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: Dayuhan who wrote (13152)10/20/2003 4:13:08 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793718
 
Dare I get my hopes up? Boxer is rated every year as "dumbest person, either side, United States Senate."
______________________________________________________



Emboldened GOP Ponders the Odds of Unseating Boxer
Will anti-incumbent fervor transfer to U.S. Senate race? Democrats say that's a reach.
By Hugo Martín
Times Staff Writer

October 20, 2003

The recall of Gov. Gray Davis has given some Republicans hope of unseating another powerful Democrat — U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer. The question is: Has it also exhausted the voters' zeal for change that GOP challengers need to unseat the two-term senator?

With the Senate primaries less than five months away, only a few Republicans, none well-known statewide, are either running or exploring a bid against Boxer. Still unknown is whether any other candidates, encouraged by Arnold Schwarzenegger's victory, will jump into the race. Also unclear is whether the new governor will use his political capital to influence the outcome.

Not surprisingly, Democrats and Republicans disagree whether the outcome of the recall will affect the state's next big race.

While the recall was fueled by voter discontent toward Davis, some political analysts doubt that such anger will be easily transferred to Boxer, even if she is a liberal Democrat who supported Davis and campaigned against the recall.

"Republicans will be wrong to overreach," said Martin Kaplan, a former Democratic campaign aide and dean of USC's Annenberg School for Communication. "Gray Davis is one of the most unpopular politicians in California history. That is not Barbara Boxer."

The passions may have died down by next year, Democratic strategist Bill Carrick said.

"The recall makes it tougher because the state of California is having a political hangover," said Carrick, who is sitting out the Senate race. He also predicted that the presidential primary in March will draw energy and attention away from the Senate race.

Still, Republican party leaders and some challengers say Boxer is more vulnerable since voters gave Schwarzenegger the keys to the governor's office.

"If anyone has to be nervous about the results of the election, it is Barbara Boxer," said GOP consultant Allan Hoffenblum.

That is because, other Republicans say, Schwarzenegger's strong win re-energized the party faithful.

"This is a year when Republicans are feeling better about their chances," said Ken Khachigian, a GOP strategist for former U.S. Treasurer and possible Boxer challenger Rosario Marin.

Boxer, a 12-year veteran of the Senate, said she heard similar predictions about her vulnerability during her last two campaigns.

"They called me whatever they wanted — but at the end of the day, they still called me senator," she said.

Boxer has two overriding advantages as she seeks reelection.

Despite Schwarzenegger's victory, Democrats still enjoy a significant advantage in the number of registered voters; California has sided with the Democratic candidate in the five U.S. Senate contests since 1992.

Also, California is by far the most expensive state in which to run a campaign, meaning the winner needs either a hefty personal bankroll or an extensive donor list from which to procure the $2,000 maximum federal donations.

Boxer expects to spend $15 million to $20 million on the race. Already, her campaign has reported raising more than $7.35 million as of the end of September and has more than $4 million on hand.

Among her possible GOP opponents, Silicon Valley businesswoman Toni Casey, who served three years as mayor of Los Altos, has raised more than $540,000 and has about $322,000 on hand for the same period, according to her campaign.

Assemblyman Tony Strickland (R-Moorpark) — who announced his candidacy Wednesday — has collected nearly $74,000 and has almost $48,000 on hand, according to his campaign.

Marin has yet to file a finance statement or to officially announce a bid. She left her job as treasurer earlier this year to return to Huntington Park, where she had served as mayor.

Democratic strategists argue that the Republican lineup shows the Senate race will be starkly different from the recall campaign.

Davis, after all, was challenged by a multimillionaire movie star with worldwide name recognition. To beat Boxer, USC political analyst Sherry Bebitch Jeffe said, a challenger must have strong name recognition and the ability to raise a formidable campaign war chest.

"It has to be someone with a bit more gravitas name recognition than those names that have been floated around," she said.

USC communications dean Kaplan and others argue that the Republican party's best chance of beating Boxer is to nominate a moderate candidate. But historically, moderate candidates have been forced out during the primary by the party's conservative wing. The lack of a primary was seen as central to the moderate Schwarzenegger's decision to enter the recall race, though he ultimately won a huge majority of conservative votes.

While Republican candidates will spend a big chunk of their money battling each other in the primary, political analysts say Boxer will be able to save most of her war chest for the general election in November.

