UltraNewb

Despite the fact that BitTorrent has been around for a good 6 years now, the lightning fast file sharing protocol hasn’t completely taken off in the mainstream. Since we post a decent amount about BitTorrent around here, we figured it was just time we put out a beginner’s guide to BitTorrent. This is the guide you can send to your friend next time he gets that glassy look in his eyes when you mention BitTorrent and how quick and easy it makes downloading albums educational, public domain videos and other large files.

Without going into too much detail, here’s a crash course in the file sharing protocol that is BitTorrent (feel free to skip to the How to find and download a file with BitTorrent section if you’re not all that interested in the details).

What is it

BitTorrent is not a program. [1] It’s a method of downloading files using a distributed peer-to-peer file sharing system. The programs that you use to download files via the BitTorrent protocol are called BitTorrent clients.

BitTorrent is not like Limewire/Kazaa/Napster/other P2P programs you’ve used in the past. This is often the biggest source of confusion for people new to BitTorrent. It’s not difficult to use, it’s just different. As soon as you forget about your old file-sharing program (and you will once you start using BT), the easier it will be to start using BitTorrent.

How does it work

What makes the BitTorrent protocol unique is that it distributes the sharing of files across all users who have downloaded or are in the process of downloading a file. Because BitTorrent breaks up and distributes files in hundreds of small chunks, you don’t even need to have downloaded the whole file before you start sharing. As soon as you have even a piece of the file, you can start sharing that piece with other users. That’s what makes BitTorrent so fast; your BitTorrent client starts sharing as soon as it downloads one chunk of the file (instead of waiting until the entire download has been completed).

In order to download a file like the educational public domain video we mentioned above, you have to find and download a torrent file (which uses the .torrent file extension) and then open it with your BitTorrent client. The torrent file does not contain your files. Instead, it contains information which tells your BitTorrent client where it can find peers who are also sharing and downloading the file.

How to find and download a file with BitTorrent

Now that you’ve got a better idea of the terminology and process behind BitTorrent, let’s jump right into using BitTorrent.

First you need to download a BitTorrent client (the program that manages your BitTorrent downloads). I’d recommend:

• uTorrent for Windows
• Transmission for Mac
• Azureus or KTorrent for Linux (Actually, Azureus is cross platform, meaning it will work on Windows and Mac, but on those platforms it’s not nearly as lightweight as the alternatives listed above.)

Search for a good torrent. There are a handful of really good web sites for downloading torrents (that’s right, you search for torrents on the internet). The sites I’d recommend (in no particular order) are:

• Mininova
• The Pirate Bay
• isoHunt
• TorrentSpy
• btjunkie
• Demonoid (Demonoid is sort of a members only site, but if you can get yourself a membership, it’s one of my favorites [and a great place to find more esoteric downloads].)

Try out whichever one you like. One might fit your tastes better than another, but I’ve had good experiences with all of these. From this point, search the site using their search box like you’re using Google—just type in the name of what you’re looking for. You’ll likely get several results, but you want to choose the torrent with the highest number of seeders (indicated in most BitTorrent search results under a field labeled ‘S’). Seeders are people who have already downloaded and are sharing the entire file. The more seeders, the faster your download will be. Some sites also provide you with a health meter, which is generally a measure of seeders vs. active downloaders.

Download the torrent. Once you’ve found a good and healthy torrent, find the download link and download the torrent. Your browser will ask you what you want to do with the file, so be sure to tell it to open the torrent in the BitTorrent client you downloaded above.

Your BitTorrent client will open and (possibly) ask you where you want to save the file(s). Pick your save location, hit OK, and that’s it; your file will begin downloading. If you’re not impressed with the speed at first, be patient. It can sometimes take a minute or two before the download ramps up to full speed. If you’re still not happy, try searching for another torrent with more seeders.

That’s it?

