During the current presidential primary season, Ronald Reagan was a hot issue. His name was used interchangeably with “true conservative.” The Republicans battled each other to claim the mantle of being Reagan’s ideological successor. Meanwhile the Democrats, Clinton and Obama, each tried to label the other as more “Reganite.” By this, they meant “actually conservative,” which of course is a bad thing to be seen as in a Democratic primary.
Reagan did talk a good conservative game:
- get government out of the way of the people
- the government that governs the least, governs the best
- The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help’
However, his record often failed to live up to that promise.
Social Record
Reagan, especially in the Republican primaries, campaigned as a strong anti-abortion candidate. There is even a good deal of evidence to suggest that Reagan himself was personally against abortions. However, once in power he did very little to restrict abortions. He was fond of addressing the national pro-life rally by phone, so that he wouldn’t be seen on T.V. news with anti-abortion leaders.
Conservatives probably should not have expected much; as governor of California in 1967 (before Roe v Wade) he signed one of the then most liberal laws on abortion, under which over one million abortions would be performed.
Reagan’s record on appointing judges was a bit better for conservatives. He did appoint the conservative judge Scalia, and at least didn’t appoint an outright liberal like H.W. Bush did with Souter. Reagan also appointed moderates Kennedy and O’ Conner, who combined to prevent any of the changes to abortion laws that conservatives wanted until O’Conner’s retirement.
On immigration, an issue today that divided certain pro-business conservatives from other conservatives, Reagan signed a bill granting amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants. During the Republican primaries, “amnesty” was a word candidates did not want applied to their plans.
Financial Record
Given the quotes mentioned previously, one would expect a Reagan presidency to create a smaller government. He ran on that platform. He didn’t accomplish it. He really didn’t even try. He campaigned on a promise to eliminate two cabinet departments; he cut none and added one. After a promise to cut back social security, he greatly expanded it, increasing pay roll taxes on both businesses and employees, adding federal workers to the program, and for the first time taxing social security benefits. Spending on welfare increased as well. In fact, social spending increased faster than the famed military spending increase of the Reagan years.
He did cut taxes, but he also raised them. In 1982, he signed the largest percentage tax increase since World War 2. In 1983, he agreed to increase the tax on gas. In 1984, he agreed to toughing laws on businesses, resulting in higher taxes. He did not instigate all of these of course, but he signed them.
In 1986, the tax reformed act saw the biggest increase in taxes on businesses ever. Even some of his tax decreases were done in a liberal fashion. The earned income credit allowed some of the poorest Americans to go without paying income taxes. This is against the conservative tenant that better off Americans shouldn’t have to pay a higher percentage of their income in tax than others.
The most dramatic of Reagan’s financial legacies however, is the increase in the federal debt during his years. Before Reagan’s presidency, the federal debt stood at $789 billion. Afterwards, it stood at $2.191 trillion. That’s an increase of 1.402 trillion dollars in 8 years. Unless the old saw that liberalism means “tax and spend” and conservatism means “borrow and spend,” running up the debt is not conservatism.
Conservatives like to blame Congress, which was under control of the Democrats, for the increase in the deficit. Despite the fact that Reagan often got his way in Congress, with Blue-Dog Democrats like Phil Graham backing him, let’s look at that idea. Figures are taken from the Congressional Almanac.
In Reagan’s eight years, he proposed budgets totaling $7.314 trillion. Congress passed (and Reagan signed) budgets totaling $7.361 trillion. That means Congress spent $47 billion, or 0.6% more than Reagan requested. Since the increase of the deficit during this time was $1.402 trillion, that $47 billion accounts for only 3.4% of the deficit during the Reagan years. Thus, even if Reagan had gotten exactly what he wanted, 96.6% of the debt would still have occurred. Blaming Congress then doesn’t make much sense. Reagan was not a paragon of conservative values.
But He Won The Cold War!
The idea that Reagan won the Cold War is a common one, and one that conservatives love to spread. The idea is that he played tough, increased military spending, and as a result, the Soviet Union fall apart trying to keep up. Sometimes the incredible debt ran up during the Reagan years is forgiven because of this idea.
Let’s examine this idea. Conservatives claim that Communism is an inherently flawed system and that it is doomed to failure. It would then seem that they could not claim too much credit for winning the Cold War for any one person, when Communism was due to fail anyway.