"I think Sen. Boxer is in good shape," said Carrick.

As one of the most liberal members of the Senate, Boxer has been a perennial target for Republicans, particularly given the perceived strength of the other Democratic senator, Dianne Feinstein. But several candidates who were considered tough opponents have already chosen not to run.

Rep. Doug Ose, a Sacramento developer and moderate Republican, dropped out in May after planning a statewide tour to announce his bid. Another Republican congressman, George P. Radanovich of Mariposa, also decided against a challenge after traveling the state to assess his chances. State Sen. Tom McClintock, who received higher favorable ratings than Schwarzenegger during the recall race, said he won't challenge Boxer next year and will seek another term in the state Senate.

Some GOP strategists have suggested that comedian Dennis Miller, who appeared alongside Schwarzenegger during the recall campaign, might challenge Boxer. A spokesman for Miller said the comedian had "nothing to say" about a possible U.S. Senate bid.

Former Secretary of State Bill Jones is also mulling a shot at the seat. "I'm looking at it seriously, and I'll make a decision fairly quickly," Jones said.

Those in the race are following the template of Boxer's previous opponents, arguing that the senator is too liberal for the state.

Strickland, the Moorpark assemblyman, said Schwarzenegger's victory proves that a Republican candidate can draw Democrats and independent voters to win a statewide election in California.

Strickland said he plans to hammer Boxer for voting against President Bush's resolution to go to war in Iraq and for opposing the president's economic package.

"She is going to have to defend her record and I think it's a record that is indefensible," he said.

Marin is expected to position herself as a moderate. Like Schwarzenegger, she is an abortion rights advocate and an immigrant — in Marin's case, from Mexico. Marin and Schwarzenegger even pronounce "California" the same way, Marin strategist Khachigian joked.

Khachigian said Marin "is Barbara Boxer's worst nightmare" because she might dislodge Latino votes from the Democratic column. He said Marin will be able to paint Boxer as a liberal but Boxer will be unable to portray Marin as too conservative for the state.

(Boxer noted in response that in 1998, Republican strategists called her then-challenger, former state Treasurer Matt Fong, her "worst nightmare." Boxer beat him by 10 points.)

For her part, Boxer said the race should not be a referendum on Davis and his policies, but instead focus on issues such as health care, the environment, Social Security, the national deficit and the economy. She has been one of Bush's staunchest critics and she expects her challengers to attack her position on key national issues.

"They are going to come after me and that is fine because it means I am standing up for what I believe," she said.



To: Dayuhan who wrote (13152)10/20/2003 4:37:31 AM
From: Bill Ulrich  Respond to of 793718
 
The government grants the protection against commercial exploitation. Under case of federal emergency, it's possible (and reasonable) for the grantor to usurp that protection under extraordinary condition, though in practice they must make reasonable effort to arrive at a compensatory contractual agreement for supplies deemed necessary for said emergency.

In the specific case of ciprofloxacin, I believe Bayer could not immediately satisfy expected supply requirements, and a patent law provision would allow generic licensing before patent expiration to meet the demand.

"So why is it ok for the US government to violate a drug patent when threatened with anthrax..."



To: Dayuhan who wrote (13152)10/20/2003 4:45:16 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793718
 
People keep complaining the GM seeds are a "Big Business" ripoff of the 3rd world farmers. The farmers involved don't seem to think so. Tech Central Station. Though the ending of the ban was portrayed in the media as a victory for big farmers and Western multinationals, the use of GM seed is also widespread among landless peasants and small farmers who like the seed's lower production costs.
______________________________________


A Tale of Two Seeds

By Pramit Pal Chaudhuri Published 10/20/2003


India and Brazil are continents apart, but human aspirations are universal. The experience of farmers in both these countries illustrates their common desire to access new technologies, improve productivity and reach new markets. Indeed, the future of agriculture biotechnology may rest on what happens in these two large agriculturally significant countries. The increasing demand for GM seeds by farmers is forcing the hands of the governments in both these countries.



Brazil Basics



In a hectic 36 hour period last month, Brazil twice lifted and once restored a ban on the use of genetically modified (GM) soybean seed. In the end, the ayes had it and the leftwing government of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva returned Brazil to the biotechnology fold.



The reasons Brazil took this step are many. A severe economic recession, powerful agribusiness lobbies and a determination to overtake the US to become the world's number one soya exporter all fed into the decision. But a key reason the ruling coalition of worker and farmer parties decided to let GM soya out of its cage was the fact that farmers were loosening the latch with their own hands.



