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: Lazarus_Long who wrote (11523)	10/9/2003 3:52:46 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793639

Thanks for doing the work of looking this stuff up, LL. I'm going to assume it's meant as a serious post, an attempt to change opinions, as opposed to a flame. Despite the way you put a heading on it. 1. The first link leaves a question mark. Who is the author and why should we believe he handled the data well, reported it accurately, and looked for disconfirming data? Until we know more about his professional reputation, it's hard to take it as an argument to change an opinion. More a note that there is some research out there, that, if one were to look at the literature, this essay might be a place to look. 2. The second link is from a Fox News report generated in the heat of Florida debates over class size. Since it's generated in a political climate as worked up as this one is, it's more than a little suspect on the face of it. However, it does refer to the work of Eric Hanushek, which the news bit gives enough information to make that interesting work. You might wish to pursue that by seeing what his scholarly reputation is, whether he is considered thoughtful by his colleagues or ideologically driven. The name is new to me. 3. The third one is from the Heritage Foundation which has a reputation for ideologically driven research. I've seen a piece or two from their shop that was quite good but there is reason to check their stuff carefully before citing it. 4. The last link is to a press release from an outfit in Canada. I have no idea what it's reputation is. If you wish to use their data to support arguments, you would, again, need to provide some arguments as to why one should take them seriously.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (11523)	10/9/2003 7:13:12 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793639

How the world sees California - SLATE ______________________________ international papers Arnold: American Dream or Nightmare? By June Thomas Posted Thursday, October 9, 2003, at 4:08 PM PT "And America is the country that stomps around the world demanding other countries adopt the same political system as its own? No wonder it is taking so long to set up elections in Iraq." So began an op-ed in Britain's Independent after Arnold Schwarzenegger's Tuesday night California recall election victory. Elsewhere in the paper, an editorial said that "even by the bizarre standards of American elective politics," Schwarzenegger's victory "is a strange event." El País of Spain claimed, "California's electoral process confirms the inconsistencies of American democracy revealed in the presidential election of 2000," and Russia's Nezavisnaya Gazeta sniffed, "Hollywood actor Schwarzenegger's victory over a professional governor has once again showed the defective nature of the American electoral system." The Independent found the recall mechanism an "undesirable" arrangement: It "is profoundly anti-democratic and militates against the strong but unpopular action that governments have to take from time to time." The Financial Times also opposed the recall process, declaring: "The procedure was intended as a safeguard to remove the most incorrigibly corrupt, not as a tool to create permanent political revolution. Its use now will only further entrench the triumph of politics over good governance. California has constructed a political system that leaves its elected officials beholden to the vagaries of instant political gratification." The editorial said it would have been possible to swallow doubts about the process if it had produced an exceptional leader, but Schwarzenegger is not that man, "[T]here can surely be few less palatable candidates for the office of governor. It is not simply his scary past that should trouble voters but the arrogant refusal to discuss the future in anything other than bland generalities." Some papers had little faith in Californian voters' ability to distinguish between the actor and the roles he played. Uganda's New Vision said voters "were voting for the Terminator, the legend they had seen on the cinema screen." Mlada Fronta Dnes of the Czech Republic said they "chose a good actor rather than a bad politician, because there is at least a chance that he will learn the role," while Britain's Daily Mirror just took a swipe: "[H]is lack of political experience was never going to be a handicap in winning the election. After all, his lack of acting skills didn't hold him back." An op-ed in the Times of London found Schwarzenegger's background "extremely relevant": Hollywood "is the world's most ruthless meritocracy. It is the Harvard Business School of showmanship and, unlike Washington, it is brutally honest about the primacy in American public life of looks and style over facts and substance." The Australian saw the election as a demonstration of "the American genius for embracing new ideas and new people." The editorial concluded, "Australians too easily dismiss the achievements of famous political outsiders who achieve high office in the US—and too readily mock self-made individuals who break the stranglehold of the political machines." June Thomas is Slate's managing editor. You can e-mail her at intpapers@slate.com. Article URL: slate.msn.com