The most that could be claimed is that Reagan hastened the fall of the Soviet Union by a few years. Did he? Well it’s hard claim to disprove, but it’s also impossible to prove. Reagan did oversee increased defensive spending, took a hard line with Moscow, and turned up the rhetoric with remarks like “Evil Empire.”
Did this cause the Soviets to increase spending and thus fall apart sooner? Probably not. The Soviets were already spending all they could in a failed war in Afghanistan. The Soviet economy was in bad shape from years of central planning. This reached a crisis in the 1980’s when Saudi Arabia cranked up its oil exports; this badly damaged the Soviet Union’s ability to raise much needed hard money.
It seems the Soviet Union was already on its last legs financially. Leaders such as Gorbachev were aware of this and were attempting to reform. It’s thought by many that Reagan’s harsh rhetoric made it harder for the reform faction to press forward, as it gave the hardliners evidence that the United states was truly hostile. This increased the threat of misunderstanding and nuclear war, a high price to pay for perhaps hastening the decline of the Soviet Union a couple of years.
Probably the best thing Reagan did in this area was the nuclear limitation agreements with Gorbachev. Done against his the whishes of his conservative advisers, it may have given Gorbachev just enough credibility in Russia to oversee a largely peaceful transition out of the Soviet system.
Conclusion
Reagan’s conservative legacy is greatly overrated. The right has pressed him forward as a great conservative hero in order to use his legacy for their own purposes, and have thus glossed over his many deviations from conservative positions.
Thanks for the article, Jasen. I’m at a loss to explain why the Republican party all but deifies Reagan. I think part of it is orchestrated. There is a concerted drive (I’m not sure by who, exactly) to rename things after Reagan. Bridges, roads, airports, aircraft carriers, and so forth. The push has been fairly successful, although they haven’t been able to get Reagan on our currency yet. The Democrats won’t stand for booting FDR to make way for Reagan on the dime. I wouldn’t mind, though. I’m not a big FDR fan. In fact, let’s go ahead and put Reagan on all our coins and bills. Are you looking forward to having a pocketful of Reagan pennies, Reagan nickels, Reagan dimes, and Reagan quarters? And they’ll all feature the new and improved US mottos: In Reagan We Trust, and E Pluribus Reagan.
It’s human nature to put a face to a policy and worldview. In conservative politics, that face is currently Ronald Reagan. In liberal politics, it’s probably JFK (even though he probably wouldn’t be very liberal by today’s standards). In conservative philosophical circles, William F Buckley is/was the man everyone looked up to, even though today he probably wouldn’t match up with most conservatives on some issues.
Darius, you’re changing the discussion just a little bit. Clinton, Obama, and the rest are not beating their chests saying they are the reincarnation of JFK.
“liberalism means ‘tax and spend’ and conservatism means ‘borrow and spend’”
This really does a perfect job of summing up the problem with the two choices these parties offer.
Conservatism doesn’t mean that, stupid or power-hungry politicians do that. Liberalism is tax and spend, conservatism is limited government, less spending.
Don’t use an idealized definition of conservatism which matches nobody in political power without doing the same for the liberals. Perhaps:
Taxes/Welfare: Liberalism is demonstrating compassion for the needy by spending mandatory government resources to improve their lives, conservatism is allowing people to keep their money so that they can voluntarily improve their own lives and the lives of others using their own criteria.
Foreign Policy: Liberalism is trying to avoid getting involved in other nations problems to prevent them getting mad at us (and possibly attacking us), while conservatism is trying to provide security to foreign populations in an attempt to prevent their conflicts from affecting us.
Immigration: Liberalism is trying to reward all those who have come here and contributed to our economy, while conservatism is concerned about the fairness of allowing them to “cut in line” those waiting legal residency.
Healthcare: Liberalism wants to ensure that everyone gets affordable care for themselves and loved ones, while conservatism worries that government management will drive up costs and reduce quality of service.
Villainizing ones enemies doesn’t allow us to meaningfully point out their errors. If you refuse to understand what someone’s goals are, you can’t meaningfully show them why their actions won’t help them meet those goals.