Yep, that’s it. That, in a nutshell, is how to download files using BitTorrent. There can be more to it, of course, if you want to dive in a bit deeper. For example, you can run through the Speed Guide in uTorrent to improve your download speeds (the guide is fairly self explanatory—just go to Options -> Speed Guide to get started), download select files from the torrent rather than every file, throttle your bandwidth, and so on, but this basic guide should get you started.

Also, to ensure you stay in good standing in the BitTorrent community (and aren’t labeled a leecher), you should always try to upload as much as you download. Most BitTorrent clients keep track of your upload/download ratio, and you should generally continue sharing a file until your ratio reaches 1, after which you can feel free to remove it from your client (the file will remain on your computer—you just stop sharing it).

If you’re ready to move on to even more advanced BitTorrent business or you want to try out alternate methods of downloading files via BitTorrent, check out the following posts:

• Tips for speeding up your torrents
• Remote control your torrents with uTorrent’s WebUI
• Automatically download, convert and sync videos to your iPod
• Control BitTorrent downloads from your mobile phone with uTorrent mUI
• Remotely download torrents to your Mac
• Hack Attack: Get your TV season pass with Democracy
• Hack Attack: Automatically download your favorite TV shows
• Using BitTorrent to send files
• Download BitTorrent files directly in your browser with Opera 9

Since I’m sure many of our readers are experienced with BitTorrent from way back, I’d love to hear your suggestions for BitTorrent newbs in the comments. Also, if you’re new to BitTorrent and you have any questions, let’s hear ’em.

[1] Well, there is a BitTorrent client specifically called BitTorrent, but we’re talking about the BitTorrent protocol. Most of the time you hear someone talking about BitTorrent, they’re talking about the protocol and not the program. [back up]

12:00 PM ON FRI AUG 3 2007
BY ADAM PASH
39,240 views

• TOPIC:
• bittorrent
• feature
• file sharing
• how to
• p2p
• peer-to-peer
• top
• ultranewb

Read More:

• Remove scratches from CDs and DVDs
• Track your weight with SMS and Google Calendar
• Make your own moleskine notebook
• Keep your home cool on the cheap
• 10 tips for when Windows won’t boot

Powered by ScribeFire.

 

FUN!

TheNewsHole : Ridin’ in Style

Powered by ScribeFire.

A new study suggests that some printers emit dangerous particles that could make office workers sick.

Researchers at Queensland University of Technology
in Australia found that 17 of the 62 printers they tested were “high
particle emitters” that posed a threat to humans. They say 37 of the
printers didn’t emit any particles, but one gave off particles at the
same rate as a burning cigarette.

“These [printer] particles are tiny like cigarette smoke particles
and, when deep inside the lung, they do the same amount of damage. The
health effects from inhaling ultra-fine particles depend on particle
composition, but the results can range from respiratory irritation to
more severe illness such as cardiovascular problems or cancer,”
Professor Lidia Morawska, the study’s author, tells The Age.

Her research showed that particle levels were five times higher
during working hours because of the emissions from printers. She says
the printers were more likely to emit dangerous particles when the
toner cartridge was new or the machines was being used to print
detailed images.

“Printers should operate in environments where there is as much
ventilation as possible and as far as possible from where people’s
desks are located.” she tells tells Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

ABC Science has an extensive report on the findings.

USATODAY.com

Powered by ScribeFire.

The New Republic VS. The Weekly Standard

Max Blumenthal: The Weekly Standard’s Reliable Sources:
Male Prostitute Matt Sanchez and Web Weirdo “Throbert McGee”

Powered by ScribeFire.

Clinton-Obama Tensions Spill Into the Senate – The Caucus – Politics – New York Times Blog

Powered by ScribeFire.

By Greg Braxton and Carla Rivera, Times Staff Writers
3:41 PM PDT, August 3, 2007

Veteran KTLA Channel 5 anchor Hal Fishman, who was hospitalized this
week after collapsing at his home, has been diagnosed with colon
cancer, station officials said today.

