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 : WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (3057)7/6/2003 2:23:21 AM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10965
 
Bull Detector Could Clean Up Political Jargon


URL:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,91143,00.html


Saturday, July 05, 2003
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos


WASHINGTON — When a politician says, "The only poll that counts is the one on Election Day," what does he really mean?





Translation: "I wouldn’t win if the election were held today."

Or what is a lawmaker really getting at when she says, "I plan to repurpose the budget towards a greater strategy of revenue enhancement?"

Translation: "I want to raise taxes."

Experts say the time is right for a software program that could cut through the "bull" of political jargon, much like the "Bullfighter" tool which strips business lingo from company memos, speeches and press releases.

"People are fed up. They get fire-hosed with bull every day and they are tired of it," said Brian Fugere, a consultant with Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, an international business consulting firm, which designed Bullfighter (search) and is offering the software free of charge on its Web site, www.DC.com. The site has received more than 200,000 hits since the software was introduced on June 17, Fugere said.

While the tool was inspired by the unintelligible jargon in the Enron (search) memos that emerged during the company’s bankruptcy scandal last year, Fugere said, designers have already used it to test presidents' State of the Union (search) addresses for clarity and straight-talk. The results have been surprising.

President George H.W. Bush led the pack with the most straightforward language, while current President George W. Bush came in third. President Clinton placed fifth and President Herbert Hoover “dead last,” said Fugere.

The tool acts much like a spell checker, recognizing overused and ambiguous business buzz words like "best in practice," "scalable" and "synergy." It also scores documents for clarity.

It was originally designed to help consultants at Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu write more coherently, said Fugere.

"We have to clean up our own act, frankly," he said. However, "it seems it might be a useful service in the political realm, too."

A number of political operatives and experts said they agree.

"It would put everybody on their toes," said Tom King, a Democratic consultant.

"I don’t think there is any monopoly on obfuscation," King said, referring to the ability of both Democrats and Republicans to manipulate language.

"I think some of the people who have reputations of being straight-talkers — [Arizona Sen.] John McCain, for instance — once you put them through the bull-o-meter, they’re not as straight-talking as you would like to think.”

Consultant Howard Opinsky, who worked for McCain during his 2000 presidential bid, said spin used by politicians is just as bad as vague language.

Opinsky offered an example.

"When a politician says, 'The American people know that I am doing the right thing on this one,' he really means, 'I’m doing what I damn-well please.'"

Jim McLaughlin, a New York-based Republican pollster, offered a few of his own. "When they say, ‘I don’t want to go negative,' it means they are going to go negative," he said.

"When a campaign says, 'The polls don’t matter,' that means they’re down 20 or 30 percent," McLaughlin added.

Matthew Felling, an analyst for the Center for Media and Public Affairs in Washington, D.C., said he would like to see political speech stripped of all sports metaphors.

“No' grand slams,' 'spinning wheels,' or how senator x is 'moving the goalposts,'" he said. "In an attempt to make it accessible to everyone, [sports metaphors] dilute and pervert the idea."

Felling also suggested getting rid of pop culture references like "weakest link," and the time-tested, "Where’s the beef?"

"These are just lazy ways of making headlines without saying anything of importance," he said.

But people might be surprised at what little is left over if political speech is stripped of its sheen, said Stephen Hess, political analyst for the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.

"To cut to the quick might not leave much," he said. "When you bite into it, there might not be much there. Sort of like cotton candy."

Fugere said the best Bullfighter can do today is help writers improve and guide journalists and shareholders through the gobbledygook that obscures useful information.

If it were used to put politicians to the test, that would be an added bonus.

"It has completely changed my own writing style. When you put a measurement on something its funny how behavior will change," Fugere said.



To: calgal who wrote (3057)7/6/2003 2:25:10 AM
From: calgal  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 10965
 
By The Rockets' Red Glare...




URL: foxnews.com


Thursday, July 03, 2003
By Rand Simberg


As we celebrate the 227th anniversary of our country's formal declaration of independence (search) tomorrow, it's useful to consider how we've evolved since then as a nation.





While I'd be the last to urge anyone to forego the barbecue and beer, and other festivities that have become de rigeur in recent years, I also believe that the event is one to be commemorated, as well as simply celebrated. Which is to say, that I urge all to take a few moments, as sadly too few do, and print out and read (or hopefully reread) Thomas Jefferson's (search) work of genius, and reflect on why so many died then, and since, to preserve the idea that we have certain "inalienable rights."

In light of current events, it's also important to remind ourselves that "...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness..."

