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 (7812)9/12/2003 11:34:59 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793818
 
I don't think the kids are going to learn very much with the new program in NYC. But at least they can do it with a full stomach. Think of what the system could buy with the money for the food these kids will throw away every morning.

Free Breakfast Now Available To All City School Kids

SEPTEMBER 12TH, 2003

There's no such thing as a free lunch, but Schools Chancellor Joel Klein said Friday, starting immediately, there will now be free breakfast for the city's more than 1.1 million students.

Klein said any student, regardless of need, can show up early on any school day for a healthy breakfast.

However, there will be a slight hike in school lunch prices for children not eligible for reduced-price lunch. The price will rise from $1 to $1.50.

It's all part of an effort by the Department of Education to encourage eligible families to apply for the school meal program.

The DOE points out the price hasn’t gone up in eight years, and is now more in line with other school systems.

At the same time, the city hopes the announcement of the new initiative will make more low-income parents aware they should apply for free or reduced price meals. Those applications in turn will help the system obtain millions more in federal anti-poverty funds.

“The lunch program is important because obviously we need nutritional lunches for these kids, and so many of our kids who are eligible for free and reduced lunch are not taking advantage of it,” said Klein. “If kids are not eating in school, that’s a mistake. Eating junk food or other things, that has an impact on their health as well as their education. We're getting serious about it.”

Mayor Michael Bloomberg spoke about the breakfast change during his weekly radio address.

“The kids who come to school without a decent meal in his or her stomach, they don't learn anything,” said the mayor. “People say, ‘Why give the kids breakfast?’ Well, if you want to educate the kids, which is in everybody's interest, they have to have a meal too.”

The Department of Education serves 810,000 school meals per day, the largest amount in the country.
ny1.com



To: JohnM who wrote (7812)9/13/2003 1:32:44 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 793818
 
What a column! Comes from writing his "Bobos In Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There," book. It will be the talk of the political heads tomorrow. I have never seen anything like this on the New York Times Op Ed pages. He just "hit one out of the ballpark!"

Bred for Power
By DAVID BROOKS


f you were to pick a presidential candidate on the basis of social standing — and really, darling, who doesn't — you'd have to pick Howard Brush Dean III over George Walker Bush. The Bush lineage is fine. I'm not criticizing. But the Deans have been here practically since Mayflower days and in the Social Register for generations. It's true Bush's grandfather was a Wall Street financier, a senator and a Yale man, but Dean's family has Wall Street financiers going back to the Stone Age, and both his grandfathers were Yale men.

The Bush family properties were in places like Greenwich, Conn., and Kennebunkport, Me., which is acceptable, but the Dean piles were in Oyster Bay, on Hook Pond in East Hampton and on Park Avenue, a list that suggests a distinguished layer of mildew on the family fortune.

Again, I'm not suggesting the Bushes are arrivistes. Howard Dean's grandmother asked George Bush's grandmother to be a bridesmaid at her wedding, and she wouldn't have done that if the family were in any way unsound. I'm just pointing to gradations. Dean even went to a slightly more socially exclusive prep school, St. George's, while Bush made do with Andover before they both headed off to Yale.

On the other hand, both boys have lived along parallel tracks since they went out on their own. Both went through their Prince Hal phases. Bush drank too much at country clubs. Dean got a medical deferment from Vietnam and spent his time skiing in Aspen. Both decided one night that it was time to get serious about life and give up drinking. Dean was 32; Bush was 40.

Both seemed to have sensed early on that their class, the Protestant Establishment, was dissolving. While Dean was at St. George's, the school admitted its first black student, Conrad Young, who, the official school history says, left after two years. By the time Bush and Dean got to Yale, a new class of striving meritocrats was starting to dominate the place.

Both, impressively, adapted to the new society. Dean married a Jewish doctor, raises his kids as Jews, lives in Burlington, Vt., and has become WASP king of the peaceniks. Bush moved to Midland, Tex., became a Methodist, went to work in the oil business and has become WASP king of the Nascar dads.

