal support. The homeland security money is substantial, but already very much spoken for, and I haven't heard of any of it going to road construction. Also, there's the NIMBY question, which would be enormous on any effort to widen 66.
Washington, D.C.: Hey Marc, I have a dream ... that one day in Washington, D.C., public education will be improve and D.C. public school students are ranked in the top 10 in the country. I have a dream ... that both blacks and whites will be living next door to each other in this beautiful city ... and homeless "families" will have a decent place to live. However, I've just awakened from my dream ... back to reality. Thanks Marc Marc Fisher: Tomorrow's column will give you reason to hope for your dream to come true -- a good news story from deep in the trough of D.C. public schools.
Mt. Rainier, Md.: I don't know if this is a 'local' question, but I'm sure that everybody here has an opinion on it. I've been getting a rash of calls from telemarketers lately -- in spite of the message that I left on my answering machine saying, if you're a telemarketer or trying to sell me something please hang up because I don't buy anything over the phone. Nah, they're not 'telemarketers', heaven forfend. I thought I was going to be rescued by the do-not-call database that goes into effect next month. But now I'm afraid these people are finding the wiggle room -- they're not SELLING anything, they're just 'informing the customer'. Never mind that they are hardly a public service organization. WHY do they keep targeting people who hate them and refuse to buy from them? Isn't this a waste of resources? Marc Fisher: Nope. Telemarketing costs almost nothing when it's done by those machines that randomly generate numbers and pump recorded messages onto your recorder at home. Even if the returns were miserably low, it's worthwhile for these slimebuckets to muck up our phone machines with their pitches. But the truth apparently is even more distressing: Response rates on telemarketing, both the automated kind and the "human" calls, are startlingly high. There are lots of folks out there who seem not to mind the calls, shocking as that may be.
Silver Spring, Md.: Gov. Ehrlich seems to have a temper problem, or maybe he just can't adjust from being one of many partisan politicians in Congress to being a partisan politician who must govern, occasionally compromise to get things done, and work with people who don't agree with him. What was his reputation in Congress? He's almost making Parris Glendenning look good (not there yet, but he's just started). Marc Fisher: That's pretty harsh, but yes, he's long had a reputation as someone who is rather impulsive. But the folks I've spoken to in Congress did not see him as having a temper problem -- to the contrary, they tend to view Ehrlich as something of a frat boy/preppie who makes progress by being chummy with friends and opponents alike. I think he really thought he could push slots through by taking his case directly to the legislators. I was in Annapolis the day he appeared before the committee looking at slots, and he spoke without notes, just us pals talking it over, and he was very likable, but not persuasive.
There is a huge difference between the skills that make a congressman effective and those necessary to be a governor. Maybe that's why the nation has in recent decades turned more to governors than to congressfolk to be president.
Southern Maryland: Marc, in last Thursday's chat you said there was a big disconnect on gay issues between the "intellectual elites" or "media/academic elites" and the "heartland." I'm sure you didn't intend for those terms to have hidden meanings. Still, I'm not comfortable with those terms. They have a history of being used as anti-Semitic code, invoking ugly myths about the supposed cabalistic nature of Jews. Richard Nixon and Dan Quayle used that type of rhetoric. I don't know about Quayle's inner thoughts, but Nixon's anti-Semitism is well documented. Marc Fisher: No codespeak intended. Rather, there is a real difference, seen in most survey data, between, on one hand, those who live in affluent urban neighborhoods, college towns and affluent, highly educated suburbs, and on the other hand, much of middle America, when it comes to attitudes on homosexuality.
D.C. area: Your take on Santorum? Marc Fisher: He speaks for a large number of Americans who feel that it is no longer politically acceptable to express their view that homosexuality is immoral and ought not be sanctioned by law. But the reaction to his remarks also shows that the portion of the population that equates traditional religious views with unacceptable intolerance is large and growing.
I think Santorum knew exactly what he was saying and intended, as he often does, to be provocative and to solidify his base. It's the more moderate wing of his party that is most offended here, not because they have any particular desire to win gay votes, but because they are afraid of anything that cements their reputation as intolerant or closed-minded.