Doctors were treating Fishman, 75, for an infection he suffered after
the collapse when they discovered the cancer, which has spread to his
liver, said interim news director Rich Goldner.

Added Goldner: “Hal is awake and thanks everyone for their well wishes
and says he is going to fight this illness. He is looking forward to
coming back when he gets better.”

Fishman, a news veteran of more than 45 years, has anchored the
station’s 10 p.m. newscast since 1975. He is a former political science
professor and renowned aviation enthusiast, holding several records for
speed and altitude.

He joined KTLA in 1965 and reported on the assassination of Robert F.
Kennedy, the Northridge earthquake and the Rodney King beating.

His honors include a Governor’s Award from the Los Angeles Chapter of
the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences and an Outstanding
Broadcast Journalism Award from the Society of Professional Journalists.

In 2000, KTLA named its newsroom the “Hal Fishman Newsroom” in
recognition of his services to the community and to the station, which,
like the Los Angeles Times, is owned by Chicago-based Tribune Co.

His omnipresence on the Los Angeles news scene prompted dozens of well-wishers to send messages to the station’s website.

Many lauded Fishman’s straight-talking perspective, often delivered in the style of a stern father.

“Hal, get well soon and get back to work,” said one missive from Gerry
in El Cajon. “L.A. needs your honesty and perspective. Many of us have
watched KTLA for decades. We have grown up [I won’t say old] with you.
You are a civic treasure.”

carla.rivera@latimes.com

greg.Braxton@latimes.com

Los Angeles Times

Powered by ScribeFire.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa today sought to put the scandal surrounding
his personal life behind him, one day after the Telemundo network
suspended his girlfriend, newscaster Mirthala Salinas, for covering the
mayor while they were romantically involved.

But a Villaraigosa news conference at the Port of Los Angeles ended
chaotically, with a port police sergeant shoving a television reporter
against a cargo container as she attempted to pursue the mayor.

---

FOR THE RECORD:
An earlier version of this article referred to KVEA-TV Channel 52 as Channel 54.

---

Only minutes earlier, Villaraigosa had voiced hope that the
conclusion of Telemundo’s review of Salinas’ conduct would allow him to
move forward.

Yet even as the mayor expressed those sentiments, he took questions on
whether his poll numbers had dropped (he said he didn’t know), whether
he spoke to Telemundo for its review (he said he hadn’t) and whether he
felt responsible for the disciplinary actions that befell Salinas and
three management-level employees at Telemundo and its local affiliate,
KVEA-TV Channel 52.

“I regret (that) the decisions that I’ve made in my personal life have
been a distraction to the City of Los Angeles,” said Villaraigosa,
whose wife of 20 years has filed for divorce. “I’m deeply sorry that
I’ve let so many people down, especially my family. But it’s time to
move on, and move on we will.”

Villaraigosa said he took full responsibility for his actions “from the
very beginning.” And he repeatedly attempted to refocus reporters on
the port’s announcement that the retail chain Target had obtained 100
trucks powered by cleaner-burning liquid natural gas.

“That’s the real news here, by the way,” he said.

Villaraigosa customarily lingers after news conferences to answer
additional questions from reporters and allow cameras to follow him to
his vehicle.

But today, as the mayor strode from the podium, a half-dozen port
police officers formed a skirmish line to block reporters and cameramen
from approaching him.

“How come we’re not allowed to talk to him?” one reporter barked.

“Why the suddenly limited access?” another demanded.

When the officers broke their formation, more than a dozen journalists
starting running across a parking lot in pursuit of the mayor as he
departed.

Spanish-language television reporter Alicia Unger was at the front of
the pack, and as she approached one 20-foot container, Port Police Sgt.
Kevin McCloskey shoved her into the side of it, further infuriating
reporters, who began shouting.

“That’s wrong,” one television reporter screamed.

Another said: “You can’t hit a woman like that.”

A visibly shaken Unger, who reports for Azteca America Channel 54, then shouted at the officer: “Why are you pushing me?”

