Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by shutupalready 4162 days ago
> General Clapper praised the food; his hosts later presented him with a bill for his share of the meal.

Not only are they evil, but they're cheap too.

But the fact is that the hosts would have billed for the meal because the U.S. government asked to be billed.

The USG requires that officials traveling on business not accept gratuities, gifts, dinners, or anything above a certain value (which is about US$100 -- it gets adjusted for inflation, so it might be higher today).[1]

There is an exemption to allow acceptance of gifts of travel expenses of more $100 when officials travel outside the United States on business, but only if "such acceptance is appropriate, consistent with the interests of the United States, and permitted by the employing agency".[1]

In this case, General Clapper and his staff probably didn't want to deal with the question of whether it was "appropriate" or deal with reporting requirements, so they just asked for the bill. Or, their North Korean hosts, knowing U.S. policy, were proactive in making up a bill.

Either way, the NYT article should have mentioned the USG policy. If they can't get that little thing right, it makes me wonder about the accuracy of the rest of the article.

[1] http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title5/html/USCODE-...

2 comments

It's customary for foreign governments to give gifts to US officials when there's a diplomatic trip, and it's customary for US officials to accept those gifts (under the exception you cited) given that refusal to do so would embarrass both parties. You can see the list of such gifts here: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/04/26/2013-099...

Given that presenting one's guest with a bill (or demanding a bill) would seem to violate social norms and cause embarrassment, I would imagine that meals are typically treated the same way.

    they can't get that little thing right, it makes 
    me wonder about the accuracy of the rest of the article.
Given they got a small detail correct like the persons present was Gen. Clapper inclined me to trust the accuracy of the rest of the article.

Same logic?

No it's not the same logic.

If a 1000-word article had 50 misspelled words, would you then say that it was a pretty accurate because it was 95% correctly spelled?

No, you'd be horrified. Things like spelling, grammar, and basic facts (the capital of a country, USG policy on gifts, etc.) should be close to 100% correct. That's a lower bound to be taken seriously.

Not quite. When reading an article I want nearly all facts to be correct. Otherwise it won't do me any good. Now if I sample two facts and one is true, the other is false, it makes it unlikely that the article is mostly true. Sure, it is also unlikely that nearly every facts is false, but that's still not very comforting.
If I find that the brakes are working only on one side of a car, I don't consider the fact that some of the brakes are working, to be an indicator that the car is probably in good condition.