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 (8493)9/18/2003 8:24:33 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793685
 
A little high level corruption never bothered you, huh.

We both know it's the "grease" that goes with Democracy, don't we? We deplore it, investigate it, ban it, and it comes back next year.



To: JohnM who wrote (8493)9/19/2003 4:23:37 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793685
 
Look at who wrote this John. Isn't it about time that the left in this country got up off their knees to that Stalinist thug in Havana?


Building a Free Cuba

By Vaclav Havel, Arpad Goncz and Lech Walesa
Washington Post Op Ed
Thursday, September 18, 2003; Page A23

Exactly half a year ago, Fidel Castro's regime imprisoned 75 representatives of the Cuban opposition. More than 40 coordinators of the Varela Project and more than 20 journalists and other representatives of various pro-democracy movements landed in jail. All of them were sentenced in mock trials to prison terms ranging from six to 28 years -- merely for daring to express an opinion other than the official one.

Yet the voices of free-thinking Cubans are growing louder, and that is precisely what Castro and his government must be worried about. Despite the omnipresent secret police and government propaganda, thousands of Cubans have demonstrated their courage by signing petitions backing Project Varela, which is based on provisions of the current Cuban constitution and calls for holding a referendum on freedom of speech and assembly, the release of political prisoners, freedom of enterprise and free elections. The Castro regime's response to Project Varela and to other initiatives has been at best disregard and at worst persecution.

The latest wave of confrontations, accompanied by anti-European diatribes from the Cuban political leadership, can be regarded as nothing other than an expression of weakness and desperation. The regime is running short of breath -- just as the party rulers in the Iron Curtain countries did at the end of the 1980s. The internal opposition is growing in strength -- even the police raids in March failed to bring it to its knees. Times are changing, the revolution is aging together with its leaders, and the regime is nervous. Castro knows only too well that there will come a day when the revolution will perish with him.

Nobody knows what will happen then. But when that time comes, the clearer it is across the world that freedom, democracy and prosperity in that country depend on support for its dissidents, the better the chances for a future peaceful transition to democracy.

It is the responsibility of the democratic world to support representatives of the Cuban opposition, regardless of how long the Cuban Stalinists cling to power. The Cuban opposition must have the same international support as did the representatives of political dissent in Europe when it stood divided. Statements of condemnation for the government's repression, combined with specific diplomatic steps coming from Europe, Latin America and the United States, would be suitable means of exerting pressure on the regime in Cuba.

It cannot be claimed that the U.S. embargo on Cuba has brought about the results desired. Neither can this be said of the European policy, which has been considerably more forthcoming toward the Cuban regime. It is time to put aside transatlantic disputes about the embargo on Cuba and to concentrate on direct support for Cuban dissidents, prisoners of conscience and their families. Europe ought to make it unambiguously clear that Castro is a dictator, and that for democratic countries a dictatorship cannot become a partner until it begins a process of political liberalization.

At the same time, European countries should establish a "Cuban Democracy Fund" to support the emergence of a civil society in Cuba. Such a fund would be ready for instant use in case of political changes on the island.

The recent European experience with peaceful transitions from dictatorship to democracy, be it earlier in Spain or later in the countries of Central Europe, has been an inspiration for the Cuban opposition. Europe in particular should not hesitate. It is obliged to act by its own history.

Vaclav Havel is former president of the Czech Republic. Arpad Goncz is former president of Hungary. Lech Walesa is former president of Poland.

washingtonpost.com



To: JohnM who wrote (8493)9/19/2003 4:30:05 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793685
 
BLOG
The Money Is There -- So Why Aren't Teachers Getting More Of It?
If you've been paying attention to the news for the last couple of days, you probably noticed some education statistics that have been making the news. It seems that the US spends more per pupil than anyone else, but we're in the middle of the pack when it comes to scores.

