http://www.slate.com/ Have you ever finished reading a complex news story and realized there's some fundamental fact you just don't get? The Explainer team at Slate.com is here to answer those basic questions that somehow slip through the cracks of daily news coverage. ©2005 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC en-us Fri, 9 May 2008 00:00:01 EST Fri, 9 May 2008 09:48:01 EST 120 No A daily podcast of Slate.com's popular column, The Explainer. Slate is the Internet's leading online-only magazine. Founded in 1996, we offer a daily selection of articles about politics, popular culture, the arts and science. Our Explainer podcasts feature answers to those little questions you have about the news (but were afraid to ask). For example: "Are concession speeches binding?" Slate Magazine Slate Podmaster podmaster@slate.com http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2121330/2127745/2142930/explainer.png http://www.slate.com/ slate news politics arts culture science 3:59 http://www.slate.com/id/2191002/ http://www.slate.com/id/2191002/ Burma vs. Myanmar Why can't the newspapers just pick a name and go with it? By Chris Wilson The front page of today's New York Times declares, "Myanmar Junta Accused of Delay in Storm Relief," while the Washington Post's front page reports there is "Scant Aid Reaching Burma's Delta." The papers are referring to the same devastating cyclone that tore through the Texas-size nation south of China and northwest of Thailand, whose ruling military junta changed the country's name from Burma to Myanmar in 1989. How do newspapers decide which name to use? Some err on the side of letting the country itself decide, while others don't. On the Burma/Myanmar question, both newspapers and countries are divided over whether to recognize the switcheroo. Burma's military leaders changed the English-language version of the country's name to Myanmar in 1989, based on the short version of the country's name in Burmese, "Myanma Naingngandaw." While the United Nations adopted the new name in June of that year, the United States continues to call the country Burma because the change was never ratified by a legislative body in the country. The Associated Press adopted "Myanmar" into its 2006 Stylebook, after weighing such factors as widespread international use and its recognition by the United Nations. The Times, on the other hand, has an informal policy of going with whatever the country wishes to be called, so long as the new name appears to have stuck; it began referring to the nation of Myanmar back in 1989. Five years earlier, the paper immediately adopted Upper Volta's change to Bourkina Fasso, declaring in an Aug. 5 headline that "Upper Volta, At Fete, Vows To Do Better As Bourkina Fasso." (The name of that nation is now more commonly spelled "Burkina Fasso.") Meanwhile, the Post tends to consult National Geographic in these decisions, though this case is an exception; National Geographic currently lists the country as "Myanmar (Burma)." The Post originally chose not to accept "Myanmar" because the military junta had not been recognized by many nations as a legitimate governing body. Slate uses "Burma" for similar reasons. While most newspapers use the Associated Press Stylebook as a guideline for usage decisions, they also have an in-house process for arbitrating style quandaries. This is presided over by a "style czar," usually the copy desk chief or someone he or she designates, who consults knowledgeable staff members and outside experts with relevant experience. Because different papers choose to adopt name changes at different times, it's common for those that use the new name to remind readers somewhere in the article that the country used to be called something else. In its entry on "Myanmar," The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage urges editors to "[g]racefully remind readers of the former names when necessary" and states that "Burmese" is still informally acceptable as a noun or adjective referring to the people. This practice is likely to remain as long as there is significant dispute over the name. Country name changes are not as common as they used to be, though there was considerable confusion in 2006 when newspapers couldn't agree on whether the city formerly known as Bombay should now be called Mumbai. Because name changes are frequently the result of a nation shirking its colonial or Soviet heritage, the decision on whether to accept them can be politically sensitive. The Times was initially criticized for adopting Myanmar too readily, though several other large publications, such as the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal, have now followed suit. Explainer http://fray.slate.com/id/3936/fr/podcast Fri, 9 May 2008 09:46:53 EST slate news politics arts culture science 4:12 http://www.slate.com/id/2190880/ http://www.slate.com/id/2190880/ Can a Campaign Go Bankrupt? What happens to Hillary Clinton's debt when the primaries are over? By Jacob Leibenluft Sen. Hillary Clinton has lent her campaign another $6.4 million since April 1, a staffer confirmed on Wednesday. The Clinton campaign began last month with $10.3 million in unpaid bills to everyone from political consultants to caterers. If a candidate borrows money during the course of a campaign, what