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 (11986)10/12/2003 11:50:58 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793800
 
Andrew Sullivan:

THE GERMANS LOVE HER: The German Booksellers' Association have their own Sontag Award. And it's just gone to Susan Sontag! The Association views Sontag as a lone dissident in an "arrogant super-power." The writer who described the mass murderers of 9/11 as braver than allied pilots is hailed by the German literary elites as having an "exceptional sense of morality and immorality." Her main triumph: standing up to the "hegemonic response" to 9/11. 9/11? Who remembers that any more? Surely not the Germans.

LEFTIES AND TYRANTS: "I think Joe Stalin was a guy that was hugely misunderstood. And to this day, I don't think I have ever seen an adequate job done of telling the story of Joe Stalin, so I guess my answer would have to be Joe Stalin." - actor, Ed Asner, responding to the question, "If you had the chance to play the biographical story of a historical figure you respected most over your lifetime, who would it be?"
andrewsullivan.com



To: JohnM who wrote (11986)10/13/2003 1:47:02 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793800
 
Some "soul searching" by Raspberry. At least he is doing it. And you know he is catching hell for it.
_______________________________________

An Attitude Gap

By William Raspberry

Monday, October 13, 2003; Page A19

Speaking frankly and helpfully about the academic achievement gap between black and white students is a lot harder than it ought to be.

It is particularly hard if it is true -- as I believe -- that the gap has less and less to do with racism and more and more to do with the habits and attitudes we inculcate among our children.

I can almost feel the resistance from black Americans to the notion that there is something cultural about the underachievement of black students. Almost as palpable is the easy conclusion on the part of many whites (and I'm not talking about racists) that if black people would just buckle down as other disadvantaged groups have done, many of their problems would evaporate.

And yet -- how hard this is! -- the buckle-down crowd may be closer to the mark. That is not to say that the academic gap (as much as four years by the time of high school graduation) is merely the aggregate result of individual black laziness. It isn't.

But as Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom make clear in their new book, "No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in Learning," a significant source of the gap is in the attitudes toward academic achievement that are prevalent in black America, even among the economically successful, college-trained middle class.

For instance, there is the notion that academic success is something almost unnatural -- or at least not a particularly high priority -- for black people. Black students and their parents understand the importance of an academic credential, but often primarily as a ticket to college and good careers. But if that's what it is, then one might as well purchase the ticket at the lowest possible cost: avoidance of challenging courses and performance that is "good enough" rather than the commitment to excellence that eats into social time.

And the differences begin early. One study found that the home of the average white kindergartner had 93 books, the average black less than half as many. The point isn't that the white children score higher because they read all those books but that the differential presence of books reflects a differential interest and investment in learning. (Asian American parents, for instance, may have fewer books but a stronger commitment to learning.)

The Thernstroms' examination of the reasons for the gap both in effort and achievement -- including disproportionate TV-watching, uneven public expenditures, disparate teacher quality and an interesting look at the differences between voluntary and involuntary (slave-descendant) immigrants -- occupies the bulk of their book. But in some ways, their most important message is in the introduction.

Economic success -- even a decent job -- will depend increasingly on solid academic skills. But "too few black and Hispanic youngsters -- particularly those in urban public schools -- have acquired the skills to choose their own path."

Are the politically conservative Thernstroms reluctant to attribute the dysfunctional habits and attitudes of black students to still-existing racism?

In a word, yes. They don't argue that racism has disappeared, but they do argue that it has less effect than ever on what black people can achieve.

That racism significantly limits academic opportunity, they say, is "a familiar but misguided and dangerous claim -- particularly dangerous when delivered to school-age kids making often irrevocable decisions about who they are and where they're going. Pessimism is a self-fulfilling prophecy."

Does giving voice to this message amount to "giving racists a stick to beat us with"? It's an interesting question. Here's a better one: How do we best use our intellectual, political and moral capital -- priming our children for success, or merely supplying them with excuses for failure?
washingtonpost.com



To: JohnM who wrote (11986)10/13/2003 2:11:29 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793800
 
We are going to see a lot of pros and cons on this ship. Here is a "Pro"
_______________
Water Wars

By Melana Zyla Vickers Tech Central Station

What's wrong with the following picture? As counterterrorism experts worry aloud about the risk of a USS Cole-style attack on commercial shipping, the number of violent attacks and acts of piracy on oil tankers and other commercial vessels worldwide has soared 37% over last year. Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy, tasked with protecting U.S. interests in all the world's oceans, has shrunk to its smallest size in almost 100 years.