That's no big surprise to conservatives who've been pointing out that our schools are not under funded, they're under performing. I've also pointed out that I don't think our teachers are underpaid. This study also seems to bear that out when you look deeper into the numbers. Only one country significantly outspends us (and the rest of the world) on teacher salaries and that's South Korea.

Let me show you how things break down with a chart. Unfortunately, they don't have a median teacher salary breakdown, so I had to use the "Primary education at the top of the scale with minimal training" numbers. While of course, they're not exactly the same thing as median salary numbers, they do give us a pretty good way to compare teacher salaries across multiple nations.

rightwingnews.com

Now you'll notice that Switzerland, Poland, Japan & South Korea outspend us on teach salaries. But, as I alluded to earlier, only South Korea significantly outspends us on teacher salaries.

Which brings up an interesting point; how is it that we're spending more per pupil than any other nation, far more than most of them in fact, and yet our teacher's salaries don't seem to reflect that spending?

For example, how is it that we can outspend South Korea by almost $6000 per pupil and yet they can pay out an extra $18,000 per teacher? How can Japan be spending $3500 less per pupil than us and be paying their teachers more? What about Poland? We outspend them by more than $8000 per pupil and they still pay their teachers more than we do. I also find it fascinating that countries like Japan, South Korea, Finland, & Britain, who we outspend by $3000 to almost $6000 per pupil, can consistently put up higher test scores than our students do in math, science, & reading.

Where is all this money that we're spending actually going to? Why aren't we getting the bang for our bucks that other countries are? What changes are we going to make to get our scores up? These are the questions we should be asking instead of, "How much more are we going to spend on education?" We're spending plenty of money on education, we're just not getting the performance we're paying for.



To: JohnM who wrote (8493)9/19/2003 4:38:41 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793685
 
I knew it, I knew it! All the Qualcomm lovers here, read this and weep!

war stories
Can You Hear Me Now, Mr. Bremer?
Our forces in Iraq can't even get decent cell phones.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Thursday, September 18, 2003, at 3:50 PM PT

When the technological history of Gulf War II is written, will it be concluded that Iraq was lost for want of a decent cell-phone network?

U.S. military officers and reconstruction workers, who have been toiling in postwar Iraq these past months, are complaining that a major cause of their troubles is that they've had neither the resources to do the job nor—literally—the ability to talk with those who do.

When they started work—initially in Kuwait, then in Baghdad after Saddam fell—they had no cellular phones, to talk either with each other or with anyone else. If Paul Bremer, the chief of the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, wanted to know conditions at a hospital, a police station, a school, an oil field, a town down the road, he had to send a staff worker to go find out. Then the staff worker had to come back to the office to tell him. Needless to say, all this wasted time and energy; it drained morale; it choked attempts to establish credibility for the entire operation.

In mid-May, the Pentagon, without going through any of the normal bidding procedures, awarded a $45 million contract to WorldCom/MCI to build a cellular network. The award prompted much grumbling among industry insiders, since that company—besides having just settled the largest financial fraud case in American business—had no prior experience at building cellular networks. (For a while, MCI had resold AT&T wireless carriers within the United States, but it had recently dropped even that line.)

Not until July did the cellular network in Iraq start up, and it turned out to be less than occupation officials expected—or needed. According to officials who were there at the time, they could use the phones (which cost a staggering $4,000 a piece) to talk only among themselves. The network did not extend, or link, to Iraqi telephones.

The U.S. reconstruction officials in Baghdad could not even talk with U.S. military officers down the street. The Army had, in June, contracted Motorola to create a separate network for security forces.

According to a Defense Department official, if someone working for the U.S. occupation authority needed to talk with a battalion commander, there was no way to make direct contact. He or she had to call a desk officer back in the Pentagon, who would jot down the message and call the commander himself. If the commander wanted to reply to the message, the same desk officer would jot down the response and call back the occupation authority.

This, some officers say, is why the U.S. authorities in Baghdad so often look like they don't know what they're doing—because they don't. Many of them are smart, talented, and eager. But they can't talk with the Army about security, they can't talk with Iraqi specialists about civil needs—in short, they can't find out what they need to find out—so, for far too much of their time, they sit, paralyzed and helpless.

The blame here cannot be laid on some interagency squabble between, say, the State Department and the Pentagon. Keep in mind: Bremer's office is a division of the Pentagon; he reports to Donald Rumsfeld. No, this particular foul-up falls in the same category of neglect as failing to send in military police, failing to secure power stations, failing to imagine that things might not go as planned.

Fred Kaplan writes the "War Stories" column for Slate.

Article URL: slate.msn.com



To: JohnM who wrote (8493)9/19/2003 4:46:54 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793685
 
The media uses "Fiji math." Excellent concept!





General Clark and Anybody But Dean

By John Ellis Tech Central Station

It is an article of faith among professional politicians that a divisive primary battle can be fatal to a successful general election campaign. Richard Nixon once told a bewildered group of visitors to his Saddle River Elba that Rep. John Ashbrook's primary challenge had been a major distraction of the 1972 re-election campaign. Most of those gathered had no memory of Ashbrook or the Ashbrook campaign (it began and ended with the New Hampshire primary) and couldn't imagine that it had caused the former president a moment's worry. But Nixon was adamant on the point. Divisive primaries were, he said, in all cases and without exception, "bad news."



Incumbents can, if they're skillful, avoid primary challenges, but what if yours is the out party? The presidential primaries and caucuses produce your nominee; the road back to the White House begins with 7-10 hyper-ambitious people killing each other off to become The One. So what does a political party do to minimize the damage of that fight?



Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAulliffe, in consultation with former President Clinton and a gaggle of Clintonian consultants, decided that the best solution was to compress the primary schedule down to about five weeks. Republicans had no objection to this scheme (memories of battling Buchanan through June of 1992 were still raw) and so it was that the "front-loading" of every major state primary was moved to the month of March. The result is that by March 2, with primaries in New York and California and a handful of other states, the winner of the Democratic presidential nomination will almost certainly be known.



In the McAuliffe schema, this will leave the Democratic Party with plenty of time to heal wounds, raise money for the interim (between the primaries and the Convention) and focus all concerned on the main event. It's a grand idea and, who knows, it just might work. But like all grand political schemes, the law of unintended consequences lurks. And the iron rule of media bias lurks with it.



'Fiji Math'



The iron rule of media bias was once explained to me years ago by Henry Griggs, a media and political consultant. He described it as an analog of what he called "Fiji math." "In Fiji," he said, "they used to count as follows: one, two and many. There was no "three" or "four" or "five." There was just one, two and then that third number; "many." That's how the media cover politics. They can only count to two."



This bias is exaggerated by the exorbitant cost of covering campaigns. Simply put, the major television networks, newsmagazines and newspapers can't afford to cover a "many" field. It's a budget buster inside a budget that already requires huge outlays for pre-primary coverage, primary and caucus Election Night broadcasts, party convention coverage, debate coverage, general election campaign coverage and Election Night broadcasts. As a matter of simple economics, the field must be reduced to two as quickly as possible.



The vehicles for compressing the field are the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. Finish out of the money in both states and no news organization will spend a dime covering your campaign from that point forward. Finish third in both states and a campaign's oxygen (media coverage) will be similarly shut off. The only way to make it to South Carolina is to finish first or second in New Hampshire, and the only way to make it to New Hampshire is to win, place or (surprisingly) show in Iowa.



Diminishing the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire has been the goal of the Democratic "establishment" ever since George McGovern captured the 1972 presidential nomination. Since then, more and more "delegate rich states" have moved their primaries up the calendar in the hopes of enticing candidates to campaign there. But a presidential campaign isn't about delegates, it's about media coverage. The only way to attract media coverage is to win. Iowa and New Hampshire, being first on the schedule, are thus decisive. They determine who gets media coverage on the Super Tuesdays that follow and who does not.