Clifton, Va.: It's about time the school budget in Fairfax COunty was cut! The schools aren't that great. Don't listen to propaganda spread by the teacher's union and real estate agents. A 10 percent cut in the school budget would not hurt the education of the kids. Marc Fisher: That's just as propagandistic as those who argue that the only thing that will cure our schools' ills is more money. Both statements are simplistic. A 10 percent budget cut might savage education or it might have little effect -- it depends on how such a cut were executed. The real impact of any such cut is to make teaching jobs even less attractive than they already are, and that's not very bright in an era in which schools must fight hard to find highly talented people to put in the classrooms.
Telemarketing annoyance: I pay the phone company a couple bucks extra each month to have my number unpublished. That means it's not listed in the phone book but if someone calls information, they can get it. It's well worth the cost. I almost NEVER get those annoying phone calls people complain about. Marc Fisher: That's remarkable, given that most telemarketers do not use phone books, but rather computer programs that generate numbers through random combinations. In many parts of the country, half or more of people have unlisted numbers, and that surely has not stopped telemarketers from reaching those folks. But congrats on whatever you've done to fend off these creatures of the phone lines.
Clifton, Va.: How's about a book from the chief of the U.S. Park Police, "How to Tie Up Traffic and Upset Congress, A Police Chief's Guide to Handling Tractors and Farmers" Marc Fisher: I'd pay money not to have that one published.
Chevy Chase, Md.: I think Moose's push to write the book while in office will only hurt his future sales. After all, the primary audience for such a book will no doubt be readers in the Washington region. If he writes his book while in office, I sure won't buy it. Marc Fisher: OK, but don't you think he's relishing every day of this Book or Not controversy? Helps build the brand, as they say in the biz.
Alexandria, Va.: Re: Santorum In last week's chat, you commented that Santorum "is a strange and dangerous man." I'd like to know what you see as so dangerous. Marc Fisher: He's a pol akin to the worst of the extremist talk show hosts, people who have twisted the business of the nation into entertainment material. This country has a long and wonderful history of politics as mudfight, and that's dandy, but folks like Santorum make it much more difficult for the Senate and other institutions to work through sensitive issues that don't easily lend themselves to the Jerry Springer approach to public discourse.
Contrast Santorum with someone like John McCain, who is also very good at populist appeals and mixing it up with the opposition, but who also knows that the parties must work together and that at some point, serious work on issues must occur.
Chevy Chase, Md.: Do you have any idea how many "Washington Sniper" books are in the works? Are sales really going to be that great to justify the oversaturation? Marc Fisher: I know of four, but there may be more. I wish for nothing but success for my colleagues who are working very hard on books right now, but the track record of such work is that a year after the big crimes, there's not a huge appetite for reliving them. That said, a good story well told will always find an audience.
Washington, D.C.: I wonder what the reaction would be if the snipers decided to write a book about their crime. Unless I'm mistaken there are laws against criminals profiting from their crimes by writing book; for example, Son of Sam. Profiting from a crime does not seem to be a very moral or ethical path to follow whether a criminal or a law enforcer. Marc Fisher: There are indeed Son of Sam laws, and they have been challenged again and again since they were passed, mainly in the 1970s. Of course, those laws do not prohibit killers and the like from writing, only from profiting.