The reason why half the country is Democrat is that the Democrats want good things (people with needs to have them met). The reason the half the country are Republican is because the Republicans want good things (people to be able to improve their own lives and those of others). You may feel that the other sides choice of methods will not effectively achieve their goals, but only a monster would call either of these goals wrong. (Does anyone here honestly believe it is bad to help people with real needs, or to empower people to improve their own lives and those of others?)
Except liberalism doesn’t help people… but it certainly lets liberals feel good about themselves. Conservatism means doing good, liberalism means feeling good. Yes, you are correct, they generally have good intentions. But good intentions can still lead to evil ends.
It is always difficult to view the past through the prism of todays world. Reagan is being recast in the light of conservatisms current values. In the late 1970’s the issues were different. By the standards of the day he was fairly conservative, but certainly not by the current definition. Reagan was first and foremost a pragmatic politician, with all that it implies. He was also probably the most gracious and positive president in history. Even when referencing people who held diametrically opposing views he always spoke in a positive respectful manner, making his points with humor and incisive commentary.
Unfortunately the conservative movement today seems to only be able to offer up hate, personal attacks, and all too often hypocrisy (yes rush, it really was a crime). Yes, I know the liberals are friggin hypocrites too, but it’s my house I’m worried about. I really fear that the gingrich, rove, limbaugh “the ends always justifies the means” political style has produced short term gains at the expense of lasting long term accomplishments. We simply need to be better people than that. Meaningful ideas that you truly believe in should not need vicious vitriol in order to be accepted.
Atanamis. great discourse very well stated. we need more of that kind of thinking.
Darius. if you don’t examine what you have done wrong and learn from it then you never know what you have done right either. also, by demonizing any disagreement you completely cut off all possibility that there might be something to learn that you hadn’t considered. conservatism also has managed some pretty evil ends from good intentions. for example leaving a debt of $9,414,912,043,759.99 (as of 10:53am, that’s $30,999.66 for every man, women, and child in america) for our children and grandchildren to repay. we should all be deeply ashamed of that.
Again, that is not conservatism. Perhaps you guys should study what conservatism means.
“Except liberalism doesn’t help people… but it certainly lets liberals feel good about themselves. Conservatism means doing good, liberalism means feeling good.”
“Again, that is not [liberalism]. Perhaps you guys should study what [liberalism] means.”
darius, which part are you referring to. not learning from you mistakes, not at least listening to the other side, spewing out ludicrous hate filled diatribe, or running up debt. reagan, bush I, and bush II account for about 7.5 trillion of the 9.5 trillion debt. as much as I would love to blame it on clinton it just isn’t possible.
Who spews out a hate-filled diatribe?
Darius, you’re trolling again. When is the last time that someone calling themselves conservative reduced the size of government? WHY does liberalism allows its members to “feel good”? They “feel good” because they think their political actions are accomplishing good. OF COURSE good intentions can lead to bad actions, and OBVIOUSLY a conservative will think the liberal actions are bad. (Just as a liberal will think conservatives actions are bad.) The way to change their minds though is to show them why their actions fail to accomplish their goals though.
Calling them thieves who value feeling good over doing good doesn’t accomplish anything of value. Grow up and stop calling everyone names.
Where did I call anyone a name?? You’re being bizarre and nonsensical. Seriously, I’m not sure why you’re making this into a fight; it’s very common knowledge that liberals ignore all evidence to the contrary that their policies don’t work simply because they work on emotion and what feels good. It feels good to give welfare to the poor, but it certainly doesn’t help the poor.
Atanamis, you’re just being a liar right now, and it’s ticking me off. Where the hell did I call anyone a name? Answer that, genius. Wake up on the wrong side of the bed today, did we?
You know, you owe me an apology. I didn’t call anyone a name, yet you called me immature. We’ll see how mature you are in how you respond.
I take that back, I did say that certain RINO politicians are stupid. So, to those politicians to whom that was directed and might be visiting this site, I apologize.
I think that Ronald Reagan was a good President. His record, in comparison to the likes of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, does look conservative. I also think that Reagan is being contrasted in the present day with both Clinton and GW Bush and this is simply misleading. First, the Clinton’s lived off the reforms of Reagan. Much of the revenue generated during the Clinton years was due to economic policies of Reagan. Secondly, Clinton enjoyed a time of peace when the US had no real threats other than Saddam Hussein. Third, Bush has had to deal with the war on terrorism. Neither Reagan nor Clinton had to deal with the Islamic terrorist as Bush has. This war has strained the economy but I believe in time, through Reagan’s principles, we can restore our nation and defeat the Islamic facist.