The trend in shipping attacks is alarming. The 234 attacks between January and June 2003 were not only more numerous but also more deadly and dangerous than before, with more deaths and hostage-takings. In addition, recent months have seen heavily armed attackers target small oil tankers in the Malacca Strait, in ambushes that the International Maritime Bureau, which compiles the data, describes as "politically motivated." Among the suspects are Muslim rebels from Indonesia's breakaway region of Aceh, which has ties to international terrorism.



The dangerous reality of Southeast Asia's crowded, narrow shipping lanes squares perfectly with Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Vern Clark's picture of an environment crying out for a new kind of U.S. Navy vessel. Clark said in August that his service's most difficult operational environment "is in the near-land arena… where you can find yourself in a saturated environment with a lot of traffic and a lot of could be-players. That's the kind of an environment that we have to have a capability where our side can get in there and mix it up with a potential enemy. You can't do that with 50,000 ton ships," Clark said, adding the Navy is in "desperate need" of a small combatant called the Littoral Combat Ship.



Despite the need outlined by Clark and by the reality of vital global chokepoints such as the Strait of Malacca, the LCS has taken a beating in Congress because it has been awhile since politicians have reflected on the Navy's needs in a forward-looking way. They're not used to seeing how important it is for the service to have a small combatant that can interdict ships carrying terrorists and pirates, can go in close to shore to do "littoral penetration," and can do so more cheaply and effectively, at $400 million a shot, than old-style frigates or larger vessels.



The LCS promises to have other virtues as well. It is to have a spiral design that allows the latest technology to be added to the hull at the time of deployment, and thus won't be stuck with the technology that is new when the vessel is funded by Congress, but old by the time it goes to sea. This design will also give the LCS flexibility in missions. In addition, the LCS will be networked with other vessels and sensors, giving it a dramatically improved picture of the battlespace.



After months of waffling, Congress has seen fit to fund the LCS to the tune of $186 million. That's a start. Politicians need to fund the vessel in full. The LCS represents a strategic leap forward and a means for the Navy to perform worldwide the essential 21st century missions of littoral penetration and sea control.



Melana Zyla Vickers writes about defense technologies and foreign policy for TechCentralStation.com

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



To: JohnM who wrote (11986)10/13/2003 3:25:58 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 793800
 
You said the Texas Republicans were Neanderthals. You were right. The people voting on the platform are. No wonder poor Molly is looking peaked. "CalPundit"
____________________________

THE NEW MODEL REPUBLICAN PARTY....Earlier this week I had lunch with my mother. We got to talking about politics and she asked, "What's happened to the Republican party? They used to just be the party of rich people."

That's actually a penetrating question, and I want to try and answer it. In fact, I mainly want to try and answer it for conservatives who wonder why liberals treat them like lepers.

The Republican party, of course, still is the party of rich people, but if that's all it was then liberals like me would simply treat it as an ordinary opposition party to be fought civilly and compromised with when necessary. But it's become much more than that over the past couple of decades. It has become completely unhinged. Try this on for size:

Republicans won't rest until abortion is completely outlawed, Social Security is abolished, the welfare state is completely rolled back, the book of Genesis is taught in science classes, and the federal income tax is abolished.

When I occasionally repeat (milder) versions of this here, my conservative commenters think I'm nuts. "Every party has a few wingnuts," they say. "These guys don't have any real influence."

And the thing is, I think they're telling the truth. With a couple of exceptions, I think the kind of conservatives who visit here don't believe this. It's absurd. It's a caricature.

But the problem is that I'm not sure they realize what their party is becoming. The heart and soul of Republican grass roots activism can be found pretty easily: it's in Texas. The New Model radical right took over the Texas Republican party a decade ago and elected George Bush governor. They have since taken over the entire state and propelled one of their own to the presidency and another to leadership of the House of Representatives. They bring a messianic fervor to their task, and after successfully taking over the second biggest state in the union their sights are now set on the entire country. This is not a fringe group. It is the biggest, most active, most energetic, and most determined segment of the Republican party today.

So it's fair to ask, what do they really want? Not what their public face is, and not what's politically feasible at the moment, but what are their goals? What kind of America do they want?

The answer is easy to come by if you really want to know, because the Texas Republican party regularly publishes a party platform. And like all true believers, they are very clear about what they want. So here it is: selected excerpts from the Texas Republican Party Platform of 2000. At the end of six years with George W. Bush at their helm, this was — and largely remains — their vision for America.

The Texas Republican Party Platform for 2000

Texas GOP Platform
Short Translation

The Party calls for the United States monetary system to be returned to the gold standard. Since the Federal Reserve System is a private corporation, has no reserves, and is not subject to taxation or audit, we call on Congress to abolish this institution and reassume its authority, enumerated by Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, for the coinage of money.

