SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JohnM who wrote (2532)6/21/2003 6:32:39 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793964
 
State Triples Vehicle License Fees
The average car owner can expect his or her annual so-called "car tax" bill to go up by $136. There will be a 30-day reprieve as the state adjusts its computers for the new rate.
By Evan Halper
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

How to make sure you are recalled. Triple everyones Car License cost. Everybody has a car, and writes out the check for it. No way to hide.

SACRAMENTO - The day many California drivers have dreaded is here: The Davis administration tripled the state's vehicle license fee today, generating billions of dollars to help close California's gaping budget hole.

A letter was sent to the Department of Motor Vehicles from Department of Finance Director Steve Peace, triggering the increase.

The average car owner can expect his or her annual so-called "car tax" bill to go up by $136. There will be a 30-day reprieve as the state adjusts its computers for the new rate; then the higher bills will begin appearing in the mailboxes of California car, truck, trailer and motorcycle owners.

With state lawmakers deadlocked over passage of a state budget and 11 days left in the fiscal year, the move comes as state coffers are running dry, save for an $11-billion short-term loan secured this week to keep the government operating for a couple of months. Officials with the Davis administration and the office of the state controller interpret the 1998 law that lowered vehicle license fees as saying that when the state reaches the kind of dire financial straits it is in now, that "triggers" the tax to automatically go back up.

Republicans and taxpayer groups called it a legally dubious claim. They released an opinion from the nonpartisan legislative counsel's office Thursday that suggested that hiking the tax now would be illegal without a two-thirds vote of approval from the Legislature. They said they probably will file a court challenge.

"It is ludicrous to suggest some low-level Department of Finance functionary can trigger a $4-billion tax increase," said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn.

Republican state Sen. Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks) said he is prepared to rush to the secretary of state's office today to launch a ballot initiative to abolish the car tax altogether within an hour after the fee increase order is issued.

But opponents of the fee acknowledged that state law would make it extremely difficult to immediately stop the increase. The state Constitution prohibits courts from stopping the collection of any tax until the case against it has been fully litigated.

"They know they can collect an illegal tax for at least a few years before the courts can stop them, and that is why they are doing this," McClintock said of the governor and controller.

The ballot measure McClintock is advocating to abolish the tax altogether would not appear before voters until November 2004. For the measure to qualify, McClintock would need to collect 378,000 signatures of registered voters.

"I've already had 10,000 people sign up at my Web site as a result of a few radio interviews pledging a total of 600,000 signatures," he said.

Davis administration officials said they have consulted with a cadre of attorneys, including the attorney general's office and the in-house counsel of the governor and controller, who affirmed that the tax increase is legal.

"We are taking the most conservative interpretation of the statute and how it is implemented because we intend to survive the court test," Peace said.

He dismissed a finding by the legislative counsel that the tax rate would have to change every month based on how much money was in the state coffers. He said it would be unconstitutional for the tax rate to fluctuate that way.

When the vehicle license fee was lowered in 1998, it came with a guarantee that the state would reimburse local governments the revenue they stood to lose from the tax cut.

Peace argued that the state cannot afford to make the $4-billion reimbursement in the coming fiscal year, so the tax must go back up to keep funds flowing to local governments.

He said the state is running entirely on borrowed money as legislators struggle to reach agreement on a spending plan by the beginning of the new fiscal year, July 1. Lawmakers appear nowhere close to a deal as the state hovers dangerously close to being assigned a "junk bond" credit rating that would raise the cost of future borrowing substantially. California already has the lowest credit rating of any state.

"The state has never been in this position before," Peace said. "We are managing this state the same way you would manage a company that is on the brink."

The latest push by the GOP to stop the fee hike is a double-edged sword for the party.

If a court stops the hike, it would remove a major revenue source and a government shutdown would become more probable.

Assembly Budget Committee Vice Chairman John Campbell (R-Irvine) made no apologies.