Namecalling:
-Liberalism is tax and spend
-Except liberalism doesn’t help people… but it certainly lets liberals feel good about themselves
-Again, that is not conservatism. Perhaps you guys should study what conservatism means
-Who spews out a hate-filled diatribe?
Defining your opponents as evil IS one way to end a discussion, though I’d hardly imagine that is a sound debate practice. Repeated attacks across unrelated threads gives pretty strong support to my “Grow up” statement.
Ahh, since its common knowledge our opponents are evil, there’s no need to actually explain why. Of course, the fact that 50% of the US voting populous SUPPORTS their platform doesn’t really mean much, right? Do you believe in the “silent majority” that uphold conservative views but are too disgusted to vote?
There are at present two theories in the US for how to achieve the optimal results. The “conservative” position empowers all individuals to improve their own lives and help others, while the “liberal” position seeks to help those in need by giving them stuff taken from those who HAVE stuff. One can just as well argue that conservatives want the poor or homeless to die in the streets as that liberals just want to “feel good”. These are both truisms believed by many Americans.
The problem is that saying your opponents have the taxpayers / poor and want to take away their ability to live good lives will NEVER change minds. You know why? Because the liberal KNOWS he doesn’t hate taxpayers or want to remove all his freedom. Saying that just convinced him that you are wrong in your other claims. Instead, say that the liberal believes that giving money to the poor will improve their longterm lives, which has not statistically been demonstrated to be true. Use TRUTH to win others over, not SPIN. Unfortunately, by being to aggressive in my own correction of you, I have in all probability removed any likelihood of your thinking about a word I wrote. I apologize for having wasted whatever opportunity I had.
Atanamis, you might want to learn how to read just for a second BEFORE you comment again, since you obviously haven’t read (or understood) a thing I’ve said. Quit picking and choosing what portions of my comments to read! PLEASE! I never attacked you across threads (though I am now that you responded with stupid vitriol), I merely told Thainamu that her comment explained your behavior much better than anything I could come up with.
Even though it appears I am wasting my breath responding to your willful blindness, I will try to address your pathetic accusations. I never called liberals “evil,” and to say that I did makes you a liar, plain and simple. I SAID that liberals generally care more about feeling good than actually doing good, and are blind to the difference between the two. I also SAID that they usually genuinely care about the poor and disadvantaged. HOWEVER, just because they care doesn’t make their ideas right or good. And I fail to see how your ad populum argument that because 50% of Americans support the liberal platform makes it right.
“I apologize for having wasted whatever opportunity I had.”
Nice non-apology, you’re less mature (this week at least) than I thought you were. Take a deep breath, read the ENTIRE comment section, then move on. If you’re having a bad week for whatever reason, I’ll cut you some slack. But ripping into people on this thread and falsely attributing comments to them is not a civil way to conduct yourself.
I read the entire discussion. Atanamis, you’re being rude to Darius. At the very least you need to be more careful about reading too much offense into his comments. You do owe him an apology.
Darius, you might not realize this, but your comments about liberals are offensive. It is offensive to say that “liberals generally care more about feeling good than actually doing good.” You don’t mean to offend, but what you’re communicating is that liberals are selfish, immoral hedonists who care only about their own pleasure. That’s quite a different thing than saying that liberal policies are counterproductive and achieve nothing beyond warming the hearts of those who support the policies. The first attacks the character and morals of liberals; the second points out the problems with their policies without impugning their character. You’ve already clarified that you do think liberals “genuinely care about the poor and disadvantaged.” I would ask you to use different wording in the future, so that you aren’t misunderstood again.
Jew, I agree with you. However, this was my comment.
“Except liberalism doesn’t help people… but it certainly lets liberals feel good about themselves. Conservatism means doing good, liberalism means feeling good. Yes, you are correct, they generally have good intentions. But good intentions can still lead to evil ends.”
So I did clarify myself immediately. Perhaps though, as you said, I could have worded it better from the get-go.
gee guys i was talking mostly about coulter and limbaugh. before you jump all over me darius here is one of many quotes from ann coulter:
“If you don’t hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don’t love your country.”