The United States should return to the gold standard and abolish the Federal Reserve.

Congress should be urged to exercise its authority under Article III, Sections 1 and 2 of the United States Constitution, and should withhold appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in such cases involving abortion, religious freedom, and all rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.

The Supreme Court should not be allowed to decide the constitutionality of laws regarding abortion, religion, or anything else related to the Bill of Rights. In these areas, Congress should be allowed to pass any laws it wishes.

Our Party pledges to do everything within its power to restore the original intent of the First Amendment of the United States and the concept of the separation of Church and State and dispel the myth of the separation of Church and State.

We should completely do away with separation of church and state.

The party opposes the decriminalization of sodomy....We publicly rebuke judges Chief Justice Murphy and John Anderson, who ruled that the 100 year-old Texas sodomy law is unconstitutional, and ask that all members of the Republican Party of Texas oppose their re-election.

Gay sex should be a criminal offense.

The Party affirms its support for a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse making clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection applies to unborn children.

All abortion of all kinds should be permanently outlawed by constitutional amendment.

No homosexual or any individual convicted of child abuse or molestation should have the right to custody or adoption of a minor child, and that visitation with minor children by such persons should be limited to supervised periods.

Gays should be treated like child molesters and should not be allowed to visit children unsupervised.

The Party believes that scientific topics, such as the question of universe and life origins and environmental theories, should not be constrained to one opinion or viewpoint. We support the teaching equally of scientific strengths and weaknesses of all scientific theories--as Texas now requires (but has yet to enforce) in public school science course standards. We urge revising all environmental education standards to require this also. We support individual teachers’ right to teach creation science in Texas public schools.

The Biblical story of creation should be taught in science classes.

The Party supports an orderly transition to a system of private pensions based on the concept of individual retirement accounts, and gradually phasing out the Social Security tax.

Social Security should be abolished.

We urge that the IRS be abolished and the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution be repealed. A constitutional tax, collected and controlled by the States, must generate sufficient revenue for the legitimate tasks of the national government.

The federal income tax should be abolished.

The Party believes the minimum wage law should be repealed.

The federal minimum wage should be abolished.

We further support the abolition of federal agencies involved in activities not delegated to the federal government under the original intent of the Constitution including, but not limited to, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the position of Surgeon General, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Education, Commerce and Labor.

The EPA, HUD, HHS, the Department of Education, and several other federal agencies should be eliminated. Since these departments supervise all federal welfare programs for the poor and sick, they are presumably advocating the complete abolishment of the federal welfare state.

The Party believes it is in the best interest of the citizens of the United States that we immediately rescind our membership in, as well as all financial and military contributions to, the United Nations.

Get the United States out of the UN.

The Party urges Congress to support HJR 77, the Panama and America Security Act, which declare the Carter-Torrijos Treaty null and void. We support re-establishing United States control over the Canal in order to retain our military bases in Panama, to preserve our right to transit through the Canal, and to prevent the establishment of Chinese missile bases in Panama.

Take back the Panama Canal.

This plank remains in the 2002 platform. Since Panama presumably would object to this, they appear to be endorsing military action to retake the canal zone.

Any person filing as a Republican candidate for a public or Party office shall be provided a current copy of the Party platform at the time of filing. The candidate shall be asked to read and initial each page of the platform and sign a statement affirming he/she has read the entire platform.

We are dead serious about all this.


These are not the words of sane people. This is not "reform," this is not "common sense," and this is not "restraining government growth." This is plain and simple madness and the people behind it have real influence.

California is probably the most liberal state in the country, so for comparison you can take a look at the California Democratic Party Platform for 2000 to see what the other end of the spectrum looks like. By comparison it's pretty feeble liberal fare: affirmative action, commitment to education, opposition to global warming, etc. etc. You may find many things you disagree with strongly and a few that you think are just goofy, but nothing remotely close to the Texas GOP. Nothing to compare with the obsessive militant lunacy of abolishing Social Security or seizing the Panama Canal.

If this were just a lunatic fringe we could all have a good laugh over their manifesto and then go out for a beer. But you can't dismiss it so easily. Texas-style conservatism has already put George Bush, Tom DeLay, and Karl Rove in charge of the country, and it is very much the future of the Republican party. And for all the conservatives reading this: I know this doesn't necessarily represent what you believe. But whether you like it or not, this kind of thinking does represent a very strong, very fast growing segment of the leadership of your party, and this is why liberals think the Republican party is just plain scary these days. We know that this is their agenda, we know that they really truly want to do this stuff, and we know that they are steadily gaining influence.