An estimated 20-30 percent of Brazil's soybean crop is GM. In neighbouring Argentina, GM soya is legal. Smuggling such seeds across the border is common. In those parts of Brazil bordering Argentina, as much as 70 per cent of the soybean crop is GM.



Though the ending of the ban was portrayed in the media as a victory for big farmers and Western multinationals, the use of GM seed is also widespread among landless peasants and small farmers who like the seed's lower production costs.



The Cotton Club



Brazil's experience reflects that of India's with Bt cotton, another genetically modified crop plant. The Indian seed industry believes about half the cotton crop in the state of Gujarat and an increasing share of the crop in Andhra Pradesh, Haryana and Punjab is being grown from GM seeds. And not unlike the case of Brazil, most of the seeds are pirate products.



Bt cotton seeds were first discovered in Gujarati fields in 2001, though at the time no such seeds had been approved by India's Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC). The most popular variety, Navbharat-151, was released by D. B. Desai, a local plant breeder who didn't bother to wait for India's vacillating regulators. In fact, he did not even claim his seed contained the Bt gene, but it became the flagship of new generation of cotton seeds when it very successfully withstood the attack of ballworm in the 2001 growing season. His seed has since been banned and Desai charged with violating the law.



Neither the ban nor the case are making any progress because they have both achieved the status of folk legends with Gujarati farmers. Today dozens of pirate Bt cotton seeds are available in all the major cotton-growing states of India. They are openly advertised in local newspapers. Only their distribution networks remain shadowy.



After the invasion of Navbharat-151, the India government, in a knee jerk reaction, sought to destroy thousands of hectares of cotton in the state of Gujarat. However, it soon became apparent that such a decision would be impossible to implement politically. GEAC hastily approved three Bt cotton seeds in 2002. However, there are question marks over the performance of the legal varieties. They cost twice as much and are seen as less effective in resisting pests than the pirate ones.



The Gujarat government, sensitive to farmer sentiment, has turned a deaf ear to the central government's demands that it crack down on pirate GM cotton seed. In Punjab, farmers' demands for Bt cotton seeds have become politically impossible to oppose.



Avoiding the Worst of All Worlds



In many ways, what Brazil and India are experiencing is the worst of all worlds. Wholly unregulated genetically engineered crops are open to a greater likelihood of failure or becoming a health hazard. A major public health crisis from a GM crop would be a major setback for biotechnology in general. Indian scientists fear pirate Bt cotton could discredit the technology because the lack of proper cross-breeding allows pests to develop resistance faster than would be the case. Poor performance by pirated or spurious seeds could potentially ruin many farmers' lives.



Pirate seeds also pose a long-term problem in terms of research and development. Illegal players like Desai cut costs by using seed lines developed by firms like Monsanto. But GM technology won't progress if it can't attract private sector capital. Such capital won't be forthcoming if local breeders ensure that corporations can't get profits from the sale of their legal and safer seeds.



What these two tales of GM seeds say is that there is an enormous and undeniable demand among third world farmers for such fruits of biotechnology. No matter what governments or environmentalists may attempt through regulations, court injunctions or simple dilly-dallying, a supply of such seeds will be forthcoming. It can either come from corporate suppliers who will ensure their seeds jump through all the necessary safety and corporate hoops. Or it will come from Desai and other garage-based entrepreneurs. What cannot work are bans and moratoriums based on ideology rather than science.



The author is the foreign editor of The Hindustan Times, the leading English language daily in Delhi. He also specialises in trade, technology and security related issues.

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



To: Dayuhan who wrote (13152)10/20/2003 5:02:34 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793718
 
Most University Economics Departments don't argue this point any longer. But "Roosevelt saved us during the Depression" is still gospel in most History and Political Science departments.
_________________________________________

THINKING THINGS OVER

Prolonging the Depression
The New Deal: Time for a new look.

BY ROBERT L. BARTLEY
Monday, October 20, 2003 12:01 a.m.

Peace, in setting presidential reputations, far outranks its brother prosperity. I didn't realize how completely war and peace define our presidents until I was asked to think about their economic leadership.
Our OpinionJournal.com and the Federalist Society sponsored a new rating of the presidents, and in June an expanded print version will be published in collaboration with Simon & Schuster. I was asked to join William Bennett, Richard Brookhiser, Robert Dallek and others in contributing. Asked about leadership on economic policy, I couldn't find much.