I think thats pretty unequivocal, there are plenty more from both. My point was that although they get great shock value, they aren’t winning any converts to the conservative cause. O’Reilly and people like him do a much better job, presenting well researched and thoughtful commentary. Although O’Reilly’s habit of shouting down or cutting off anyone who makes a point he doesn’t want to hear is pretty juvenile.
Like it or not the political spectrum is a bell shaped curve. To form a lasting conservative movement we have to move the middle to the right. Which was what I was getting at in my first posting. Reagan wasn’t a paragon of idealogical purity, but he got legislation through that was a lot better than we would have gotten under carter. The key words here are got legislation through. In 2002 we had the most conservative president and congress in over 100 years. Yet the only substantial legislation of the bush presidency consists of a tax cut, no child left behind, and medicare drugs, the greatest expansion of a social program since lindon johnson. Two of these go against “true conservative” principles. Maybe getting less than perfect legislation under reagan was better than no legislation. How do you boil a frog? put him in cold water and keep turning up the temperature, if you drop him in boiling water, he just jumps out.
That’s what I thought, you were talking about the conservative talking heads. Atanamis wasn’t paying attention to our WHOLE conversation and jumped to a conclusion that you were A) talking about me “spewing hate-filled diatribes” and B) you were right without checking to see what I had said.
I agree that Reagan was a way better option than the WORST PRESIDENT IN OUR HISTORY, Jimmy Carter. He wasn’t truly conservative on some issues, but as politics go, he was better than most.
I agree that Reagan was a way better option than the WORST PRESIDENT IN OUR HISTORY, Jimmy Carter.
An aside: I agree that Carter was a pretty bad president. However, you will note that much like GW Bush, his fans tend to justify his failed actions by his godly/moral/ethical motives.
My intent was to communicate exactly what you did, that his comments about liberals were insulting and irrational. I’m sick of such blatant demonizing by both sides of the political spectrum. Does either side really believe that the other 50% of the nation are evil monsters? What value does such vitriol add to the discussion? I firmly feel we would be better off addressing one another’s ACTUAL goals, and showing how actions being taken fail/succeed in accomplishing those goals.
That said, I am willing to accept Jew’s judgment of this situation over my own, since my perspective is clearly tainted. Darius, I apologize for reading too much offense into your comments. I have apparently misread the intent of your postings. As a result, I will recuse myself from further posts in this thread. Please accept my apology.
For the last time, I never said they were evil monsters. But I guess that is the point of this whole misunderstanding.
Apology accepted.
Oh, and I am sorry to any liberals who I might have offended (if there are any on this site). It was definitely NOT my intention to demonize you, but rather to point out that your policies have been proven so utterly wrong in the last century (liberalism and its cousin socialism have destroyed the fabric of almost every society where they have been implemented), you are either blind to their effects or care more about feeling good. Usually though, as I mentioned above, it’s not the latter. Liberals mostly do care about the disadvantaged… unfortunately for them, they choose a very poor method to help the disadvantaged.
Darius was a huge ass in this thread, Atanamis should never have apologized. Darius, all you care about is making other people not feel good.
gurr8, I was wondering when you would rear your ugly head. I never addressed any comments to anyone on here, just to liberals in GENERAL (of whom I assume none of you are, though I am beginning to wonder more after this, since I seem to have hit close to the mark with some people).
Gurr, I apologized because I value Jew’s opinion very highly*, and he indicated he thought I misrepresented Darius’s intent. Since my grandfather died last week, it is distinctly possible that I was more combative than normal. It is also possible I am just normally overly combative. Either way, while I appreciate your support I will stand by my apology based on Jew’s assessment.
* This is not something I would say of more than a handful of people.
Sorry to hear about your grandfather, Atanamis.
I admit I am sometimes way too combative… however, I honestly was quite surprised and confused on how we got to the argument in this thread. I never called anyone a name, and spoke only generally about liberals, but never demonized them. I wasn’t even really paying much attention to the discussion, just throwing in some quick thoughts on occasion. So your ripping into me as a name-calling, hate-spewing troll came as a shock. I suppose I did have one comment that was a little condescending, but that’s pretty typical of everyone on here. I thought this case was similar to the case a few weeks ago where Colin jumped into a good discussion you, Chris, and I were having and blamed me for things I wasn’t guilty of, which you defended me of. I suppose I deserve it for some things I’ve said before which were excessive.