And to liberals: this is what we're fighting. Republicans may be smart enough to make soothing noises and put friendly faces like George Bush's in front of their agenda, but behind the facade this is what they want and they won't rest until they get it. It's our job to make sure everyone knows this.

calpundit.com



To: JohnM who wrote (11986)10/13/2003 6:21:19 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793800
 
Warren raises an interesting question. Is Rice taking over supervision of what Rummy was doing, or of what State was doing, in Iraq?
_________________________________

Oversight

One of the problems for every great democracy is how to maintain civilian oversight of the military. This is never more difficult than in those rare moments when the military offers more competence. The subject is the tittle-tattle of Washington just now, where the press with their usual partiality are reporting that Donald Rumsfeld, lord of the Pentagon, has been "demoted"; and Condoleezza Rice, mistress of the National Security Council, promoted to oversee Iraqi reconstruction.

As usual the story is false, but conceals something more interesting. Mr. Rumsfeld was never in charge of Iraqi reconstruction, only of the military trying to maintain order and train up a non-Saddamite local militia for the longer term. He is in charge of delivering force where required; he has never had the slightest responsibility for civilian agencies, and has only appeared to have some because of his personal strengths of mind and will, as a general adviser.

It was the State Department driving the civilian reconstruction effort in Iraq, under constant harassment from the Pentagon -- who thought they knew better than State how to orchestrate the Iraqi political transition, from their hands-on experience with the country's exiled political leaders and domestic underground. And according to me, they did know better; but they also knew their place.

What has happened is the opposite of what the press is reporting. The power of civilian oversight is now passing from State to the White House. Miss Rice is Mr. Bush's direct agent, and has indeed emerged as the "point man" for the Iraqi mission, with input from all sides. It is not, I think, the first time the Bush administration has allowed an appearance to contradict a reality.

The news is bad, incidentally. For what it shows is an administration acknowledging to itself that Iraq is an American domestic political football; one which will remain in play daily for the rest of the presidential term. The temptation to micromanage events in the field of a foreign country a long distance away, in order to influence impressions back home, is indeed something to remind us of President Lyndon Johnson, and another distant country called Vietnam.

More: the administration is showing it will allow Iraq to remain the centre of public consciousness in the "war on terror". On one level this is compatible with the "flypaper" simile I have used to describe the U.S. mission in Iraq -- the creation of an immense distraction in the heart of the Middle East, to lead Arab attention away from Israel, and encourage international terrorism to shift its efforts to an irresistibly symbolic theatre away from Israel or the West.

But that mission has been compromised, by the media obsession with (modest) U.S. casualties. With the laudable exception of the odd catch-up feature article, the media simply will not report good news in Iraq -- whether the good news is the Iraqi national renaissance after Saddam, or the progress made in hunting down and eliminating the perpetrators of terror.

For example, the reader may be unaware that the U.S. captured more than 100 Iraqi and foreign terrorists together with one of Saddam's senior Republican Guard commanders at Al-Qaim, near the Syrian border earlier this week, in a large military operation without U.S. casualties. Large quantities of weapons and cash were swept up. The story, one among many similar, rated only a wire-service news brief, which in turn made the inside pages of only a few newspapers. Yet it is far more significant, as news, than any of the numerous front-page accounts of U.S. soldiers killed in sniping incidents, or the wall-to-wall coverage given terrorist bombings.

The real story is no longer the reported story.

Here is where the interim report by David Kay -- which the reader should examine for himself, at cia.gov -- comes in. The report documents a vast clandestine network of Iraqi chemical and biological weapons laboratories, and dozens of WMD-related activities that neither the U.N. nor the CIA suspected. It uncovered even an unknown prison complex where terror weapons could be tested on human subjects. Stockpiles have not been found -- the only thing that interests the media -- but the mystery of their likely location has deepened. Indeed, the report emphasizes that only the surface has yet been scratched, and shows why this is so. Mr. Kay's staff of 1400 has been able in the available time to search less than 10 per cent even of the known weapons caches in Iraq, because of their immense size.

His report should raise, rather than lower, alarm about the scale upon which regimes like that of Saddam have been developing easily concealed weapons, tailored for delivery by terrorists, not armies.

The media don't want to know, because such information vindicates the course the Bush administration and its allies have taken, so far. And the administration's response to this is equally alarming: to politically micromanage what the public can see, while abandoning the effort to point where the Kay report is pointing. There is one war for show, and another war for keeps; with the danger of less and less civilian oversight of the latter.

davidwarrenonline.com