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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Lane3 who wrote (78245)10/23/2003 10:09:24 AM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 82486
 
On that note, I will stop being a bother. I am taking off the bookmark to this thread. If Jewel or Tim or Chris want to discuss anything further, there are other threads.......



To: Lane3 who wrote (78245)10/23/2003 10:19:04 AM
From: epicure  Respond to of 82486
 
Sad that our drug policy has to mess up the rest of the world, as well as mess us up at home:

Bolivian Leader's Ouster Seen as Warning on U.S. Drug Policy
By LARRY ROHTER

Published: October 23, 2003

LA PAZ, Bolivia, Oct. 22 — On a visit to the White House last year, President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada told President Bush that he would push ahead with a plan to eradicate coca but that he needed more money to ease the impact on farmers.

Otherwise, the Bolivian president's advisers recalled him as saying, "I may be back here in a year, this time seeking political asylum."

Advertisement


Mr. Bush was amused, Bolivian officials recounted, told his visitor that all heads of state had tough problems and wished him good luck.

Now Mr. Sánchez de Lozada, Washington's most stalwart ally in South America, is living in exile in the United States after being toppled last week by a popular uprising, a potentially crippling blow to Washington's anti-drug policy in the Andean region.

United States officials interviewed here minimized the importance of the drug issue in Mr. Sánchez de Lozada's downfall, blaming a "pent-up frustration" over issues ranging from natural gas exports to corruption. But to many Bolivians and analysts, the coca problem is intimately tied to the broader issues of impoverishment and disenfranchisement that have stoked explosive resentments here and fueled a month of often violent protests.

"The U.S. insistence on coca eradication was at the core of Sánchez de Lozada's problem," said Eduardo Gamarra, a Bolivian scholar who is director of the Latin American and Caribbean Center at Florida International University in Miami.

Dr. Gamarra and others point to events in Bolivia as a warning that United States drug policy may sow still wider instability in the region, where anti-American sentiment is building with the failure of economic reforms that Washington has helped encourage here.

In Bolivia the backlash has strengthened the hand of the political figure regarded by Washington as its main enemy: Evo Morales, head of the coca growers' federation, who finished second in presidential election last year.

American officials have considered Bolivia such a success in the anti-drug campaign that they were looking to replicate their strategy in Peru. But there, too, signs of discontent are appearing, beginning with the re-emergence of the Shining Path, the guerrilla group that terrorized the country throughout the 1980's. "Right now Shining Path is strongest in coca growing areas," said Michael Shifter, who follows the Andean region for the Washington-based policy group Inter-American Dialogue. "To the extent that the U.S. pushes on eradication targets without any kind of flexibility, it makes people there much more amenable to turning to violent protest or insurgent groups like Shining Path."

In Colombia the eradication push has succeeded in substantially reducing coca acreage and is helping the government in its fight against leftist rebels. But such successes have often pushed cultivation farther south to Bolivia and Peru.

The eradication campaign is supposed to be coupled with an "alternative development" program to encourage farmers to grow crops like pineapples, bananas, coffee, black pepper, oregano and passion fruit on land once devoted to coca.

Though the United States has earmarked $211 million for such projects here in the last decade and helped raise the incomes of a growing number of peasant families, critics say the money is not nearly enough to compensate all of those whose livelihoods have been destroyed by eradication campaigns.

During his Washington visit last year, Mr. Sánchez de Lozada asked for $150 million in added emergency aid, meant among other things to help reduce a yawning government budget deficit that had severely limited spending on social programs.

He got $10 million, and that only after he was nearly toppled in a round of protests in February.

"These are derisory sums that are incommensurate with what is needed," said Jeffrey Sachs, an economist who is director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and a long-time adviser to Bolivian governments. "The United States has constantly made demands on an impoverished country without any sense of reality or an economic framework and strategy to help them in development."

David N. Greenlee, the American ambassador here, in an interview on Monday, disagreed with the notion that added assistance from Washington would make much difference.

"It's too early to say whether we can provide additional resources," he said. "I think we currently provide substantial resources, and it is possible this new government can be more efficient."

He added, "A few million more from the U.S. isn't going to solve the problems of Bolivia."

At a news conference on Saturday night, less than 24 hours after he was sworn in, Bolivia's new president, Carlos Mesa, said coca eradication had created "a complicated scenario" and hinted that some changes might be in the works.