Chief Moose=GREED: I’ve never joined your discussions, but now I feel I actually have something to contribute. Here it is: Chief Moose=GREED. Why do I feel so confident to say that? Because I know what his only motive is: MONEY. I know his type (personally). How can I say that? Because I live but two miles from one of the sniper attacks; I experienced the anxiety and fear myself; and most importantly, I have 15 years of experience in public relations and marketing and I’m getting married to a metro police officer (who had first-hand experience in and information about the sniper investigation). Like I said, I know his type and only two things motivate his type: money and ink. OK, so he says he can give us an accurate account of what happened. Well, that’s only a matter of opinion. He may have had access to a lot of information and he may have had “some” veto power on how things were done. But, he was not vice and he was not one of the arresting officers. He even gave his field officers erroneous information (hey, if he's willing to take the praise, he should be willing to take the blame just the as easily). So being able to give an accurate account it’s just a relative term. So, the law does not prohibit him from talking. Well, the law does not prohibit me from drinking. The law does not prohibit me from smoking. The law does not prohibit me from cheating. The fact is that the law does not prohibit us from doing many things that are damaging and unethical. And that’s where I’m going. Chief Moose may have the "right" to write a book, but it’s so unethical, that the idea of it makes a lot of us puke. He'd should just admit that he's in it for the money. I think that the American public would believe him and respect him a little more if he were honest. He shouldn't say he's in it for our sakes because we’re not that stupid. Don’t pretend to be taking the high road because we can see the snake crawling the low road. And here's where my experience comes into focus. I can promise you that if it’s a good story now, it’ll be a better story later. Only the Lewinksy’s, Buttafuoco’s, and the Anna Nicole Smith’s have to sell their stories immediately because they’ll be worth nothing later. The truth is that history couldn’t care less about their types. They will always be controversial, yet unforgettable and a dime a dozen. If Chief Moose’s interests were not based on money, he’d insist on publishing the book out of principle and donate ALL of the proceeds to the ACLU, the Legal Defense Fund, police officers fund or the victims’ families. But that’s not his goal. His goal is to make a quick buck and buy a house in the San Fernando Valley (trust me, he’s so dense he doesn’t realize he’d never get enough to buy on the Hollywood or Beverly Hills or even Brentwood). But anyway, his argument is not about what’s right. It is about what pays the most and the fastest. I know about the opportunity cost of money. I know about publicity and I know about fame (notoriety). But, puhleeeeze, don’t say you’re doing this for our benefit, don’t say you’re doing this for what’s right and don’t say you’re doing this for the victims' families. Cuz you’re doing this for you and ONLY you, Chief Moose.
Marc Fisher: Yikes -- long post -- please try to keep them to a manageable length. But you make some very good points, and compellingly so.
Arlington, Va.: Surprisingly, there is a substantial market for "true crime" books, and I'm sure Moose and his team know it. Perhaps the market isn't the east coast, but people in other parts of the country are avid true crime fans. These are the people who watch the cop dramas, Most Wanted, and COPS. Marc Fisher: Right, but that does not appear to be the kind of book Moose has in mind. He's pitching his as an "inspiring" life story of someone who rose up to leadership despite various obstacles. Sounds more like a pitch to be on Oprah than to land in the True Crime section of Borders.
Bethesda, Md.: Marc, Money is not Chief Moose's only motive in getting his account out quickly. Federal and local law enforcement officials agree that he was way over his head in the first week of the investigation and something of a loose cannon until he started accepting guidance from folks who were experienced in dealing with sensitive high profile cases.The Chief obviously wants to get his two cents in before other authors reveal his mixed performance. That would, indeed, ruin his market cachet and potential windfall. Marc Fisher: Could be -- the FBI and ATF folks in the investigation are already making it clear that from their perspective, Moose was little more than a figurehead. So the books that tell the story from their perspective will put those federal officials at the center of the probe. Moose obviously wants to sell a different version of events.
Re: Ballston, Va.: Surgeons do it all the time, and they publish in JAMA and such. But, to meet ethical obligations they MUST get your permission to do it. They don't profit from the publication directly, but they might from new techniques they use on you. My point, that is apples and oranges, and Moose is sowing some bad apples. Marc Fisher: Right, and no one's opposing Moose writing, say, for a police journal about new ideas that emerged from this investigation.
Reston, Va.: Re: Chief Moose. I am still looking for the white van with ladders and the white box truck since the Chief hasn't told us not to look. Marc Fisher: Ouch.
Washington, D.C.: If the D.C. Public School System were a city in any one of several states, it would have been taken over by that state education department long ago. Problem here is that there is no one to look into what really goes on in that dysfunctional organization and no one to take them over. The result: the students continue to suffer. Marc Fisher: And what good would such a takeover have done? That sort of drama on the part of governments gets great press, but does it really improve what happens in the classroom? I haven't seen evidence that it does.
But you're right -- too many of the basics in the dysfunction of this system remain untouched by all these waves of reform we've seen over the past 20 years. Solution: Probably no remake of the administration would make a significant difference. The answer lies in what the mayor correctly sees as a need to repopulate the city with a strong middle class. In the end, it is the population of a school system, probably more than any other single factor, that determines the quality and reputation of its schools.