"We don't believe it will be us that shuts down the state government," he said. "If [Democrats'] insistence upon having tax and spending increases in this budget drives the state to the point of some shutdown or whatever, that will be a decision they choose to make."

Los Angeles Police Chief William J. Bratton, who was in the Capitol when Campbell briefed reporters, said that not pulling the car-tax trigger "is a recipe for chaos" that could stop the flow of sorely needed money.

"It's hard for me to figure out what is going on in this building here," Bratton said. "The reality of the world out there is that this stuff has the potential to cause real harm."

Bratton was in Sacramento with Los Angeles Mayor James K. Hahn and other California mayors to urge lawmakers not to seize revenue from cities in closing a $38-billion shortfall.

Though the mayors had initially called for no state cuts, Hahn said, they have since agreed to accept a modest, one-year reduction.

"We're saying we can work with you to make a contribution this year, which is different than the position we started out in, which was, 'Leave us completely alone. Don't touch us at all,' " Hahn said.

Senate Republican Leader Jim Brulte gave the mayors some good news.

"I would be very surprised if a multiyear hit passes the Legislature," Brulte said.

As cities sought to keep tax revenues coming their way, business and taxpayer groups announced several ballot proposals they are pushing to make it more difficult for lawmakers to raise taxes.

The measures would remove a section of the law that allows Democrats to raise fees with a simple majority vote. Another provision would increase the number of votes needed to raise taxes to two-thirds plus one in each legislative house.

The campaign was launched in response to a union drive to put a measure on the ballot that would lower the threshold for raising taxes from a two-thirds majority to 55% of the Legislature.

If the union measure is successful, Democrats would be able to enact a tax hike without any Republican votes.

latimes.com



To: JohnM who wrote (2532)6/21/2003 6:40:33 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793964
 
Hue and Cry on 'Whiteness Studies'
An Academic Field's Take on Race Stirs Interest and Anger

By Darryl Fears
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 20, 2003; Page A01

Just in case you don't feel guilty for being white, your Professor will make damn sure you do.

AMHERST, Mass. -- Naomi Cairns was among the leaders in the privilege walk, and she wasn't happy about it.

The exercise, which recently involved Cairns and her classmates in a course at the University of Massachusetts, had two simple rules: When the moderator read a statement that applied to you, you stepped forward; if it didn't, you stepped back. After the moderator asked if you were certain you could get a bank loan whenever you wanted, Cairns thought, "Oh my God, here we go again," and took yet another step forward.

"You looked behind you and became really uncomfortable," said Cairns, a 24-year-old junior who stood at the front of the classroom with other white students. Asian and black students she admired were near the back. "We all started together," she said, "and now were so separated."

The privilege walk was part of a course in whiteness studies, a controversial and relatively new academic field that seeks to change how white people think about race. The field is based on a left-leaning interpretation of history by scholars who say the concept of race was created by a rich white European and American elite, and has been used to deny property, power and status to nonwhite groups for two centuries.

Advocates of whiteness studies -- most of whom are white liberals who hope to dismantle notions of race -- believe that white Americans are so accustomed to being part of a privileged majority they do not see themselves as part of a race.

"Historically, it has been common to see whites as a people who don't have a race, to see racial identity as something others have," said Howard Winant, a white professor of sociology at the University of California at Santa Barbara and a strong proponent of whiteness studies. "It's a great advance to start looking at whiteness as a group."

Winant said whiteness studies advocates must be careful not to paint white heritage with a broad brush, or stray from the historical record. Generalizations, he said, will only demonize whiteness.

But opponents say whiteness studies has already done that. David Horowitz, a conservative social critic who is white, said whiteness studies is leftist philosophy spiraling out of control. "Black studies celebrates blackness, Chicano studies celebrates Chicanos, women's studies celebrates women, and white studies attacks white people as evil," Horowitz said.

"It's so evil that one author has called for the abolition of whiteness," he said. "I have read their books, and it's just despicable."

