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 (14815)11/1/2003 11:47:17 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793677
 
The guy has a name Tom Clancy made famous.
_________________________________________


Too Good to Win

By George F. Will

Sunday, November 2, 2003; Page B07

CHICAGO -- Amid the cold world's uncertainties, there is the comfort of having one incontrovertible axiom: If something (or someone) seems too good to be true, it isn't true. Then along comes Jack Ryan.

Six-foot-four and Hollywood handsome, he grew up in this city's northern suburbs, graduated from Dartmouth, simultaneously earned degrees from Harvard's law and business schools, then was made partner at Goldman Sachs, where he made a bundle. The man who made him partner, Jon Corzine, made a mega-bundle, ran successfully for the Senate from New Jersey and in this election cycle is chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, charged with defeating Republican Senate candidates.

Three years ago, when Ryan was 41, he walked away from moneymaking to start his real life. Or resume it. Earlier he had been doing what his family has always done, which involves making the rest of us seem like moral slackers.

Ryan, who keeps in moral and physical trim by going to Mass and the gym each morning, left Goldman Sachs to become a teacher at Hales Franciscan High School in the heart of the huge African American community on the South Side. In an area where some schools send more young men to prison than to college, Hales Franciscan has for six consecutive years sent all its graduates -- all African American youths, most from homes poor enough to qualify for the school lunch program -- to colleges, including Notre Dame, Northwestern, Georgetown and the Naval Academy.

"That," he blandly says of his career change from high finance to high school, "is what our family does." After Harvard he worked as a volunteer in a migrant workers camp in Texas. Such stuff runs in the family.

His mother saved a failing Catholic school in Chicago. His uncle, a Jesuit priest, started a school in a Hispanic neighborhood. There the students are in school four days a week and work one day. Five students share a $25,000-a-school-year job, each earning their tuitions. Ryan's sister was a sixth-year medical student at Northwestern when she left to open a medical clinic for indigent and immigrant Hispanics. With a verbal shrug, Ryan says, "That's what we're supposed to do."

Now he is seeking a rendezvous, of sorts, with Jon Corzine. Ryan is campaigning for the Republican nomination for the Senate seat held by Peter Fitzgerald, a Republican who is retiring.

Illinois has become inhospitable to Republicans. In 1988, George H.W. Bush carried Illinois 51 percent to 49 percent. In 1992 and 1996 Bill Clinton carried it 49-34 and 54-37. In 2000 Al Gore carried it 55-43. To win in 2004, Ryan probably will have to run far ahead of President Bush. Asked how he plans to do that, he mentions "the ideas of John Locke." If that is Plan A, what, you may well wonder, is Plan B?

Actually, he favors the basic Republican agenda -- limited government, personal responsibility, strong national defense. But he is, above all, a moralist who hopes to get the state exercised about the fact that 410,000 of its children -- 270,000 of them in Chicago -- are in failing schools, as such schools are defined by the No Child Left Behind law.

What, he asks, will become of these children if they reach adulthood and "all they have is their brawn and their hands"? When he returns to walk the spotless halls of Hales Franciscan, crowds of boys embrace him; he responds by asking them what their SAT scores are and then telling them they are not high enough. The SAT prep course was recently canceled. For Ryan, doing something about that takes immediate precedence over campaigning.

His campaign bears watching because of what it will say about the ability of a Republican to make inroads among African Americans. If he cannot do it, it really is hopeless.

Win or lose, this probably will not end happily. Ryan has a three-to-one lead over his nearest rival in polling of Republicans likely to vote in the March 16 primary. But in the general election he probably will learn the futility -- with few exceptions -- of asking African Americans to vote for any Republican, regardless of his views or record, and he probably will lose in this increasingly Democratic state.