And for both, those decades of WASP breeding were not in vain. If you look at Bush and Dean, even more than prep school boys like John Kerry (St. Paul's and Harvard), Al Gore (St. Alban's and Harvard) and Bill Frist (Montgomery Bell Academy and Princeton), you detect certain common traits.

The first is self-assurance. Both Bush and Dean have amazing faith in their gut instincts. Both have self-esteem that is impregnable because it derives not from what they are accomplishing but from who they ineffably are. Both appear unplagued by the sensation, which destroyed Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, that there is some group in society higher than themselves.

Both are bold. Bush is an ambitious war leader, and Dean has set himself off from all the cautious, poll-molded campaigns of his rivals.

Both were inculcated with something else, a sense of chivalry. Unlike today's top schools, which are often factories for producing Résumé Gods, the WASP prep schools were built to take the sons of privilege and toughen them into paragons of manly virtue. Rich boys were sent away from their families and shoved into a harsh environment that put tremendous emphasis on athletic competition, social competition and character building.

As Peter W. Cookson Jr. and Caroline Hodges Persell write in "Preparing for Power: America's Elite Boarding Schools," students in traditional schools "had to be made tough, loyal to each other, and ready to take command without self-doubt. Boarding schools were not founded to produce Hamlets, but Dukes of Wellington who could stand above the carnage with a clear head and an unflinching will to win."

As anyone who has read George Orwell knows, this had ruinous effects on some boys, but those who thrived, as John F. Kennedy did, believed that life was a knightly quest to perform service and achieve greatness, through virility, courage, self-discipline and toughness.

The Protestant Establishment is dead, and nobody wants it back. But that culture, which George Bush and Howard Dean were born into, did have a formula for producing leaders. Our culture, which is freer and fairer, does not.
nytimes.com



To: JohnM who wrote (7812)9/13/2003 1:49:09 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793818
 
Democrats Find Some Traction on Capitol Hill
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG - NEW YORK TIMES


WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 — With President Bush on the defensive over his handling of postwar Iraq, Democrats on Capitol Hill have been scoring a few victories in the Republican-controlled Congress, gaining a measure of political momentum that they hope will grow more pronounced as the 2004 elections draw nearer.

This week, Senate Democrats won votes on such pocketbook issues as overtime pay and student aid, as well as financing for special education. Last week, their long-running filibuster forced an appeals court nominee, Miguel Estrada, to withdraw. Next week, they are expected to prevail in a Senate vote to repeal new rules, backed by the White House, that would enable large media conglomerates to expand.

Political analysts and Democrats say it is no coincidence that the recent gains on overtime and student aid came in the same week that President Bush announced he was requesting $87 billion for postwar Iraq, an announcement followed by a drop in Mr. Bush's approval rating. Some say the numbers have emboldened Democrats and made Republicans, especially those up for re-election, more likely to break ranks with their party and the president.

"The president is losing some of his popularity," said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic whip. Of Republicans, Mr. Reid said: "They no longer feel that he can be a dictator. They no longer feel that he is King George. He is President George now."

Republicans, of course, are hardly relinquishing control on Capitol Hill. This week, they shut Democrats out of talks designed to reach an agreement between the House and Senate on a new energy bill. Senators Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader, and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican whip, played down the Democrats' recent gains.

"We like to let them win one occasionally to keep their morale up," Senator McConnell said, adding that Republican unity was not cracking.

"My response," he said, "is: Prove it. There's no evidence."

Dr. Frist called the Democrats' gains "isolated victories."

But some scholars and political strategists, both Democrat and Republican, say Democrats have succeeded in taking advantage of the limited muscle they have. News from Iraq, combined with the increasing federal deficit, high unemployment and recent polls on Mr. Bush "have caused Republicans to get a little wobbly," one Republican strategist said.

He added, "It feels like the wheels are starting to fall off a little."

The polls have been running in the Democrats' favor. A Gallup poll, conducted after Mr. Bush's speech on Iraq and released on Thursday, found his approval rating at 52 percent, down from 59 percent at the end of August.