Whiteness studies, said Matthew Spalding, is "a derogatory name for Western civilization." Its study is important only to those who think "black studies and Chicano studies haven't gone far enough in removing the baggage of Anglo-European traditions," said Spalding, director of the Center for American Studies at the Heritage Foundation.

"The notion that you can get rid of a historical tradition as a way to further current . . . concerns strikes me as intellectually misleading," Spalding said. "It makes certain assumptions and looks for certain outcomes. It's close-minded."

Whiteness studies can be traced to the writings of black intellectuals such as W.E.B. DuBois and James Baldwin, but the field did not coalesce until liberal white scholars embraced it about eight years ago, according to some who helped shape it.

Now, despite widespread criticism and what some opponents view as major flaws in the curriculum, at least 30 institutions -- from Princeton University to the University of California at Los Angeles -- teach courses in whiteness studies.

The courses are emerging at a pivotal time. Scientists have determined that there is scant genetic distinction between races, and the 2000 Census allowed residents to define themselves by multiple racial categories for the first time. Dozens of books, such as "The Invention of the White Race," "How the Irish Became White" and "Memoir of a Race Traitor," are standard reading for people who study whiteness. Recently, the Public Broadcasting System aired a documentary titled "Race: The Power of an Illusion."

"If you ask 10 people what is race, you're likely to get 10 different answers," said Larry Adelman, who conceived, produced and co-directed that documentary. "How many races would there be? Where did the idea come from?"

At U-Mass., those questions and others were raised in "The Social Construction of Whiteness and Women," one of two whiteness studies courses Cairns took last semester.
Read and Discuss

The students, about three-quarters of them white, slid into desks and unloaded giant book bags, which were stuffed with required reading. The books included Theodore Allen's "The Invention of the White Race: Racial Oppression and Social Control," which argues, in part, that the collection of European immigrants into a white race was a political act to control the country.

Arlene Avakian, the chairman of the U-Mass. women's studies department, sat on a wide desk, let her legs dangle and asked the class to discuss the ideas of racial privilege, environmental comfort and social control. Not all of her students had taken part in the privilege walk -- it was conducted in another course -- but many of them had.

Winnie Chen, 22, the daughter of Chinese immigrants, said it pained her to deal with race every day when her white peers seemed to rarely think about it. She tried to discuss race with a white friend once, she said, but he felt ambushed.

"He said I was pulling a Pearl Harbor on him," she said. "It is so difficult for them to think there is another lens. He talked about Irish oppression. I asked, 'Have you ever considered why you're no longer oppressed here when Asians, blacks and Hispanics still are?' "

A white student raised her hand and said she and a friend had gone to a hall reserved for black student affairs, and the friend said she didn't feel comfortable.

Brandi-Ann Andrade, a 21-year-old junior who is black, rolled her eyes. "So what?" she asked. "I never feel comfortable here. I'm a student at a school where most people are white. The only time I feel comfortable is when I'm at home."

Dan Clason-Hook, 24, a white senior, said, "White students would never say that we own the campus, but [whites] feel they do."

The desire to always feel comfortable in their skin is something white people feel entitled to, said Avakian, who is white. The dominant group wants to control its environment, to own it.

The students listened without objection, but they don't always. Avakian said two students in an earlier semester had challenged her, questioning why she taught the course. After some discussion, Avakian recalled, they concluded her reason was white guilt.

Avakian dismissed that conclusion. "It's the suppressed history I'm interested in teaching," she said. "White people can't know ourselves and our country without knowing this history."

Although whiteness studies teachers adopt different approaches for different courses, they draw on the same reading of history.

That reading traces the invention of race to the time and social class of Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in the late 18th century not only that "all men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence, but also this, from his "Notes on the State of Virginia":

"I advance it, as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind."

From such sentiments, whiteness studies advocates say, race was invented, and the idea of white superiority was crucial to justifying slavery and, later, the dispossession of Native Americans, Hispanics and Asians.

"Jefferson believed in majority rule, but what majority was he in?" said historian James O. Horton of George Washington University. "He wasn't in the majority in terms of gender. He wasn't in the majority in terms of class. The only majority he was in was race."