For Mr. Mesa, who heads a weak interim government, some moderation of the effort may be inevitable if he is to avoid his predecessor's fate and hold off the challenges of opposition figures like Mr. Morales, the leader of the coca growers.

Mr. Morales's position has been enhanced by recent events, despite the United States Embassy's efforts to isolate and discredit him.

In recent years American officials pushed to have Mr. Morales expelled from Congress and indicted for the murder of four policemen in the Chaparé region, his political base and a center of coca cultivation. During last year's presidential campaign, the embassy suggested that Mr. Morales's election would be viewed by the United States as a hostile act and would provoke an end to aid to Bolivia.

"That has merely inflated Evo Morales even more and catapulted him into the position he is in now," Dr. Gamarra said, that of a power broker with the capacity to bring down the government. "He has used the coca issue to construct a national movement, with the coca growers as his praetorian guard."

The new government, political analysts and diplomats here said, is in a bind. It may be difficult to keep Mr. Morales at bay if Mr. Mesa does not declare a pause in the eradication effort, but such a move could jeopardize Bolivia's international assistance.

In an interview here on Monday, Dionisio Núñez, a coca grower, member of Congressional and key ally of Mr. Morales, said that their party, the Movement Toward Socialism, intended to demand that the new government modify the laws against coca cultivation, whether the United States likes it or not.

For starters, he said, the opposition wants a recalculation of the areas in which growing coca is legal, as well as an expansion of the places where it is legal to sell coca leaves.

"A new president can't return to a policy of repression and militarization" to combat drugs, Mr. Núñez warned. "There has to be a change, to a policy that is truly Bolivian, not one that is imposed by foreigners with the pretext that eradication will put an end to narcotics trafficking."

Despite Mr. Sánchez de Lozada's fall, the Bush administration seems committed to continuing the policy, with a modest budget in Bolivia.

"We think on balance that our policies and our emphasis on alternative development, together with Bolivian participation and their own policies regarding drugs, have been positive things for Bolivia," Ambassador Greenlee said. "We don't think it is a problem."



To: Lane3 who wrote (78245)10/23/2003 10:24:57 AM
From: epicure  Respond to of 82486
 
:-)
Bush Is Heckled in Australian Parliament
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: October 23, 2003

Filed at 9:01 a.m. ET

CANBERRA, Australia (AP) -- Heckled inside and outside Australia's Parliament, President Bush offered a pointed answer to those who say the war with Iraq wasn't worth fighting.

``Who can possibly think that the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein still in power?'' Bush asked Wednesday as he wrapped up a six-nation lobbying campaign to reinvigorate the war on terrorism among Asian and Pacific allies.

Advertisement


Bush told a divided Parliament that the war in Iraq was right and inevitable, but that Americans and Australians ``still have decisive days ahead'' and that the broader war on terror could be long and drawn out.

With thousands of anti-war demonstrators protesting outside the building and two hecklers jeering him from within, Bush thanked the government of Prime Minister John Howard for its help in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

``America, Australia and other nations acted in Iraq to remove a grave and gathering danger, instead of wishing and waiting while a tragedy drew closer,'' Bush said near the end of an eight-day overseas trip.

Before heading for Hawaii Thursday, Bush observed a ceremony in which soldiers placed a wreath on Australia's Tomb of the Unknown Soldier to honor Sgt. Andrew Russell, an Australian solider who was the first casualty among U.S. allies in Afghanistan.

Bush also met privately with Australian soldiers who fought in Iraq and in Afghanistan, before Howard escorted Bush to the bottom step of Air Force One for the 10-hour flight to Hawaii.

Bush praised Howard as ``a leader of exceptional courage'' for sending 2,000 troops to Iraq despite the largest peace protests in his nation since the Vietnam War.

For his part, Howard said as he introduced Bush to Parliament: ``We have a divided view in this nation'' on Iraq.

That was reinforced when 41 opposition-party lawmakers signed a letter criticizing Bush's war decision, saying no clear and present danger existed.

Thousands of demonstrators banged drums and shouted outside the Parliament building while a separate group of protesters jostled with security officials outside the U.S. embassy compound where Bush stayed overnight.