happens to all that debt when she drops out or the election's over? It needs to be paid back—unless the candidate is the one owed the money. Lenders want their money back, and they are expected to follow the same practices they would if they were lending to a business or an individual. (If Clinton had borrowed from a bank, for example, she would be required to pay interest on the loans.) Moreover, under campaign finance law, an uncollected loan from a corporation—whether it's a bank or a sign maker—could be construed as an illegal contribution. As a result, even though vendors don't always require campaigns to pay upfront, they must make a good-faith effort to collect on any money they might be owed. To pay back those loans, a candidate is forced to do exactly the thing she wasn't able to accomplish during the course of the campaign—raise more money. As long as someone hasn't already given the maximum legal contribution for a given campaign, he or she can—subject to the same campaign finance rules—donate to the effort to pay off debts even after Election Day has come and gone. The long-dead presidential campaigns of Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, and Rudy Giuliani all have active Web sites inviting contributions to the former candidates' debt-retirement efforts—as long as you haven't donated $2,300 already. For candidates who run for office again, campaign debts can roll over to the next campaign cycle—depending, of course, on the terms of their loans. In perhaps the most famous case of outstanding campaign debt, former Ohio Sen. John Glenn remained nearly $3 million in the hole for more than 20 years after a failed bid for the presidency in 1984. (The Federal Election Commission granted him a reprieve two years ago.) Debt retirement gets a little more complicated when candidates lend their own money to their campaign. After an election is over, any campaign contributions that go toward repaying the candidate's own loans serve, in practice, as money directly into a politician's pocket. As a result, campaign law (PDF) now limits to $250,000 the amount a campaign committee can repay the candidate after the election. In the case of the Democratic primary, the election will end when a nominee is selected in Denver. So unless Clinton is able to raise enough money to pay herself back by then, she'll have to write off millions of dollars she lent to her campaign. What happens when a candidate has no hope of raising enough money after the election to pay off his or her outstanding debts? Technically, political committees can declare bankruptcy, but the practice is almost unheard of since defunct campaigns don't have much in the way of assets. Instead, losing candidates who aren't running again for political office—and consequently don't have an easy way to raise much money—may go through a process with the FEC called "debt settlement" (PDF). To do so, a former candidate must agree with creditors on how much he or she will pay back, and the FEC must verify that each creditor extended the debt in the "ordinary course of business" and tried its best to collect. (Unlike outstanding payments to vendors or staff, bank loans typically can't be forgiven.) If debt settlement fails, the FEC can eventually engage in an "administrative termination" that shuts down the campaign committee and cancels its obligations. Explainer http://fray.slate.com/id/3936/fr/podcast Thu, 8 May 2008 11:29:49 EST slate news politics arts culture science 2:31 http://www.slate.com/id/2190782/ http://www.slate.com/id/2190782/ Who Owns a Suicide Note? How the D.C. Madam's last words made it into the newspaper. By Juliet Lapidos Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the so-called "D.C. Madam," wrote suicide notes to her mother and younger sister before hanging herself last Thursday. On Monday morning, police in Tarpon Springs, Fla., released these documents to the media. Who owns the rights to a suicide note? Either the sheriff or the medical examiner. Law enforcement agencies must investigate all unnatural deaths, including suicides, and notes are treated as evidence. Sheriffs or coroners often attach these documents to their official reports. That opens the door for an enterprising journalist to file a request for the documents under the Freedom of Information Act, which grants public access to government records. Some states, like Washington and Ohio, have specific provisions to block the publication of suicide notes. According to Washington case law (PDF), suicide notes are exempt from public examination. After the sheriff and medical examiner file their reports, the originals are released to family members as personal property. In Ohio, suicide notes as well as preliminary autopsy findings and coroner's photographs are confidential. A journalist may submit a written request to view these documents for research purposes, but he can't copy the findings. Back in January 2001, former Enron Vice Chairman Cliff Baxter shot himself in his car, leaving behind a seven-sentence note addressed to his wife. Baxter's family argued that disclosing the contents of the note would violate their right to privacy. But the Texas attorney general ruled that Baxter had become a public figure and that the note was public record. In 1996, an admiral in the Navy named Jeremy