Bowie, Md.: I think part of the "backlash of apathy" about Santorum's remarks is that a lot of people don't think every group gets to define themselves as an "oppressed minority deserving of government protection." The language of gay rights, as presented by its advocates and large parts of the media, uses the same terms as the civil rights (for African Americans) movement. Lots of people think disapproving of a group defined by psychology or behavior is not the same thing as hating people for their skin color. Marc Fisher: OK, that's what I was talking about earlier and last week when I mentioned the strong belief in much of the country that there are essential differences among civil rights movements on behalf of blacks, immigrants and gays.
It's a tough comparison to make, in part because race is such an obvious barrier to equal rights and sexuality, by its very nature, is a more privately expressed trait.
I think there's an emerging consensus that no one should be discriminated against because of sexuality, but there still remains strong resistance to the idea that sexuality should be considered a factor in political decisions.
Washington, D.C. (from Tex. originally): Santorum and sodomy laws -- Santorum's home state has a sodomy law that applies to straight people as well, and outlaws all sex acts that can't directly lead to procreation, if you know what I mean. Is Santorum actively using his influence as Senator to pursue the countless thousands that must break that law every year in his home state? If he is, it'd still be an odd position, but at least I'd be able to respect him for applying his standards equally. If not, then pretty much by definition his stance is anti-gay, no matter what he says. Marc Fisher: I think there's no question that his target is gays and those who support gay rights. The rest is the fog of battle.
Derwood, Md.: Widening 66 inside the Beltway: It's BACK! Some draft reports were (is?) circulating, justifying it as necessary as a "homeland security" item, needed to evacuate the district during the emergency. When a coworker showed me the copy she'd been asked to review, my response was to ask "So, they're only going to widen the outbound side, right?" Marc Fisher: Ha! Good one. Seriously, if you can get me a copy of that draft report, I'd like to read it. You can send it to me care of the Post, 1150 15 St. NW, Wash DC 20071, and thanks.
Capitol Hill: Marc, I'm the quintessential yuppie D.C. resident. Moved downtown into a gentrifying neighborhood, now thinking about kids and getting ready to move to the 'burbs (schools, crime, etc.). At some level this makes me a bad person, but, can you think of any reason why this is not a good idea? Sort of the ultimate commentary on D.C. government, i.e., voting with my feet ... Marc Fisher: I don't know if that makes you a bad person, but I disagree with the decision. Crime varies neighborhood to neighborhood, street to street, and that's true in the city or in the suburbs. Large portions of Washington are safer than many sections of the suburbs, and vice versa. On schools, they will improve only as people stop fleeing, and of course, people will stop fleeing only as the schools improve. So we're trapped in that Catch-22, but there are several places around town where people are pushing hard out of that trap--the grassroots Moms on the Hill group is one such effort, another one is starting up in Takoma D.C.
Washington, D.C.: The key to avoiding telemarketer calls is never to give out your phone number. Not at stores and not on those warranty cards. We get about 1-2 calls a month and we always tell them not to call back. What I'm really wondering is who Moose thinks will play him in the made for TV movie? I'm betting the guy on "Alias". Marc Fisher: I'd bet big money that Moose wants Denzel Washington to play him. Personally, I'd vote for Ving Rhames.
Silver Spring, Md.: I probably disagree with Rick Santorum on just about everything, but I do not think his views on homosexuality are far out of the mainstream, nor is his view of the right to privacy a radical one. Legal scholars have debated for 100 years whether the Constitution contains a right to personal privacy separate from the enumerated rights. Unfortunately, the case in which the right was established -- Griswold v. Connecticut -- was written by Justice Douglas, hardly one of the intellectual pillars of American law, whose "penumbras" and "emanations" convinced no-one but those who already believed. Marc Fisher: OK, thanks. We're well over our allotted time, so I'll have to break it off here. Back in the paper tomorrow -- and KidsPost readers will get their own special view of my column in tomorrow's edition -- and we'll reconvene here again next week at the usual time.
Thanks for coming along, and apologies to those I couldn't squeeze in today.
washingtonpost.com: That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion.
© Copyright 2003 The Washington Post Company | 