Reporters and camera operators surrounded McCloskey demanding to know
why he pushed Unger. McCloskey told them to contact port police as
another officer led him away.

Afterward, reporters turned their attention to Unger, who said that McCloskey “slammed me. He slammed me hard.”

Spokesman Matt Szabo later said that the mayor’s office did not order port police to keep reporters away from Villaraigosa.

david.zahniser@latimes.com

duke.helfand@latimes.com

Cop shielding Villaraigosa gets rough with reporter – Los Angeles Times

Powered by ScribeFire.

“I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear
weapons in any circumstance… involving civilians. Let me scratch
that. There’s been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That’s not on the
table.”

—BARACK OBAMA

“What Giuliani is, is George Bush on steroids. Giuliani, Romney and
the rest of the Republicans running for the nomination are going to
give the country four more years of crony capitalism, which is exactly
what we have now. We have insurance companies and drug companies and
oil companies running this government. They need to be stopped. And
Giuliani just wants to empower them.”

—JOHN EDWARDS

“I’m a democrat and I can’t stand this president…. I’m here to
represent people. The people I represent don’t want to impeach
this clown.”

—EARL POMEROY

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation. The Supreme
Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice
Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another
Alito.”

—CHUCK SCHUMER

“While President Bush and Vice President Cheney continue to operate
as if they are leaders of a monarchy, Congress should censure them and
make it clear to this and future generations that their actions are
entirely unacceptable.

“If Congress does not act to formally admonish this White House then
the future of our democracy will be placed on a slippery slope in which
other presidents may point to the actions of this administration as
justification for further abuses of the Constitution. Congress cannot
allow such abuses of power and law, which is why Senator Feingold and I
will soon introduce these censure resolutions.”

—MAURICE HINCHEY

“I will be shortly introducing a censure resolution of the president
and the administration. One, on their getting us into the war of
Iraq—in Iraq and their failure to adequately prepare our military
and the misleading statements that have continued throughout the war in
Iraq. And the second, on this administration’s outrageous attack
on the rule of law, all the way from the illegal terrorist surveillance
program to their attitude about torture…. [T]his administration has
done the greatest assault on our Constitution perhaps in American
history.”

—RUSS FEINGOLD

“I think we’re in great danger of [a terror attack staged by the U.S. government].”

—RON PAUL

“I live in North Carolina. I’ll probably never eat a tangerine again.”

—ELIZABETH EDWARDS

				JIM LEHRER: And to the analysis of Shields and Brooks, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, New York Times columnist David Brooks. David, do you see something new and awful about this heat that erupted in the House of Representatives? DAVID BROOKS, Columnist, New York Times: It’s not new, but awful. It’s like a Eugene O’Neill play. They’ve got all these submerged hatreds, and it only takes a little fissure to open them all up. And that’s what happened yesterday. What was striking about what happened with the ag bill was that, first of all, the parties couldn’t agree what was in the bill, and then they couldn’t agree on how the vote went about the bill. And then when they had this whatever happened, the bit of chaos, and the versions you get depend entirely on what party you’re talking to, immediately the hatred erupted. And it’s the same hatred that erupted when Tom DeLay and others held the vote open a couple of years ago, and that hatred is still there. And I don’t think the procedures of the House have changed that much. The majority party has changed, but a lot of the strong-arm tactics are sort of the same. JIM LEHRER: Hatred is a strong word to use. Do you agree with David, who uses that word? MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist: No, I disagree with David. I think there was a crankiness, there is a crankiness in the House right now, this tension. JIM LEHRER: Crankiness, not hatred? MARK SHIELDS: Crankiness. No, it was cranky. They’re tired. They’ve worked long hours, and I think they’re ready to get out of there. And I think the profound difference between what happened last night and what happened with Tom DeLay, keeping the Medicare bill open for three hours, the vote on the floor for three hours in total violation of the House rules, and twisting arms and making threats on the House floor, was that both Steny Hoyer, the majority leader — I thought who handled it very well — and Mike McNulty, who was in the chair, said, “I was wrong. I made a mistake.” I mean, I didn’t hear that in the DeLay era. That was entirely different. Now… JIM LEHRER: But David’s point is that, whether or not it was an honest mistake or not, that underlying the surface here is tension, and much more than tension. MARK SHIELDS: Well, I don’t know — I mean, I thought John Boehner was quite measured and quite restrained. Roy Blunt, the Republican whip, was different. And I think there’s no question that, within the Republican caucus, there are people who are unreconstructed, just as there are people on the Democratic side who are unreconstructed in any dealing with the other side. And I think Roy Blunt was speaking to and for them, whereas John Boehner, who’s a fierce partisan and a very loyal Republican, you know, was trying to think how he could make the house work. DAVID BROOKS: Well, they both have Machiavellian reasons to want to make the House appear less angry because the approval ratings of the Congress as a whole, and the House in particular, are sub-Cheney, and they’re pretty terrible. So they both have an incentive to make it seem like they’re both doing their job. And the big thing that has changed — this has been a long, gradual change — is that members of each party are much less likely to care what people in the other party think of them personally than used to be. And so they’re perfectly happy to shout, “Shame,” or to behave in shameful ways toward people in the other party.