Horton said poor white workers often joined black slaves and freemen in popular rebellions in the 18th century. For example, he said, Crispus Attucks, a black man, was among the first to die when an interracial mob confronted British soldiers in the "Boston Massacre," five years before the American Revolution started.

But something happened between that time and Andrew Jackson's presidency in 1828, Horton said. "Property laws were struck down, allowing white people at the bottom of society to vote based on race in 1807. At the same time that was done, race laws were put into its place.

"There is this constant message hammered at poor white people," Horton said. "You may be poor, you may have miserable lives right now, but . . . the thing we want you to focus on is the fact that you are white."

In the 19th and 20th centuries, "race science" was used by Supreme Court justices to deny rights, property and citizenship to various Asian immigrants.

In the housing boom that followed World War II, black veterans were denied new federally backed mortgages that helped build white suburbs.

Avakian said that if American history curriculums "told that story, this would be a different country."

"Slavery and genocide coexist with democracy and freedom," she said, and that's what whiteness studies teaches. "President Andrew Jackson presided during the mass murder of Indians. If we knew in detail how slavery existed alongside freedom, we would have to change the national narrative."
After Class

Chen said Avakian's course made her more aware of how the sense of belonging corresponds to skin color. "I would never not choose to be someone's friend because they are white, but I think it's important to have friends of color," she said.

Jya Plavin, a 20-year-old sophomore who is white, said the course "was really, really hard . . . both personally and as a white person, because you really want to take the focus off you and your whiteness."

Clason-Hook said that the class was the only one he knew of that explicitly spoke of whiteness, and that it helped him realize that "other classes, like economics, politics and history, are about whiteness. They are written by and are about white people."

He said later that confronting whiteness, day to day, is challenging. "I am racist. It's not on the surface, but it's in me. Day to day I hear racist comments, and people don't even know what they're saying."

Andrade said she thought "the class was beneficial, because it brings to light that white people, too, are racialized."

Thinking back on the class discussion a few days later, Andrade wondered: "In a culture that puts whiteness on top, what is blackness? When you look at whiteness, blackness is always in the negative."

Cairns, who had sailed through the privilege walk, said whiteness studies helped her understand race a little better. "My social group has always been white," she said. "I've noticed that, and I've started to look beyond my group."

washingtonpost.com



To: JohnM who wrote (2532)6/22/2003 8:39:46 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793964
 
The Masters of Spin
Why the Bush administration is the most arrogant in memory


ELEANOR CLIFT: NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE

These are the kind of comments David Brooks was talking about in the article I posted today. Clift feels powerless in the face of the Republican domination, and her frustration really comes though.

June 20 - The long, hot summer has begun in Iraq. American GIs are dying almost daily. So are Iraqis. But that hasn't stopped President Bush from embarking on a fund-raising spree premised on his triumphal role as commander in chief. Who needs reality when you've got spin?