Along those lines (I'll explain why in a moment), there is another activity in which we partake on this date that is both a celebration and a commemoration. As dusk approaches, we settle in to watch a display of pyrotechnics (search) that are at once not just awesome and beautiful, but a stark reminder of the price that must often be paid for freedom, in blood and treasure. In fact, it is memorialized in the words of our national anthem, by Francis Scott Key.

Of course, the rockets that we enjoy in our celebration are closely related to some of the weapons of war by which we won our liberation then, and in fact, for decades, and even today, still represent the ultimate weapon when tipped with nuclear warheads (search). Fortunately, yet more rockets are being developed that may finally render such devices relatively impotent.

But rockets have peaceful uses as well, and not just for fireworks displays. For decades, many young people (including yours truly, back when I was a young person) have built and flown model rockets (search), often as a prelude to a later career in aerospace engineering (in which they then often launched peaceful payloads into orbit). Today, the sport has evolved to the point at which amateurs are about to actually launch payloads into space. The most common propellant for solid-propulsion model rockets is ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (search) (APCP).

Sadly, the misnamed "War on Terrorism" ("terrorism" is a tactic, not an enemy--we are actually at war with radical Islam and Arab nationalism) is about to claim this hobby as another victim. The newly-formed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (search) (ATFE--formerly the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) managed to slip something called the "Safe Explosives Act" (search) into the broader Homeland Security Act signed by President Bush last fall. In it, APCP became a controlled substance, and rocket motors containing more than 62.5 grams of it (only a couple ounces) were essentially reclassified as explosive devices.

This is a misclassification over which the rocketry community has been fighting the agency since APCP first mistakenly appeared on the list of explosives back in the '70s, and they've never been able to get them to remove it, despite pressure from sympathetic legislators. For example, in a letter to the ATFE director, Sen. Mike Enzi (search), R-Wyo., wrote:"Congress defined an explosive as any chemical mixture or device whose primary or common purpose is to function by explosion. I am told that the ATF claims that the primary or common purpose of a rocket propellant (i.e., ammonium perchlorate composite propellant) is to explode. A rocket propellant is not designed or intended to explode."

The agency continues to refuse to budge, however. An attempt has been ongoing to get a regulatory exemption for the hobbyists through legislation. Such legislation, Senate bill S724 (search), has been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee (search), but it continues to place undue restrictions on model rocketry in terms of allowable propellant loading, and it only exempts APCP, leaving open the possibility that ATFE could restrict other (perhaps safer and more effective) propellant types in the future by arbitrarily placing them on its explosives list.

The Justice Department (search), predictably, is fighting such a change, but their stated fears of home-made anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons, and their misunderstanding of the difference between detonable and non-detonable APCP are, frankly, laughable to anyone who actually understands the technology.

When it comes to decisions with potential implications for public safety, it's natural for a bureaucrat to want to err on the side of caution, but there are often unintended consequences (e.g., my point that it might actually make it more difficult to develop safer propellants). There are no risk-free choices, and in a free society, we must often make compromises of security versus freedom. In a sense, that's what the "War on Terror" is all about--how to maintain the proper balance. If our freedoms become too restricted as a result, then it can truly be said that the "terrorists win."

Ignoring the fact that the hobby of building model rockets has created at least a couple of generations of rocket engineers, some argue that still, it is "just a hobby," and can't justify the possibly increased risk to the public welfare of reducing restrictions. Given the political response, perhaps it's been a mistake for the hobbyists to paint their endeavors as harmless and educational, because other than the obligatory "pursuit of happiness," there's no apparent constitutional right to entertainment and hobbies.

Ironically, if they were to return to their roots, and proudly proclaim their projects as weapons, then perhaps they could find a sympathetic court under the Second Amendment (search).

In any event, as we watch the rockets fly tomorrow, we should reflect and be thankful that we haven't yet lost the freedom to view the fireworks with which we celebrate all of our freedoms.

Rand Simberg is a recovering aerospace engineer and a consultant in space commercialization, space tourism and Internet security. He offers occasionally biting commentary about infinity and beyond at his Web log, Transterrestrial Musings.