Mark Shields Syndicated Columnist Let’s be very blunt: The House reflects the country, and the country is riven over the issue of Iraq. There’s a consensus that we want to get out, and there’s no consensus on how.				Civility in Congress JIM LEHRER: Does it matter? MARK SHIELDS: Why, sure, it does matter. JIM LEHRER: I mean, other than just… MARK SHIELDS: It matters because, you know, for one thing, I mean, we saw the retirement announced this week of Ray LaHood. Ray LaHood is a Republican from Peoria, Illinois, who served as Bob Michel’s chief of staff, who was Republican leader, was an enormously civilized, genteel man, who has friends on the other side of the aisle, and for whatever reason is leaving. And the quotient and quota of civility in that institution has depleted seriously by people like David Skaggs, from Colorado, who left, and Ray LaHood, both of whom organized a weekend for families to overcome what David has described, that would get along. They went away for one weekend, maybe even two, but then he tried to rejuvenate it, and couldn’t get people to want to do it. DAVID BROOKS: I actually went to one of those weekends as a facilitator of conversation. And there was — I tell the story — there was a woman in the hallway weeping because, in one of the breakout sessions, she’d been insulted so badly that she left the room weeping. JIM LEHRER: A member of the House of Representatives? DAVID BROOKS: A spouse. And this was at the civility conference. And so that’s a little of the atmosphere that was even carrying over. JIM LEHRER: Going to substance here now, Speaker Pelosi said in an interview on the program last night that she was proud of the record of the House of Representatives during this session. Does she have a right to be proud? Should she be proud? DAVID BROOKS: I don’t think in particular. I think she’s done things to exercise her control over her party, which looked unlikely when this started. I think she’s been an effective speaker at organizing the Democrats, and this was a party that seemed riven with Steny Hoyer on one side and her on the other. I think she’s been effective in that. In terms of passing legislation, changing the way the House does business, reducing the number of earmarks, that’s certainly not been a success. The number of earmarks has shot upwards. And so I think substantively, it’s not been a successful Congress, but politically she’s done well, and that’s what she’s oriented to, 2008. MARK SHIELDS: I agree with David. I think she’s been a far more leader of the — effective leader of the party than many people thought she was capable of being. I mean, she’s cracked heads, and she’s kept the Democrats quite united. Let’s be very blunt: The House reflects the country, and the country is riven over the issue of Iraq. There’s a consensus that we want to get out, and there’s no consensus on how. And that’s exactly where the House is. And they’ve had six separate votes on it. That drives the House; that drives the entire ethos of the House, the entire atmosphere of the House. I think that — if you’re giving a grade, I’d say it’s an incomplete, because, I mean, there are things like children’s health, and the student loan reform, as well as the ethics reform I think that are significant, and the energy bill — it will be tomorrow — that it will be September, it will be October, but they will — I think they will be done.