THE PRE-WAR spin was all about weapons of mass destruction and the price of U.S. inaction. Bush said we couldn?t afford to wait until there was a mushroom cloud. Critics who suspect the intelligence data about Saddam's nuclear program was hyped are brushed aside like gnats on an elephant. Bush says they're engaging in "revisionist history," which is on a par with calling Watergate a third-rate burglary.
Bush wins the spin for now. The debate over weapons of mass destruction is an inside-the-Beltway story; it's not resonating with the public. The bigger question is existential: do the gods punish hubris?
This is the most arrogant administration in memory. Every day brings another issue where a careful observer of the political scene cannot believe what's happening. The latest outrage has the White House spinmeisters editing a report by the EPA on the status of the environment to omit mounting concern about climate change. The spinners have already stricken the phrase "global warming" in favor of the more benign "climate change." The offending line declared, "Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment." In its place, the White House inserted a bunch of gobbledygook about how the "complexity of the Earth system" and various "interconnections" make it a challenge to render scientific judgments.
Howls from environmentalists go unanswered. The administration's attitude is like the phone company before the breakup of AT&T when Lily Tomlin, the comedic actress, appeared on stage as a telephone operator telling irate customers, "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company."
Karl Rove, the grand wizard of spin, is a smart man with a historical perspective. He is a student of the American consciousness, and he knows that the American public is disengaged from politics. That's the reality that makes voters today uniquely susceptible to such deceptive spin. Apocalyptic assertions by Bush and other administration officials in the months leading up to the war created the impression of such an imminent threat that it's not surprising Americans got confused. One third of those questioned in a poll taken by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland believe that U.S. forces have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Twenty-two percent said Iraq actually used chemical or biological weapons in the recent war.
Most Americans have no idea who the Democratic candidates are, and Bush's fund-raising blitz is designed to envelop his re-election in an aura of inevitability. It?s summer in Washington even though the dreary, wet weather feels like April. If by Labor Day, U.S. inspection teams haven't found WMD and Iraq is looking like a quagmire, then the public might wake up and credibility could become a serious issue for Bush. As insurance against that outcome, Bush is shifting the political conversation to a looming confrontation with Iran, which will keep war alive as an issue for 2004. An uninformed public disengaged from politics and an administration that knows no shame are the ideal conditions for Bush to win a second term.
Democrats once hoped that a return to domestic issues, where they hold an advantage, would be Bush?s undoing. But the White House spin machine succeeds here, as well. Republicans who ordinarily deplore big government are cheering the potential expansion of Medicare to provide a prescription-drug benefit to senior citizens. Never mind that the Rube Goldberg scheme under discussion in Congress won?t go into effect until 2006 or that millions of seniors would pay more for their drugs with the benefit than they currently do without it, Bush will strut like the greatest savior of seniors since FDR brought us Social Security.

The House just voted to repeal the estate tax permanently, a windfall for trust-fund kids that was sold on the false premise that it saves farm families from destitution at the hands of the IRS. Reporters in the farm belt failed to find a farmer with a hardship story that would illustrate the GOP's argument. Even the American Farm Bureau Federation said it couldn't cite a single example of a farm lost because of estate taxes. The House votes tax breaks for millionaires while children of low-income families and military families get left behind.
One of the key strategies of the GOP is to portray Democratic critics as un-American. Remember the anonymous Bush strategist quoted some months ago suggesting Sen. John Kerry looks French. There will be two GOP campaigns: the flag-waving one on the surface that Bush is involved with, and then the sub-rosa campaign waged by surrogates that will be less gentlemanly. A very strong point in Bush's favor is that there hasn't been another attack on U.S. soil. He's kept us safe, and he's kept us fearful, a potent combination that Democrats haven't yet figured how to crack.
msnbc.com



To: JohnM who wrote (2532)6/22/2003 11:50:08 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793964
 
Will the Court Move Right? It Already Has
By LINDA GREENHOUSE - NEW YORK TIMES

The Liberals are off the Supreme Court. And the left is pissed.

In the intense focus on the Supreme Court's future, with crucial decisions expected this week and speculation at a peak over whether new appointments will soon drive the court further to the right, it is easy to overlook an important element of the court's present: how conservative it is right now.

A prisoners' rights case made that point eloquently last week, not so much by what the court said as by what it didn't say in a 9-to-0 decision upholding the Michigan prison system's restrictions on the right of inmates to have visitors.

The regulations include limits on visits by minor children as well as a minimum two-year ban on any visits by family members to an inmate who has committed two drug infractions. Two lower federal courts had declared the rules unconstitutional ? "below minimum standards of decency owed by a civilized society to those who it has incarcerated," as the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit put it.

Briefs asking the Supreme Court to affirm that ruling were filed by dozens of groups, including mental health professionals, an American Bar Association panel, the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, and those working on behalf of the 1.5 million children with a parent in prison. The briefs argued for the utility, if not the humanity, of fostering connections to family and the outside world for those in prison.

