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

To: Rascal who wrote (4363)	8/5/2003 7:10:18 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793671

The latest Gallop Poll shows that Gay Marriage is a terrific "wedge issue" with the Blacks. Since Bush only got 10% of that vote in 2000, every bit helps. On the other hand, the most pronounced pattern of change is among blacks. In May, blacks and whites were essentially identical in the levels of support they expressed for legalized gay relations. In July, the percentage of blacks supporting legal gay relations dropped by 23 points, compared to a much more modest 9 point drop among whites. Previous Gallup research has documented the fact that blacks are quite conservative on moral issues, even while adopting more liberal positions on social issues such as gun control, the death penalty, and welfare. This fact is often surprising to some observers, given the strong tendencies for blacks to identify with the more liberal Democratic Party in this country. The conservative moral positions adopted by blacks no doubt reflect the strong influence of religion in black culture in American society today. Still, it is not immediately clear why support among blacks may have fallen so disproportionately in July. One can hypothesize that the Supreme Court decision had a greater effect on black's religiosity than others', but it is difficult to document this assertion based on available data. Other patterns include the following: * Acceptance of legalized homosexuality fell slightly more among conservatives (13 percentage points) than it did for moderates or liberals (8 percentage points each) over the two-month period. * The decrease in acceptance of homosexuality is slightly higher among 30-64 year olds. The aggregate shows roughly a 12 percentage point drop among people in this age group, compared with a 9 point drop among 18-29 year olds and only a 4 point drop among people aged 65 and older. * Support among less well-educated Americans fell more than it did among Americans with higher levels of education. gallup.com

To: Rascal who wrote (4363)	8/5/2003 11:35:05 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793671

Good column by Friedman for a change. The consequences of our start at slum clearance are taking hold. Shaking Up the Neighbors By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN - NEW YORK TIMES AMMAN, Jordan - Shortly after the 25-member Governing Council was appointed in Iraq, the head of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, questioned the U.S.-appointed Council's legitimacy. "If this Council was elected," complained Mr. Moussa, "it would have gained much power and credibility." I love that quote. I love it, first of all, for its bold, gutsy, shameless, world-class hypocrisy. Mr. Moussa presides over an Arab League in which not one of the 22 member states has a leader elected in a free and fair election. On top of it, before the war, Mr. Moussa did all he could to shield Saddam Hussein from attack, although Saddam had never held a real election in his life. Yet, there was Mr. Moussa questioning the new U.S.-appointed Iraqi Council, which, even in its infant form, is already the most representative government Iraq has ever had. But I also love Mr. Moussa's comment for its unintended revolutionary message: "power and credibility" come from governments that are freely "elected." If only that were the motto of the Arab League. Alas, it is not, but it might be one day, and that brings me to the core question of this column: What has been the Arab reaction to Iraq? The short answer is: Shock, denial, fear and some stirrings of change. The shock comes from how easily the U.S.-British force smashed Saddam's regime. The denial is manifest in the absence of virtually any public discussion among Arab elites as to why Baghdad fell so easily and why such a terrible regime was indulged by the Arab world for so long. "The most striking thing," one Arab diplomat remarked to me, "is that there are no debates going on [in the Arab world.] There is no W.M.D. debate. There is no debate about the atrocities and the mass graves. Even inside Iraq there doesn't seem to be much soul-searching, like there was in Germany after World War II. That is worrisome to me. People have to learn from the mistakes that were made, and there is no attempt at doing that." The denial is closely related to the fears. Many Arab leaders and intellectuals seem to be torn between two fears about Iraq: fear that the U.S. will succeed in transforming Iraq into a constitutional, democratizing society, which would put pressure on every other Arab regime to change, and fear that the U.S. will fail and Iraq will collapse into ethnic violence that will suck in all the neighbors and look like Lebanon's civil war on steroids. For now, though, a few governments are getting ahead of the curve, while most are still hiding behind it. Jordan's King Abdullah has been the most pro-active, pushing his conservative population down the path of economic reform, and is likely to begin experimenting soon with political reform as well. Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah recently convened an unusual dialogue between Sunni and Shiite clerics in Saudi Arabia to head off tensions that could flow from Iraq's being ruled by its Shiite majority for the first time in its history. Fears that a democratically elected Shiite-led government in Iraq could stir downtrodden Shiite minorities around the Arab world to demand more power are rife among the dominant Sunni Muslims. Many Sunni Muslims look down on the Shiites as inferior. Think how Southern whites would feel if a black had been elected governor of Mississippi in 1920, and you'll have a taste of how uneasy the Sunnis are about a Shiite-led government in Iraq. While Saudi Arabia is introducing more reforms at home than generally thought, too often it is one step forward, one step back. Just the other day another moderate Saudi columnist, Hussein Shobokshi, was sacked under government pressure. According to The A.P., Mr. Shobokshi had recently written a column imagining a Saudi Arabia where his daughter could drive and he could vote. Egypt remains totally gridlocked on reform, while the Syrian regime is going totally the wrong way, tightening its grip at home and pushing out all the freethinkers in Lebanon's cabinet. As long as it is not clear how Iraq is going to come out, Arab regimes can practice denial. But if there is a decent government elected in Baghdad in two years, it will be as easy to ignore as a 10.0 earthquake. I think Abdul Rahman al-Rashid, the editor of London's Asharq al-Awsat newspaper, got it right when he remarked to me of the U.S. invasion of Iraq: "It is a mix between Napoleon's invasion of Egypt and the 1967 war. There is the shock of defeat like '67 and the introduction of new thinking in the region like Napoleon. I can't predict how it will all come out, but for some reason I think it will be positive."