Yes, Washington was smart enough to hire Alexander Hamilton, as Lincoln hired Jay Cooke to finance the Civil War by inventing war bonds. In hands-on terms, Andrew Jackson personally destroyed the second Bank of the United States, a medium-sized calamity for the Republic's finances. Ronald Reagan tamed the economic crisis he was elected to face, but went on to greater glory by defeating communism in the Cold War.

The great puzzle is Franklin D. Roosevelt. He made his mark defeating Adolf Hitler, which earns him ratings as the top president of the 20th century. But he was originally elected to cure the Great Depression; how did he do there? Unemployment was still above 17% on the eve of war in 1939. Most of Roosevelt's acolytes settle for saying he lifted the nation's spirits.

Now comes historian Jim Powell of the Cato Institute, with a new book arguing that Roosevelt's policies actually prolonged the Depression. "FDR's Folly" is endorsed by two Nobel Prize economists, Milton Friedman and James Buchanan, and cites a plethora of economic studies.

Mr. Powell serves to remind us what Roosevelt did: Close the banks. Break up the big and diversified banks in favor of one-branch banks where the problem was. Expropriate private holdings of gold. Mark up the gold price in dollars in an attempt to raise agricultural prices. (Undersecretary of the Treasury Dean Acheson resigned in protest against this devaluation of the dollar, a point for reflection by the Bush entourage currently touring Asia to peddle a cheap dollar.)

The New Deal tried to organize industries into cartels to keep prices up. But it also sponsored a torrent of antitrust suits against industry colluding to keep prices up. It started new welfare plans, notably Social Security, financed by a tax on employment kicking in before benefit payments did. Above all, Roosevelt raised taxes on "the rich." An "undistributed profits tax" even blocked corporations from accumulating internal capital.

From the standpoint of the 21st century, it beggars the imagination that anyone could see this witches' brew as a recovery plan. But the mythology of the New Deal lingers today, and we badly need a new debate on this part of our history. I hope that Mr. Powell's book succeeds in sparking one.
That would be achievement enough for any one book, but this is not quite the book I would have written. Mr. Powell adopts the Milton Friedman view of the Depression--that it resulted primarily because an ignorant Federal Reserve let the money supply shrink, instead of maintaining steady growth. This view is for sure a big advance on the conventional wisdom. That is, it sees the Depression as the result of policy mistakes, not a spontaneous market failure.

I prefer the explanation offered by Robert Mundell, another Nobel Prize economist and my own longtime guru. In his Nobel lecture he stressed the failure of the international monetary mechanism; World War I disrupted the gold standard, and leading central banks had not constructed a good alternative. The result was a shortage of world liquidity, setting off a chain reaction of bad policies around the globe.

From this viewpoint, I would lay the first blame not on FDR but on Herbert Hoover, who was after all on watch when disaster struck. Mr. Powell ably recounts Hoover's mistakes in signing the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, and in vainly trying to balance the budget by raising taxes in 1932. The Republican president boosted the top marginal rate to 63% from 25%; Roosevelt took it to 75% and then 91%.

Hoover also started many of the New Deal measures, for example the Federal Home Loan Bank System that melted down in the 1990-91 recession. Most importantly, he was the original proponent of the notion of spontaneous market failure. In my view the decisive turn was not FDR's electoral landslide, but Hoover's rejection of his first Treasury secretary, Andrew Mellon.

As the downturn lingered, tensions also developed between President Roosevelt and his Treasury secretary. Henry Morgenthau came to see that a relentless attack on the business class was not a prescription for recovery. Bob Mundell called my attention to some remarkable passages in John Morton Blum's "From the Morgenthau Diaries."

Morgenthau anticipated the Laffer Curve: "Of course we must have additional revenue, but in my opinion the way to make it is for businessmen to make more money." He put a plan to cut top marginal tax rates before the president, who snorted "A Mellon plan of taxation." FDR went on to ridicule the sign on Morgenthau's desk, "Does It Contribute to Recovery," proclaiming instead, "This is politics." Morgenthau's diary complains, "This lecture went on and on, he saying that this was going backwards and that this simply would mean that we would have a fascist President."