During Bush's speech, two Green Party senators jumped to their feet and shouted war protests at Bush. They were ordered removed from the chamber but sat and refused to leave. One of them, Sen. Bob Brown, shouted ``we are not a sheriff,'' a reference to Bush's recent description of Howard.

``I love free speech,'' Bush said to laughter.

Several other lawmakers wore white arm bands to protest the Iraq war but remained silent.

Later, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said that the president had been warned beforehand by Howard of possible heckling.

``It was expected,'' said McClellan. ``That's the Australian Parliament for you.''

For the most part, Bush was warmly received. Opposition Labor Party leader Simon Crean, in opening remarks, said that differences over Iraq ``strengthen rather than weaken the relationship.''

``Friends must be honest with one another,'' he added.

While Bush drew mixed applause with his remarks about Iraq, his comments on the broader war on terrorism brought approving shouts of ``here, here'' from both sides of the chamber.

``As free nations in peril, we must fight this enemy with all our strength,'' Bush said.

Both in the speech, and at an earlier news conference with Howard, Bush portrayed the battle ahead as long and difficult.

``We cannot let up in our offensive against terror, even a bit,'' Bush told Parliament. ``And we must continue to build stability and peace in the Middle East and Asia as the alternatives to hatred and fear.''

During the news conference, Bush also said that his administration hoped to complete negotiations on a free-trade agreement with Australia by year's end.

And he defended the continuing holding in Guantanamo, Cuba, of two Australians captured during fighting in Afghanistan. Their imprisonment has been a big issue in Australia.

He said he discussed the status of the two Australians with Howard and ``there is an ongoing process.'' Still, he said, ``These are people who were picked up off a battlefield of war.''

Bush called suggestions by critics that the prisoners had been mistreated ``utterly ridiculous.''

Bush came here from Indonesia where he tried to convince skeptical Islamic leaders that America is not biased against Muslim countries. He also attended a regional economic summit in Bangkok, Thailand, and paid separate visits to Japan and the Philippines.

Bush failed in his efforts to persuade leaders of both Japan and China to stop artificially valuing their currencies against the dollar. That makes their products cheaper to American consumers, but makes it harder for U.S. manufacturers to compete, contributing to the steady erosion of U.S. jobs.

``He views this as an issue that will not be solved overnight,'' White House communications director Dan Bartlett said. ``It's something he will continue to push.''

In Hawaii, Bush was to tour Pearl Harbor and participate in a wreath-laying ceremony at the USS Arizona Memorial. The president will pay tribute to those who fell and draw parallels between the victims of Sept. 11 and the Dec. 7, 1941, Pearl Harbor attack.



To: Lane3 who wrote (78245)10/23/2003 10:46:05 AM
From: epicure  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 82486
 
I think it would be nice to talk about education, in a constructive way. I had an interesting conversation with a student yesterday at lunch about how the system works, and how my class works.

Funny kid- bright, articulate, but he won't turn his work in. He is getting a D in physics; goodness knows what he has in his other classes. Anyway, in my class as long as you get the work in before the end of the quarter, you have a good shot at passing, simply because what I want is for the kids to do the work, and I don't see the point in wasting resource on teaching kids what they already know. Now this student, let's call him "Brian", said something like "But don't I deserve to fail?" And I said, "Why?" And he said that it might teach him a lesson. But he's failed before, and I said "Did it teach you anything you didn't know already?" I told him it's almost like some of the kids are asleep, in some adolescent haze, and until they are ready to wake up, you can fail them as much as you want, but it doesn't work- and it just ends up wasting district money, and taking it away from kids who are failing because they really NEED more instruction. "Brian" is so bright he really doesn't "need" to be in my class. He'd do well in honors English if he could just get things turned in.

Anyway, it was a fascinating conversation. My students are always quite honest, and willing to put their ideas out there, even when they are not fully fledged ideas, but they aren't worried about being embarrassed, and they haven't lost their curiosity. I've thought about what Brian said, and I don't know what the answer is. It seems wrong to fail people, just because they aren't motivated enough to jump through hoops yet, since we have limited education dollars. If I were paying him for his work, I wouldn't pay him for poor work- but in essence the school district really wants to pay him TWICE for poor work, by using up its money teaching him twice. Now that doesn't make much sense to me. What do you think?



To: Lane3 who wrote (78245)10/23/2003 12:37:20 PM
From: one_less  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
could you elaborate on that...