To: calgal who wrote (3057)7/6/2003 1:21:15 PM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10965
 
Bush usurps Democrats on road to '04 elections
By Joseph Curl
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

President Bush has taken a page from the playbook of former President Bill Clinton, seizing issues traditionally owned by the opposing party and making them his own.
With the 2004 election less than 18 months away, Mr. Bush has embraced traditional Democratic issues such as Medicare and AIDS — as well as education earlier in his term — to defang the opposition, even at the expense of his own party's conservative wing.
"Republicans have always been better than Democrats at playing divide-and-conquer politics," said Democratic strategist Mary Ann Marsh. "And that's exactly what this is."
Said Republican pollster Bill McInturff: "He made education his issue in 2000, and now Medicare."
The strategy helped Mr. Bush win the presidency in 2000, and key Bush campaign strategists appear ready to deploy it again. With the electorate split virtually 50-50, the strategy is to pull just enough votes from independents and centrist Democrats to turn the tide in 2004.
At the same time, Mr. Bush realizes that Republicans, who have been griping about the high cost of Medicare reform and the increased federal outlays for social programs, will fall in line at crunch time.
Mr. Bush is employing the "triangulation" method used by Mr. Clinton, who during much of his administration sought to distinguish himself from both the Republican-controlled Congress and the liberal-leaning congressional Democrats by seizing several key issues of the opposing party.
But Mr. Clinton, who triangulated Republicans on welfare reform, a balanced budget and anti-crime legislation, had a more difficult time than Mr. Bush seems to be having with his base in getting the more ideological elements of the Democratic Party to fall in line.
"Republicans have an easier task of it than the Democrats ever did because it's easier to keep the Republicans on the right happy than it is to keep the Democrats on the left happy," Miss Marsh said. "[Republicans] were out in the woods for so long that they are — as a party — more disciplined and more organized and more willing to make short-term sacrifices for long-term gains."
On the most recent issue, Medicare reform, conservative House Republicans have complained that the prescription drug program contained in the House and Senate bills passed by Congress is too expensive. Twenty to 25 lawmakers threatened to join Democrats in voting the measure down. But the president stuck to his guns and in the end, nearly all of the early Republican opponents voted for the measure. The legislation is now headed to conference, where the differences between the two bills will be ironed out.
Conservatives are also moaning about the president's $222 billion increase in spending on such programs as education, job training, unemployment assistance, Medicare, Social Security, veterans benefits, food stamps and other "human resources." That spending has increased from 11.5 percent of gross domestic product to 12.7 percent in the last two years.
But Republicans will be happy in 2004, when they return to their districts to run for re-election, said Mr. McInturff, the Republican pollster.
"If the economy is just a little bit better than it is now, and the president still enjoys an advantage on national security, and we pass a Medicare prescription drug plan, what exactly is the rationale for replacing him?" Mr. McInturff said.
Triangulation, an age-old political device in which a president (or a candidate) embraces a position that lies outside the rigid program of his party, was showcased during the presidency of Mr. Clinton, who used pollsters to test numerous issues. He often chose the path most supported by surveyed Americans, even at the cost of his party's most loyal supporters.
The Bush White House denies the claim that this president triangulates issues simply for political purposes.
"I think when you look across the board at the positions the president takes, the president evaluates the issues that come before him based on the facts, based on the merits," said White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer this month. "He makes the determinations, and then others are free to say whether they agree or disagree with the president. I think his view to whether it's an issue that's important to one party or another party, or to many people in the middle — his view is to do what's right and let people interpret it from there."
Still, some key conservative voices caution that the president may be distancing himself too far from the conservative base that turned out in massive numbers in the 2000 election.
"Conservatives are starting to express more and more concern about the spikes in federal spending," said conservative activist Paul Weyrich, head of the Free Congress Foundation. "The prescription drug benefit has caused a number of both Senate and House Republicans to openly express worry that we are rushing to institute a new entitlement program without really understanding what we are obligating ourselves to pay in perpetuity.
"It may help the president win re-election, but his second term may be made miserable when the bills start coming due for the plan," Mr. Weyrich said.
Unlike 1999, when Mr. Bush, then the governor of Texas, used the early days of his presidential campaign to pull conservatives closer to his candidacy, this time around he is using the pre-primary period to embrace less Republican notions, ranging from his $15 billion plan to battle HIV/AIDs, his support for the assault-weapons ban extension and his stance on women in the military, an issue he punted to the Pentagon.
But Mr. Weyrich said Mr. Bush is looking only at short-term gains and jeopardizes the long-term health of the Republican Party.
"The president deserves to be re-elected for a host of positive things that he has done, but he should also keep in mind that the odds are very good that he will have a second term and what may appear to be good politics in the short-term will turn out to be neither good politics nor good policy looking beyond 2004," Mr. Weyrich said.

URL:http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20030706-123435-9349r.htm