The New Deal, that is, was not about economic recovery, but about displacing business as the nation's predominant elite. FDR harked back to the founder of his party. In his 1832 veto of renewing the Bank's charter, Jackson complained that its profits went to foreigners and "a few hundred of our own citizens, chiefly of the richest class." Daniel Webster replied that the message "wantonly attacks whole classes of the people, for the purpose of turning against them the prejudices and the resentments of other classes." The tradition, of course, runs strong even today in the party of Jackson and Roosevelt.
Mr. Bartley is editor emeritus of The Wall Street Journal. His column appears Mondays in the Journal and on OpinionJournal.com.
opinionjournal.com



To: Dayuhan who wrote (13152)10/20/2003 5:11:19 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793718
 
The "No Child left behind act" is forcing the Education Bureaucracy to face up to reality. If it does nothing else, that will be worth while.
____________________________________
Education reform highlights scoring gap
By George Archibald
Published October 20, 2003
The Washington Times

The No Child Left Behind Act is forcing many schools to examine why there is such a large achievement gap between white and minority students, according to a new national study.
The federal law requires that schools set targets for "adequate yearly progress" (AYP) by students and report the results by ethnicity, income, sex and other factors.
It "is the beginning of a truth-telling process," said Ross Wiener, policy director of the Education Trust, which conducted the study.
"Much of the angst concerning this law comes from the fact that AYP is identifying schools with large achievement gaps that were previously designated by their states as being successful based on overall averages," Mr. Wiener said.
"AYP is forcing these schools to examine why some groups of students are performing far below state proficiency levels while others are exceeding them," he said.
The study was based on initial state reports of AYP to the U.S. Education Department that documented fourth-graders' reading and mathematics ability.
In addition to reporting the percentage of students who test proficient in reading and math, the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act requires schools to break apart, or "disaggregate," the test results for white, black, Hispanic, Asian, low-income, handicapped and low-English-proficient students, as well as boys and girls.
Schools that steadily fail to show sufficient academic progress are targeted for added federal funding to pay for private tutoring of students, transportation costs for children allowed to transfer to other schools, and eventual state takeover and reorganization if they still don't improve.
The Education Trust, a project established by the American Association of Higher Education in 1990 to foster school reform, examined AYP results in Florida, Maryland, Ohio, Virginia and Washington state.
The AYP results are providing more accurate information about school and student performance, the group's report said. "It is identifying shockingly large achievement gaps in schools that were previously designated by their states as 'successful.' It is recognizing the good work of previously low-performing schools that have made significant progress in raising achievement for disadvantaged children."
George Washington Middle School in Alexandria was cited as a school with a huge achievement gap among white, black, and Hispanic students who did not make "adequate yearly progress," even though the school received full accreditation under Virginia's state accountability system for the 2002-03 school year.
"Overall, 60 percent of George Washington's students are proficient in reading/language arts, and 77 percent are proficient in math. But a look beneath the averages tells a disturbing story," the report said.
It said 96 percent of white students are proficient in both subjects, well above the school average, but in reading/language arts, just 53 percent of blacks and 39 percent of Hispanics are proficient. In math, 64 percent of blacks and 57 percent of Hispanics are proficient.
"There is a gap of 43 percentage points between the reading achievement of George Washington's white and African-American students and a 57-point gap between the reading achievement of the school's white and Latino students. Again, we find AYP identifying a school with large achievement gaps, revealing shortfalls that state accountability systems had previously ignored," the report said.
On the brighter side, Beacon Heights Elementary School in Riverdale, Md., where black students — mostly from low-income families — constitute 84 percent of the student population, is well above state performance goals. Sixty percent of the Prince George's County school's black students tested proficient in reading and 76 percent in math.
This year, after two years of "solid improvement," Seabrook Elementary School in Prince George's County was taken off the state's watch list for schools that fail to meet proficiency standards, the report said. The school's mostly black student population is now 63 percent proficient in reading and 71 percent proficient in math.
However, there is a 20-point and 12-point achievement gap between Seabrook's black and Hispanic students, who are 83 percent proficient in both subjects.
Education Secretary Rod Paige, traveling in Mississippi and Texas last week, spoke with state and local school officials about "the power" of the 2001 federal education reform law for school improvement, spokesman Daniel Langan said.
"The Education Trust report clearly illustrates the power of disaggregation of data, therefore the power of the No Child Left Behind Act," Mr. Langan said.
"It is impossible to hide behind averages. Communities have more information than ever before to identify problems and to work together to find solutions."

washtimes.com