Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (31760)	6/6/2002 10:17:01 PM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Okay, Paul, so you like it. How do you feel about the absence of the FBI and the CIA? Is that a problem? Should they have been included? No. The FBI is a criminal investigation organization not a criminal prevention one. They belong with the Dept. of Justice and their function is still needed. The CIA has an external-only focus by charter. They play by different rules and need to be left to do their job. That the Bush people are paying too much attention to the immediate political spin--trying to smother the bad news from congressional investigations--and not enough to getting the job done? Better late than never. I think GB2.0 is personally and politically allergic to large government. He would have been very reluctant to put this in place. This announcement has the combined benefit of helping Bush during a period of bad news AND being the right thing to do. One could even imagine that he accelerated the announcement to quell the fears raised by the recent news of 'intelligence failings'. And how will the those who fear a larger federal government, particularly the right wing of Bush's party react? They will be torn. They will be sympathetic for the need to be strong and they will hate another new goverment agency. The futher to the right the less they will like this. I think it will get a smooth ride and strong approval from a wide spectrum of people. Paul

To: JohnM who wrote (31760)	6/7/2002 1:56:41 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Is this the kind of "Gun Control" you want, John? Daily Brickbat Absurd news bites, served fresh every day. By Charles Oliver Finger Pointing (6/7) Seven fourth graders in Colorado's Dry Creek Elementary School received a week's detention after they were caught using their fingers as imaginary weapons during a game of soldiers vs. aliens. According to Principal Darci Mickle, the boys' game violated the school's zero-tolerance policy toward violence.

To: JohnM who wrote (31760)	6/7/2002 3:15:34 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Mickey Kaus joins the ranks of those hallucinating about the increasingly political quality of New York Times news coverage. From Kausfiles, in Slate: Dueling Censuses: New York Times vs. Washington Post Guess which one is a parody of itself? By Mickey Kaus Updated Thursday, June 6, 2002, at 1:41 AM PT Just when I think I'm being paranoid about the New York Times, they go and produce a near-parody of find-something-to-complain-about, agenda-driven, distorted left-liberal coverage, with Peter Kilborn and Lynette Clemetson's census story of yesterday. It's useful to compare The Washington Post's level-headed coverage with the NYT's. Here's WaPo's lede (we won't even talk about the heds): The economic boom of the 1990s raised the incomes of the poorest Americans, held the size of the middle class steady and swelled the ranks of those with six-digit incomes, according to census data released yesterday. And here's the NYT: Despite the surging economy of the 1990's that brought affluence to many Americans, the poor remained entrenched, the Census Bureau reported today. The bureau's statistics for the 50 states and the District of Columbia show that 9.2 percent of families were deemed poor in 2000, a slight improvement from 10 percent in 1989. Of course, just because the Times saw as bad news what WaPo saw as basically good news doesn't mean the Times was wrong. But the Times was wrong. Both papers use variations of the word "slight" to describe the decline in the poverty rate, but only WaPo makes the essential point that this slight decrease was achieved while the nation accepted "high numbers of immigrants from poor countries," offering a great Gary Burtless quote on the subject. (Query: If poverty decreased despite lots of new poor people who came between 1990 and 2000, doesn't that mean the poverty rate for people who were here in 1990 must have gone down substantially?) The NYT talks a lot about immigrants, but only to raise concerns about assimilation. Most of the rest of the Times' piece is spent on a quick tour of fashionable complaints, including the unsubstantiated prospect of a "barbell economy," the effects of "sprawl," and the problem that Americans' new wealth is illiquid (tied up in big houses). ... [How is the NYT talk of a "barbell economy" unsubstantiated?--ed. They offer zero (0) evidence that the middle has shrunk. Their big example is Nevada, which had a 94 percent increase in people with graduate degrees and "a 76 percent increase of people with less than a ninth-grade education." But what about the people in between? You only get a "barbell" if they didn't increase too. Did they increase? Bet they did. The Times doesn't say.] The NYT does bury a near-stunning statistic demonstrating the success of , yes, welfare reform. Welfare goes mainly to female-headed households with children -- and from 1990-2000 "The poverty rate among female-headed households with children younger than 18 fell from 42.3 to 34.3 percent." That's not slight! ... [What was the great Burtless quote? Don't make us hunt for it--ed. From WaPo: We accept the people with poor backgrounds," said economist Gary Burtless of the Brookings Institution. "That increases the number on the bottom -- people moan and groan about it -- 'inequality is getting worse.' It's getting worse in the United States because this is our shining good deed: We take in poor people. A lot of them are going to be better off in one or two generations. Burtless is a smart, honest liberal who will tell you whether the statistics support or undermine his case. Marian Wright Edelman, the go-to quote for the Times, is a celebrity ideologue liberal who will never ever admit that anything undermines her increasingly discredited agenda. That sort of sums up the difference between the two papers' approaches.] slate.msn.com