David Brooks The New York Times I was out on the campaign trail with Republicans in New Hampshire, every other question was about health insurance. This really is an issue in even Republican circles.				Debate over children’s health bill JIM LEHRER: What do you think on — what is your view on the children’s health bill, the SCHIP thing, David, which got a lot of heat? We’ve had debates here on the NewsHour about it. DAVID BROOKS: I confess I don’t have an intelligent view on the substance. From first glance, it looks like something is building on a successful program that would extend health benefits to children. If you look at the members of the Senate, the Republicans say who would be unlikely to vote for a Democratic piece of legislation, I think 18 Republicans voted for it. So you have to think the thing has some merit. What strikes me, interestingly, is the politics of it. Because on the one hand, I was out on the campaign trail with Republicans in New Hampshire, every other question was about health insurance. This really is an issue in even Republican circles. JIM LEHRER: You mean about no having it and worrying about not having… DAVID BROOKS: Exactly, one thing or another, whether it’s veterans or something, it’s a big issue, let alone on the Democratic side. And so that’s a big issue. On the other hand, spending restraint is also a huge issue out there. And Democrats have been notably slow to pick fights on spending versus not spending, for that reason. JIM LEHRER: And the SCHIP issue has got both. It’s got health insurance. Also it’s got spending issue politically, right? MARK SHIELDS: Hey, Jim… JIM LEHRER: Oh, Mark. MARK SHIELDS: … there is no political defense from the White House’s position on this. This is a Republican program passed in 1997. I mean, Trent Lott, God bless him, the Republican whip in the Senate, talks about this is socialized government-run medicine. This is what they’re trying to push. The last time I checked, every member of Congress and their children is covered by a government-sponsored-and-paid-for health program. I trust in a better conscience they’ll all renounce this during the recess and go to private plans. I mean, what are we talking about? We’re talking about the children of the working poor. I mean, somehow there’s a charge that the six deadbeats who are 5 years old, these 6-year-olds want to get on and rip off the taxpayer? I mean, I just can’t believe it. They’re going to tax? Yes, they’re going to tax cigarettes. I mean, unfortunately, cigarettes and the poor people who smoke them have become a punching bag and a fiscal reservoir for the country and for programs. But I don’t think the Republicans and the White House — I mean, the Republicans talk openly about how they can’t understand the White House’s political point on this. DAVID BROOKS: I think most Republicans would not accuse 6-year-olds of being deadbeats. I don’t think quite that’s their argument. This is the open-air argument of what’s going to be the biggest domestic argument of the ’08 campaign, and the Republican position would be, not that these people shouldn’t be covered, it’s going to be that we shouldn’t do it in a nationalized way, a Britain-Canada style, and we shouldn’t ramp up spending that we can’t pay for. And they’d say the cigarette tax only pays for a tiny portion. There are other things that aren’t paid for, so you’ve got to pay for it. And so that’s going to be the argument. I’m not sure the argument is going to be over deadbeat 6-year-olds.
Mark Shields Syndicated Columnist [W]hat this does is it…ends the whole entertainment industry in Washington, no tickets, no gifts, no entertainment, no dinners for lobbyists.				New ethics rules JIM LEHRER: OK, Mark, you mentioned the ethics legislation. Are things really going to change that much because of what happened? MARK SHIELDS: Sure, they are. MARK SHIELDS: First of all, Jim, according to the Heritage foundation, the Republican think-tank, very respected, since 1996, Republicans members of Congress have left the House, one out of two has become a registered lobbyist. I mean, the explosion in K Street is just… JIM LEHRER: K Street is a street in Washington where the lobbyists work and live. MARK SHIELDS: Lobbyists work, it’s just remarkable, OK? And the nexus between lobbyists and money to campaigns — if David’s running, I’m a lobbyist. What I do is I then collect money from my clients, from my associates, and I then bundle that money and bring it to David, and say, “Look, you know, I can only give you $2,300, but here’s $45,000.” JIM LEHRER: And, by the way, I