Darius, I could have been taking out frustrations on you I’ve developed on other forums as well. I’ve seen far too much of both sides demonizing the other recently, and ruining good conversations as a result. I fully agree with you that the effect of liberal policies is not what they intend, but I really do think its valuable to keep in mind that they really do want to help. They aren’t just hypocrites pretending to help so they feel good, most of them really believe their actions help.
My grandparents were staunch liberals all their lives, despite being wealthy enough in their retirement that liberal policies hurt them more than they helped. Their reasoning was that liberals provide a safety net for the unfortunate. My grandfather was made obsolete by improvements in printing presses. He was a highly skilled laborer whose skills became unmarketable overnight. He had to quickly learn new skills (in construction) and get work to support his family. In his mind, liberal policies allow help to people undergoing transitions like this. The intent is NOT for people to sit around getting free stuff, but to help them get back on their feet. Now you and I think this is better done by private charities, but we should be able to understand the needs that a liberal is concerned about. Social Security was designed to help the elderly who couldn’t afford to pay their bills. It never was needed for my grandfather, but he had friends who depended on it due to mistakes they’d made managing their money.
Many blacks are also staunchly liberal, believing that government help is needed to help them overcome the problems caused by racism 40 years ago. There are legitimate complaints about the level of education the older generation received, and it is very hard to better educate your children when you are poorly educated yourself. Now in your opinion and mine the policies chosen by liberals have made the black plight worse, making them dependent on government handouts. In their opinion though, these handouts are their only shot at fixing the problems of their lives.
The same kinds of stories apply to people needing medical care, special education for a child, etc. These are real needs that people really have that make them believe they can’t cope without government help. My own parents have become far more pro-government assistance since having a child with autism who NEEDS large amounts of specialized attention to recover. My mom who said she’d never send a kid to preschool did with Tom because he needed the speech therapy they provided. My parents can also afford a lot of additional therapy the school DOESN’T provide, but a less well off family couldn’t afford. Who is there to help those families?
Basically, the needs seen by liberals are real needs that become one issue tickets for the people affected. What these people need to realize is that conservatives aren’t dismissive of these real needs, but that we want the ability to help them more personally, with voluntary contributions. THAT is the argument that will win them over to our side. (Similarly, calling me a heartless conservative won’t win me over, instead show me how the government can more efficiently and fairly meet the real needs of people with a minimum of waste. Then let me fund those charitable functions voluntarily rather than through mandate. Of course, in doing so you will have become conservative.)
*Note: none of the above applies to politicians. Both the “liberal” and “conservative” politicians often talk the talk but then do whatever gives themselves the most power.
Great comment Atanamis, I am glad we have that row behind us. Your last *paragraph is what I was getting at originally when people were saying borrow and spend is a conservative idea. It is NOT! Just because some or most Republicans who may even call themselves conservative promote that idea through their actions and legislation does NOT mean that it IS a conservative ideal. I went to my local district Republican convention recently, and you should have seen how ticked off the delegates were at the Republican leadership for increasing spending, even if they lowered taxes. True conservatives loathe a “borrow and spend” mentality.
You know, Atanamis, you would probably enjoy reading Theodore Dalrymple’s books. He’s a conservative writer from Britain who isn’t a demogogue but rather honestly and very thoughtfully approaches each subject from a conservative viewpoint. His books “Life at the Bottom: The Worldview that Makes the Underclass,” “Our Culture, What’s Left of It: The Mandarins and the Masses,” and “In Praise of Prejudice: The Necessity of Preconceived Ideas” are three of the most thought-provoking books I’ve ever read (especially of those written by current authors). He’s an atheist, but one that is quite gracious toward religion, frequently praising Christianity for its better understanding of humanity and society.
Atanamis, my sympathies to you and your family as you grieve the loss of your grandfather. Losing a grandparent is hard no matter what your age. My last grandparent died just a few years ago, and I still miss her, especially at Christmas.
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2007/db070902.gif
Oh great, a Trudeau comic.
Atanamis, this is what I was talking about… liberals just don’t care that their views are wrong, they just enjoy feeling good.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/nyregion/10citywide.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin