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: Ilaine who wrote (11074)10/7/2003 5:16:08 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793789
 
Somebody should get fired at the LA Times.
_________________________________________

The Times Leaks on Arnold
What did the Democrats know and when did they know it?
by Bill Bradley LA Weekly

Senior Democratic strategists knew the particulars of last Thursday’s L.A. Times exposé on Arnold Schwarzenegger well in advance of the story’s publication, the Weekly has learned from well-informed sources. This knowledge came not only in advance of publication but also before anyone outside a close circle at the Times knew of the story’s timing and particulars.

While the Times insists that its reporting uncovered the allegations of sexual misconduct on the part of Schwarzenegger, there can be no doubt that advance knowledge of the story was very helpful to Governor Gray Davis’ efforts to retain his office in the recall election.

Meanwhile, Sunday-night tracking polls seem to show the recall and Schwarzenegger running well ahead. Schwarzenegger strategists say their tracking poll shows the recall with a lead in the low double digits, and Schwarzenegger nearly 10 points ahead of Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante on the replacement portion of the ballot.

Top strategists for the governor were not available, and Davis spokesman Roger Salazar says he knows no Sunday-night polling numbers from the governor’s campaign.

Back to the blockbuster hit on Schwarzenegger in Thursday’s Times. According to a well-informed source at the paper, the story, which hit the political world with a thunderclap, never appeared on the paper’s internal or external publication schedules. Indeed, project editor Joel Sappell and the three reporters working on what the Times has described as a seven-week-long investigative project were very tight-lipped about both the scheduling of the piece and its contents. They discussed the story only with the paper’s senior editors. Although the story did not appear on the schedule, it was reportedly placed in the "write basket," in which other Times editors and reporters can look at upcoming pieces, after hours last Wednesday night, just a few hours before it appeared on the Times Web site.

Even with utmost secrecy surrounding the piece, senior Democratic strategists with long-standing ties to Davis knew not only when the story was coming but also the particulars of what was in it. These strategists felt that the story held the possibility of tipping the election away from Schwarzenegger and of defeating the governor’s recall.

Calls to Times editors on the internal scheduling and handling of the story were referred to the newspaper’s public-relations department. Times spokesman David Garcia said the story was extremely closely held and not shared "with anyone outside the building."

Whether or not the Times received all or part of the story from pro-Davis sources — and the Times continues to vociferously insist that none of the first story, at least, did — the advance knowledge of the story’s timing and particulars enabled Davis and the Democrats to design the closing burst of the anti-recall campaign, which we have seen unfold with an uncanny precision.

I had been very impressed with the alacrity with which Davis and the Democrats seized on the Times story and swiftly pivoted into all-out attack mode. A flurry of press statements and highly coordinated events and advertising involving politicians across the state and in Washington, D.C., ensued. It was remarkably efficient. But if you know what is coming in the news flow and when it is coming, it is much easier to design the close of your campaign.

Incidentally, the paper Monday backed off its previous contention that none of the women in subsequent stories came forward at the urging of Schwarzenegger’s opponents in the wake of the Weekly’s revelation that Jodie Evans, who pushed one of the women to come forward, is not merely the peace activist described by the Times but also a former close colleague of Governor Davis and longtime friend of chief Democratic hit man Bob Mulholland.

In another intriguing bit of Times reporting, Schwarzenegger’s huge rally Sunday outside the state Capitol was not referenced until the 18th paragraph of Monday’s story. The rally was twice as large as the 5,000 people reported by the Times. Of course, observers can vary in crowd estimates. But another element of the reportage was very strange.

"Protesters nearly drowned out the early part of Schwarzenegger’s nine-minute speech with a steady chorus of boos," the Times reported today.

Viewing from the press riser with most of the rest of the press corps, I didn’t hear the protesters. They certainly didn’t drown out Schwarzenegger.
laweekly.com



To: Ilaine who wrote (11074)10/7/2003 6:21:46 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793789
 
How will "Prop 54" come out? Nobody knows.
___________________________

The Content of Our California

By Radley Balko Published 10/07/2003

Lost in the groping, the deficit, the child actors and the general mayhem that is the California recall circus is an important ballot initiative that could do wonders for the ethnic and racial climate of a state that's about ten years ahead of the rest of the country on the demographic curve.



Proposition 54, also known as Ward Connerly's "Racial Privacy Initiative," would bar California state government from using racial classifications in its official business. Sadly, the measure seems to be losing support in the polls, perhaps in part because even Republican frontrunner Arnold Schwarzenegger hasn't the courage to stand up to California's racial demagogues and publicly support it.



That's too bad. Because America -- and especially California -- is becoming increasingly blind to race. We could probably abandon race completely in a generation or two, if only our government would let us.



Take a walk through Washington, D.C.'s "Chinatown," and you'd probably be surprised to find both a Hooters and a Fuddrucker's. There's Irish bar, Fado. There's also a barbecue joint, which bills itself "the best Texas barbecue in Chinatown." Venture north to the Adams-Morgan neighborhood, you can sample the food of a dozen different regions of the world in just a few blocks. A few blocks up, try the U-Street neighborhood, where trendy lounges and upscale health clubs sit next to blues and jazz clubs that have stood since the 1920s. Spill out into the suburbs, and you'll find a mini Adams-Morgan in Arlington, Virginia's Clarendon, and a panoply of Indian, Latino, and Asian influences intermeshed in Alexandria, Falls Church and Fairfax.



In a recent Washington Post column, the Davenport Institute's Joel Kotkin and Thomas Tseng write that "Shopping centers in Southern California's San Fernando Valley, the epitome of an immigrant-oriented suburban area, are likely to be multiethnic, with stores advertising in Russian, Farsi, Armenian and Spanish, as well as the ubiquitous English."



They write that today, 51% of Asians live in the suburbs, as well as 43% of Latinos and 32% of African-Americans. White Americans, meanwhile, are rediscovering the allure of urban living in cities such as Washington, Atlanta and Chicago. In the last few years an upscale shopping center featuring a Best Buy, a Bed, Bath & Beyond and a natural foods grocery store opened just a few blocks from what was once Chicago's notorious Cabrini Green housing projects. The buzz phrase in urban planning today isn't "white flight," it's "gentrification."



A 1997 Gallup poll found that 57% of teens would consider dating someone of another race, up from just 17% in 1980. Remarkably, a full 100% of white respondents said that race would not prevent them from voting for a candidate for political office, up from 75% in 1980. Between 1990 and 2000, the number of babies born to black-white couples nearly tripled. And in California, a baby born today is more likely to be born to an interracial couple than to two black parents. Kotkin and Tseng cite a 2002 Pew/Kaiser poll showing that just 7% of second generation Latinos consider Spanish their primary language -- 93% are either bilingual (47%), or consider English their first language (46%). Jump to the third generation, and the English-dominant number jumps to 78%.



On a personal level, Americans are clearly in the process of erasing the boundaries of race. We're intermarrying, we're adopting interracially, and we're absorbing the benefits of a multiethnic society.



This only makes sense, as the scientists who unmasked the human genome found remarkably few differences between the races in the biological stuff that makes us human. In fact, there's likely to be more genetic variation between two random members of the same race than between to random individuals from different races. Dr. J. Craig Venter, who is president of Celera Genomics, the company that first completed the human genome map, has repeatedly expressed his frustration that contrary to the evidentiary biology available, doctors and scientists continue to cling to what is really a social construct.



The problem of course is that for many people, there's still far too much race-based incentive to abandon racial classification. Government still doles out tax dollars guided by race- and ethnic-based demographics -- over $185 billion in race or ethnic-based set asides, by one estimate. Consequently, the interest groups that sell race -- and the nativists who play off of fears of it -- have a vested interest in keeping us thinking about color, language and nationalism.



And so we get the spectacle of an America increasingly oblivious to race, an America looking to leave ethnicity behind -- and an American government hell-bent on preventing that from happening, but under the premise that it's doing just the opposite.



Before the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the U.S. was actually moving away from state-sanctioned race consciousness. The ACLU and the NAACP lobbied against including race in the 1960 U.S. Census. A few states had already stopped classifying by race.



The U.S. Census had just five racial classifications in 1970. After thirty years of kowtowing to identity politics, the 2000 Census had over 60, 120 if you include ethnicity. Ethnic "advocacy" groups then scramble to "recruit" members to ensure roomy stalls at the public trough. One example of how this has played out: Despite intermarriage, assimilation, and the statistics cited above, the United States somehow found 65% more "American Indians" in 2000 than it had in 1990.



Unfortunate timing has put Proposition 54 on the recall ballot, instead of a traditional election ballot and so it's been buried by the shenanigans of the last few months. That's regrettable, since the only people who are interested in it, then, are those who have the most to lose by its success.



Far from being the radically conservative undertaking its detractors claim it to be, the Racial Privacy Initiative is really little more than asking government to mirror what most of us have already done in our private lives -- push race to the margins, where it belongs. But Proposition 54's likeliest proponents -- California's Republicans -- have concluded that they'd rather rally behind a popular actor who's squishy on the issue than give race-blind government the public debate it deserves.

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