General Clark's Candidacy: Anybody But Dean



Enter the law of unintended consequences. In practical political terms, the front-loading of the 2004 primary and caucus schedule means that former Vermont Governor Howard Dean will almost certainly be one of the two remaining candidates after the New Hampshire primary. He will finish first or second in Iowa. He will probably win New Hampshire (with Republican cross-over help). At that point, an Anybody But Dean (similar to the Anybody But McGovern in 1972 and Anybody But Carter in 1976 movements) would be all but impossible to organize. There simply wouldn't be enough time.



Enter General Wesley Clark, a Clinton/McAuliffe production if there ever was one (Clark's advisors, almost to a person, are all veteran Clinton hacks). General Clark's candidacy is the Anybody But Dean campaign. With a twist. The twist is that Hillary Clinton's name will soon be floated as his running mate. The message will be that Clark-Clinton will unite the party. All of this has happened or will soon happen before a single vote has been cast. That's how much front-loading the primary schedule has exaggerated the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire and distorted the nomination process.



What's remarkable about all this is not Howard Dean, fine fellow though he may be. What's remarkable about this is what has made Howard Dean such a formidable force. Combine college-eductated, information-age workers with the power of the Internet and in virtually no time there's a master list of 500,000 email addresses networked and ready to go. In two weeks, they raise more money than John Kerry does in two months. In two states, Iowa and New Hampshire, they have active, vibrant organizations in every county. And by focusing their attention on those two states, they are leveraging the power of their network into a media and political juggernaut.

Copyright © 2003 Tech Central Station - www.techcentralstation.com



To: JohnM who wrote (8493)9/19/2003 7:12:43 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 793685
 
Teddy went over the edge yesterday, probably sauced at the time. But it gives you an idea of how strong the language will be in this election. Coulter also went over the edge in her column today. I won't post it because of the language.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 18, 2003
AP: Kennedy Says Iraq War Case a 'Fraud'
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


Filed at 10:29 p.m. ET

BOSTON (AP) -- The case for going to war against Iraq was a fraud ``made up in Texas'' to give Republicans a political boost, Sen. Edward Kennedy said Thursday.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Kennedy also said the Bush administration has failed to account for nearly half of the $4 billion the war is costing each month. He said he believes much of the unaccounted-for money is being used to bribe foreign leaders to send in troops.

He called the Bush administration's current Iraq policy ``adrift.''

The White House declined to comment Thursday.

The Massachusetts Democrat also expressed doubts about how serious a threat Saddam Hussein posed to the United States in its battle against terrorism. He said administration officials relied on ``distortion, misrepresentation, a selection of intelligence'' to justify their case for war.

``There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud,'' Kennedy said.

Kennedy said a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office showed that only about $2.5 billion of the $4 billion being spent monthly on the war can be accounted for by the Bush administration.

``My belief is this money is being shuffled all around to these political leaders in all parts of the world, bribing them to send in troops,'' he said.

Of the $87 billion in new money requested by President Bush for the war, Kennedy said the administration should be required to report back to the Congress to account for the spending.

``We want to support our troops because they didn't make the decision to go there ... but I don't think it should be open-ended. We ought to have a benchmark where the administration has to come back and give us a report,'' he added.

Kennedy said the focus on Iraq has drawn the nation's attention away from more direct threats, including al-Qaida, instability in Afghanistan or the nuclear ambitions of North Korea.

``I think all of those pose a threat to the security of the people of Massachusetts much more than the threat from Iraq,'' Kennedy said. ``Terror has been put on the sidelines for the last 12 months.''

Kennedy was one of 23 senators who voted last October against authorizing Bush to use military force to disarm Iraq.

Earlier this year, he supported a Democratic amendment that would have delayed most of the president's proposed tax cuts, and most spending increases, until the administration provided cost estimates for the Iraq war. The amendment failed.

nytimes.com