And a recent poll by the Senate Republican Conference, released this week, found voters preferred Democratic Senate candidates to Republicans by 46 percent to 40 percent. The margin of sampling error in both polls was plus or minus three percentage points.

"A presidential speech, instead of boosting support, is followed by a seven-point drop and suddenly the atmosphere changes," said Thomas Mann, a scholar at the Brookings Institution who follows Congress. "Republicans, who have been reluctant to get off the reservation, now say, `Wait just one minute.' And Democrats have all the more reason to be unified."

Ross K. Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University, agreed.

"Any sign of weakness out of the White House is going to be perceived by the president's allies in Congress as an opportunity to act a little bit more like free spirits, and on the part of the opposition to be more aggressive," Professor Baker said. "It's the blood-in-the-water syndrome."

That syndrome may have begun with Mr. Estrada's withdrawal. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Democrats were more resolved than ever to stand firmly against other judicial nominees whose views they regard as out of the mainstream.

"That's a very important change and shift," Mr. Kennedy said. Republicans, though, say the Estrada withdrawal was not a victory for Democrats but a loss.

"If they think of the short term of having him withdraw as a win," Dr. Frist said, "the elections will very quickly demonstrate that's fallacious thinking."

In the vote on overtime, 6 Republicans sided with 48 Democrats to block a Bush administration proposal that would make it easier for businesses to deny overtime pay to white collar workers.

The coming elections clearly played a role. Three of the Republican defectors — Senators Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado — are facing competitive races next year.

"Politicians always like to be able to point to examples when they were independent from their party or their own president because it resonates well back home," said Glen Bolger, a Republican pollster.

At the same time, the Democrats took advantage of timing, said Steven Smith, a professor of political science at Washington University in St. Louis. Unlike the House, where Republican leaders exert tight control over the legislative schedule, the Senate gives the minority party more opportunity to offer amendments to legislation, an institutional edge that Professor Smith said Democrats used adroitly in raising the overtime issue.

"Republicans are obviously very nervous about jobs," Professor Smith said. "Republican leaders, even in the House, have been saying to their colleagues that what they should emphasize, always, is jobs. So anything connected to jobs, like overtime pay, is generally something on which a few Republicans are going to feel very sensitive."

Mr. Mann, of the Brookings Institution, said the $87 billion price tag had caused "sticker shock on Capitol Hill," drawing attention to the deficit and making it all the more likely that Democrats will win yet another battle: the battle to keep Mr. Bush's tax cut from becoming permanent.

nytimes.com



To: JohnM who wrote (7812)9/13/2003 8:11:32 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793818
 
It is so obvious that Iran is after a bomb that we are having no trouble getting other countries at the UN to sign on. When you add Iran to Pakistan to NK, I would not want to live in or near DC.

September 13, 2003
U.N. Sets Deadline for Iran on Nuclear Arms
By REUTERS


VIENNA, Sept. 12 — The United Nations nuclear watchdog today gave Iran an Oct. 31 deadline to prove it had no secret atomic weapons program, prompting Tehran to threaten a "deep review" of its cooperation with the agency.

After intense pressure from the United States for action against Iran, the 35-nation governing board of the watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, passed a resolution setting the deadline. Iran's delegation stormed out of the meeting in protest, accusing Washington of having new invasion plans after Iraq.

The toughly worded resolution gives Iran one last chance to prove it has been complying with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The United States says Iran has violated the treaty in its effort to develop atomic weapons secretly. Iran, which denies the allegation, could face economic penalties if reported to the Security Council for breach of its obligations under the treaty.

"We will have no choice but to have a deep review of our existing level and extent of engagement with the agency vis-à-vis this resolution," said Iran's ambassador to the United Nations in Vienna, Ali Akbar Salehi, in a written statement.

The American ambassador to the agency, Kenneth Brill, warned that any decision by the Iranians to suspend the inspection process would be interpreted as an admission that they were pursuing atomic weapons.

The chief of the atomic agency, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, said inspectors would be heading to Iran within the next few weeks.

nytimes.com