No Supreme Court justice was persuaded. "The challenged regulations bear a rational relation to legitimate penological interests," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for seven members of the court. He noted that inmates barred from seeing relatives through a glass panel could, after all, still write or call. While illiteracy, expense or the age of young children might make those alternatives problematic, "alternatives to visitation need not be ideal," Justice Kennedy said; "they need only be available."

In a separate concurring opinion, Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia disputed the premise that the Constitution had anything at all to say about visitation rights or conditions of confinement in general.

The point is not that the majority opinion in Overton v. Bazzetta was outrageous or unreasonable; given the court's precedents, it was foreseeable and defensible. (The separate opinion is another story.) What was notable was the absence of a contrary voice, the kind that would once have been raised ? if usually in dissent ? by William J. Brennan Jr. or Thurgood Marshall, both of whom retired in the early 1990's.

"Brennan and Marshall would have been indignant," said Stephen J. Wermiel, a law professor at American University who is writing an authorized biography of Justice Brennan. "It's not so much the lack of compassion, but the fact that the court gave no sign that this was a place that might have been appropriate for compassion."

Mark Tushnet, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and a biographer of Thurgood Marshall, agreed. "It's not the result or the unanimous vote that is the most striking, but the absence of a liberal articulation" and framing of the issue.

There are vigorous debates on the court, of course, and closely divided decisions are common. Earlier this term, the court split along predictable 5-to-4 lines in upholding California's "three strikes" law that has imposed 25- to 50-year sentences on hundreds of defendants whose third offense was a minor property crime. And conservative scholars dispute whether "conservative" is the right word for a court that, while not extending many liberal Warren Court precedents, has not overruled many either.

"But there are some issues that have simply dropped out of contention," Professor Tushnet said. The death penalty is one; no justice now holds that capital punishment is unconstitutional, as did Justices Brennan, Marshall and, briefly before his retirement in 1994, Harry A. Blackmun.

"It's definitely a conservative court in the criminal law area," reflecting a broad social consensus, said John O. McGinnis, a law professor at Northwestern University. But he added that the court's conservatism is not uniform, noting that the court is expected to overturn a Texas sodomy law soon.

"The real point is not that the court is conservative, but that the spectrum of views on the court today represents a particular range, from ardent conservative to central or moderate liberal," said Paul Gewirtz, a professor at Yale Law School. "There's something to be said for a court of centrists, but that's not what we have. One end of the spectrum is represented, and not the other."

Among legal academics, conservatives and liberals have their mirror-imaged constitutional wish lists. Conservatives call theirs the "Constitution in exile," a vision that includes state sovereignty, limited national power and strong protection for private property.

Liberals refer to the "shadow Constitution," under which the government has affirmative obligations to alleviate inequality, protect people from harm that results only indirectly from official action, and surround criminal defendants and prisoners with a range of safeguards.

One salient difference between the two visions is that the "Constitution in exile" actually existed for many years, before the New Deal court ratified a 20th-century vision of national power. The Rehnquist Court's federalism revolution is now breathing new life into that pre-New Deal idea.

By contrast, the "shadow Constitution," most of it at least, was never achieved, not even under the Warren Court. It has lived only between the covers of law reviews ? and in the occasional dissenting opinion from a Justice Brennan, Marshall or Blackmun. With their traces largely washed away, it is tempting to dismiss those efforts as ineffectual.

But even hopeless dissents serve a function, Professor Gewirtz said, in "giving the public the confidence that the majority has considered the full range of arguments and has had to answer them."
nytimes.com



To: JohnM who wrote (2532)6/23/2003 6:40:17 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793964
 
I watched Howard Dean being interviewed by Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" this morning, and he really turned me off. Comes across as bitter and mean to me. Just his whole appearance and personality. If he was brought in as my boss at a company I would quit immediately. Could not work for him.

His explanation of how is bad back kept him out of Nam while he was skiing, and working construction was weak, and would not stand up in a National campaign, IMO.