Boorda wrote two notes before killing himself: one to his wife and another to his sailors. After journalists filed a FOIA request, the Navy released a report of its investigation but argued that publishing the notes would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Explainer http://fray.slate.com/id/3936/fr/podcast Wed, 7 May 2008 10:14:16 EST slate news politics arts culture science 4:03 http://www.slate.com/id/2190659/ http://www.slate.com/id/2190659/ The Unpopular President Why was Harry Truman as unloved as George W. Bush? By Jacob Leibenluft A CNN poll released May 1 pegged President Bush's approval rating at 28 percent, among the lowest in modern American history. The rating hasn't yet reached the all-time low of 22 percent, which Harry Truman received in a February 1952 Gallup poll. How did Truman manage to be less popular than George W. Bush? The Korean War, a weak economy, and "tax fixing." Truman had struggled in opinion polls before—most notably before his comeback victory in the 1948 election—but his approval ratings suffered a steady downward decline from early 1949. By February 1952, military operations in Korea had reached a stalemate, with congressional Republicans hammering Truman for "botching" the war. The conflict was also contributing to rapid inflation, despite an unpopular set of price controls the president had implemented. Although Democrats controlled Congress, splits within the party—particularly between Truman and Southern Democrats—meant Truman faced a constant struggle in moving his agenda forward. Truman was also mired in the continued fallout of a tax-collection scandal that had erupted a year earlier. Throughout the course of 1951, dozens of Bureau of Internal Revenue officials resigned or were forced out due to allegations of corruption. The White House was initially slow to respond to the wrongdoing, and the effort to appoint an independent investigator became mired in the internal politics of the administration. Coming on the heels of a loan scandal at the Reconstruction Finance Corp., the tax-fixing row tied into long-standing associations between the former "senator from Pendergast" and machine politics. (It didn't help that the chief alternative for the 1952 Democratic nomination appeared to be Tennessee Sen. Estes Kefauver, who had made his name with televised hearings into organized crime.) In a February poll conducted by Gallup, just 22 percent of respondents nationwide—including only 35 percent of Democrats—said they thought the Truman administration would succeed in cleaning up corruption in Washington. But while Truman spent most of his second term mired in low approval ratings, it isn't obvious why February 1952 was his low point. The president's controversial firing of Gen. Douglas MacArthur had occurred a full 10 months earlier. And his attempted seizure of the steel industry—a move later stopped by the Supreme Court—didn't occur until April. After February, Truman's ratings slowly began climbing upward—particularly after his announcement March 29 that he would not seek another term in the White House. When the final Gallup poll of Truman's administration was conducted in December, his approval ratings had bounced back to 32 percent. But while Bush still hasn't reached Truman's low point in Gallup's approval ratings, he has earned the highest disapproval rating in the poll's history at 69 percent. (Truman's highest disapproval rating was 67 percent in January 1952.) According to Gallup pollsters, the difference can be explained by the fact that people were more likely in the 1940s and 1950s to give no answer when asked whether they disapproved of the president. Respondents may have been especially shy about criticizing the president in Gallup's face-to-face interviews—which have since been replaced with random calls to respondents' land lines and cell phones. On the other hand, Bush may just be a more polarizing president than Truman was—meaning that fewer people have no opinion about him. Of course, since modern-day opinion polling dates back only to the 1930s—the Gallup Poll itself was started in 1935—presidential failures like Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, and Warren Harding were spared the shame of anemic approval ratings. Explainer http://fray.slate.com/id/3936/fr/podcast Tue, 6 May 2008 10:21:55 EST slate news politics arts culture science 3:34 http://www.slate.com/id/2190382/ http://www.slate.com/id/2190382/ Slate Magazine Podcast Explainer http://fray.slate.com/id/3936/fr/podcast Fri, 2 May 2008 14:40:15 EST slate news politics arts culture science 3:27 http://www.slate.com/id/2190275/ http://www.slate.com/id/2190275/ What's a Botnet? An army of infected computers that can send out 100 billion spam e-mails a day. By Chris Wilson Microsoft revealed this week that it is helping law enforcement officials track down the operators of "botnets," or networks of computers that can be used to send out spam messages without the knowledge of their owners. Though the software company is tight-lipped about the specifics, Canadian security forces have already used Microsoft's information to bring down a botnet that infected close to 500,000 machines. What is a botnet, exactly? It's a virus, worm, or other piece of software—the "bot"—which runs covertly on a series of