represent the… MARK SHIELDS: Exactly, and I want to have a continuing relationship with you and your wonderful staff. And what this does is it exposes that, it ends the whole entertainment industry in Washington, no tickets, no gifts, no entertainment, no dinners for lobbyists. But the money thing — for members and staff — extends to two years the time before a member who leaves can now go out and lobby. And I just think — I really think it makes an enormous difference. It’s going to be disinfectant of sunlight. We’re going to know who’s bundling… JIM LEHRER: They can still bundle, but they have explain it. MARK SHIELDS: That’s right. That’s right. JIM LEHRER: What do you think? DAVID BROOKS: I think it makes a difference for the reasons Mark talked to. It’s going to be lonely for us at Nationals games, no lobbyists and members of Congress floating around, a lot of beer and hot dogs for us. MARK SHIELDS: You’ll get better seats. DAVID BROOKS: But the thing a lot of people wish had gone further — and this is controversial — is, again, going back to the earmarks and the transparency of the earmarks. A lot of people, like John McCain, think that they should have gone further so that the earmarks, that you couldn’t slip it in. The Democrats claim they did go to some extent. But I really think the earmarks are corrosive. And that’s what the lobbyists really care about is, is getting those special provisions slipped in. And until you cut away that, which is the root of all evil…
David Brooks The New York Times [I]n ’94, there were 4,000 earmarks in the budget. Ten years later, there were 14,000. And I think the Washington Post reported there were now 34,000. People love earmarks.				Impact on earmarks JIM LEHRER: And the new bill does not in any way ban earmarks. All it does is say, “You’ve got to say who got the earmarks and why,” right? MARK SHIELDS: And you have to certify that nobody connected with you is benefiting from it financially. DAVID BROOKS: Right, but there are loopholes about where it gets certified and things like that that a lot of people are complaining about. JIM LEHRER: So do you think it’s going to end earmarks, it’s going to… DAVID BROOKS: Oh, well, it certainly won’t end earmarks. Everybody loves earmarks. I mean, I think, if I remember this correctly, when Gingrich came to power in ’94, there were 4,000 earmarks in the budget. Ten years later, there were 14,000. And I think the Washington Post reported there were now 34,000. People love earmarks. JIM LEHRER: Does the raid on Senator Stevens’ Alaska home, does that affect the ethics climate and passable legislation… MARK SHIELDS: It guaranteed Senate passage. I mean, if you’re a Republican, you can’t say, “Oh, boy, this is political.” Here they are, the FBI, going in and invading and examining the home of the senior Republican senator. It absolutely guaranteed it. And I think what we’re seeing is that Alaska is, from top to bottom — the political environment there is being examined and will be scrutinized. JIM LEHRER: A climate change as a result of this? DAVID BROOKS: Yes. But, again, the Ted Stevens, what he did, whether he did it or not, that’s not what the cause of all this lobby reform legislation. It wasn’t the stuff that people were trying to hide that caused this legislation. It was the stuff that was happening in the open day on restaurants on K Street. And so, you know, what he did, may have done, may be illegal, but the stuff that was going on every day is what we needed to address. And that’s what the legislation was about. JIM LEHRER: But I’m just thinking about whether or not it’s tied directly to this. Does it have an indirect influence on the way people… DAVID BROOKS: Well, I think when you’ve got money in freezers, houses being rebuilt, it all feeds in. Duke Cunningham, we’ve had many cases of this. JIM LEHRER: OK, David, Mark, thank you both very much.

Online NewsHour: Analysis | Republicans Walk Out on House | August 3, 2007 | PBS

Powered by ScribeFire.