computers—the "net." While several researchers are attempting to construct "good" botnets capable of protecting servers or undertaking massive computations, the term most often refers to viruses and other malicious programs that install on a computer without permission. Once a computer has been infected by a bot and recruited into the network—i.e., turned into a "zombie"—it surreptitiously communicates with a central command server or with other bots. Popular botnet activities include sending spam or flooding a targeted site with so much Web traffic that it's forced to shut down. (The latter is known as a "denial of service attack.") At a recent conference of security analysts, one malware researcher reported that the 11 biggest botnets in the world comprise 1 million machines, and can send 100 billion spam e-mails per day. As security researchers develop more and more sophisticated means of tracking and detecting these threats, the authors of the predatory programs continue to find innovative ways to spread their bots and hide their tracks. For example, early botnets tended to set up a direct line of communication between the infected computer and the person controlling the network—sometimes known as the "botmaster." This was done via a communication system called Internet Relay Chat (which was also used in early instant messaging systems). But a system like this makes it relatively easy for researchers to isolate a copy of the bot software, dissect it, and track down the server where the bot is phoning home. More sophisticated virus programmers have now turned to peer-to-peer systems, where bots disseminate commands through the network, in a "pass it along" system of giving orders. This makes it harder for investigators to find the source of the commands. Until recently, the most infamous of these threats was a botnet called Storm Worm, so named because it originally propagated through e-mails in early 2007 with the subject line "230 dead as storm batters Europe." Microsoft claimed last week that its bot-hunting software had finally crushed Storm, but others were suspicious. In any case, Storm Worm is at the least significantly scattered, but several other botnets have taken its place. While researchers continue to track the newest threats, study their code, and devise new ways to detect and combat the bots, most concede that the computer security arms race won't end anytime soon. Explainer http://fray.slate.com/id/3936/fr/podcast Thu, 1 May 2008 11:33:02 EST slate news politics arts culture science 3:06 http://www.slate.com/id/2190211/ http://www.slate.com/id/2190211/ explainer Life in an Austrian Dungeon What 24 years in a windowless basement will do to your health. By Juliet Lapidos Josef Fritzl, the Austrian man who imprisoned his daughter in a cellar for 24 years and fathered seven children with her, is facing prosecution for rape, abduction, incest, and possibly murder. One of the seven kids died (hence the possible murder charge), three were raised by their grandmother aboveground, and three others spent their entire lives in a windowless, 60-square-meter hellhole. Is living in a dungeon bad for your health? Yes, but not as bad as you might think. From a medical standpoint, there's one major problem with underground living: the absence of natural light. Lack of exposure to sunshine increases the risk of vitamin D deficiency, which causes rickets and other bone diseases including osteoporosis. Vitamin D malnutrition may also lead to chronic diseases such as high blood pressure. Unless you eat huge amounts of fish—cod liver oil every day for lunch, for example—it's difficult to obtain sufficient vitamin D from natural food sources alone. It's possible, however, to get the vitamin through dietary supplements. Another health hazard for the forcibly homebound is lack of exercise. Sixty square meters isn't much space for a cardiovascular workout. If the dungeon dwellers weren't getting their heart rates up regularly, then they're all at risk for heart disease and obesity. While fresh air isn't a health requirement per se, poor ventilation can lead to a host of medical problems. Humidity encourages the growth of mold, which can trigger allergies and asthma attacks. If one person gets sick, it's dangerous for others to breathe the same air. Of course, the subterranean family never had direct contact with the outside world, but they were exposed to bacteria via contact with Josef, so they weren't entirely cut off from diseases, airborne or otherwise. Scientific studies on the physical effects of long-term confinement in prison aren't especially pertinent here since prisoners generally have more space to roam around and more access to fresh air than the Fritzls did. But another famous Austrian kidnapping case might shed some light. Natascha Kampusch was abducted at the age of 10 in 1998 and held captive in a small, windowless cellar. After the first several months, she had access to the upstairs house and, occasionally, to the garden, but she spent nights in the basement. When she finally escaped in 2006, she was thin (just a little more than 100 pounds) and hadn't grown much (about 6 inches), but otherwise, she was in good health. Explainer http://fray.slate.com/id/3936/fr/podcast Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:52:01 EST