Or he will win and, being intelligent and impatient, will hate life in the Senate, where grandees such as Ted Kennedy, for whom public schools are distant rumors, get away with blocking school choice for poor inner-city children. The story Ryan is trying to write -- doing well in his campaign, then doing good in Washington -- is too good to be true.
washingtonpost.com



To: Ilaine who wrote (14815)11/2/2003 2:22:46 AM
From: KLP  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793677
 
Thanks..Also found this: Inventing Reagan by Ed Morrow-NRO







October 27, 2003, 8:37 a.m.
Inventing Reagan
Nielsen family values.

By Ed Morrow

“There you go again." That was the affable but cutting counter Ronald Reagan made famous during the presidential debates, after his opponent would make some twisted charge. Reagan would then simply and frankly explain how they were wrong. His gentlemanly insistence on not being manipulated drove Democrats nuts. Well, here they go again, again. In mid-November, in the middle of "sweeps," when the networks usually trot out their very best programming in a bid to score high ratings to justify high advertising rates, CBS is planning to dump an unbelievably biased version of Ronald Reagan's presidency into America's living rooms. Called The Reagans, the spelling of the title is probably the only accurate part of the production. Judging from the accounts that have been creeping into the press and the promotional bits played by Matt Drudge as a fill-in host on Rush Limbaugh's radio show, the miniseries is a vicious smear of Reagan and his wife Nancy.

The Reagans casts James Brolin as Reagan. He is the husband of Barbra Streisand who, reportedly, spent weeks on the set giving him and the filmmakers her helpful advice. Brolin presents Reagan as a dim-witted actor of modest ability manipulated by a self-centered, domineering wife who is contemptuous of underlings. One suspects that Brolin had little difficulty getting "into" this role, but it is a portrait of Reagan that is unrecognizable outside of an old, lame Saturday Night Live skit. It is a caricature. Indeed, Brolin's heavily rouged, orange-haired Reagan is a caricature of the standard liberal caricature of Reagan. He is a doddering fool, stumbling around using his acting talents to pass for a statesman. His power-mad wife and a cabal of evil advisors make his decisions for him. His public affability and patriotism are just a façade over sanctimonious religious bigotry. When the film's Nancy Reagan advises him that the federal government should take steps to deal with AIDS, the film quotes him as saying, "They that live in sin shall die in sin." There is no source for such a quote, and the scriptwriter admits she invented the line, but this doesn't matter to the filmmakers. It serves their purpose, sliming Reagan.

It has become part of liberal folklore to blame Reagan for the AIDS epidemic because he didn't immediately launch a massive research and education campaign when it first erupted. The fact is that for years, the danger of AIDS wasn't accurately understood by most. Few guessed how terrible a scourge it would become. Even the gay community didn't recognize the danger. Today, many have forgotten how confused everyone was by the appearance of a horrible illness that seemed like some monstrous plague risen from the Dark Ages.

With 20/20 hindsight, pundits have condemned Reagan for being slow to react, forgetting their own ignorance. They also forget that the federal research and educational programs that are now fighting AIDS were launched by the Reagan administration. Was enough money devoted to AIDS? Probably not. Enough money is seldom allocated to any disease, from cancer to tuberculosis. We'll only know how much is enough after a cure is produced. In the meantime, the sums and the choices made will be debated, and if such a discussion was the substance of The Reagans, it might prove useful in helping us learn how to deal with future health threats. But that's not what's presented. Instead, we're given a false history to justify hatred for Reagan. It also justifies complacency in those who failed to make the case for urgent action or did nothing at all to fight AIDS during the 1980s. They can excuse themselves by blaming Reagan.

Nancy Reagan gets an even more over-the-top character assassination in The Reagans. Australian actress Judy Davis is cast as Nancy, and she plays her as a combination of Joan Crawford, Leona Helmsley, and Cruella De Vil, with a little Marie Antoinette tossed in. She is arch, cold, and disdainful, with an aristocratic manner of speaking that is nothing like the real Nancy Reagan, who is of middle-class background. Like Brolin's Ronald, Davis's Nancy is a caricature of the caricature Reagan haters use to define her.

A suggestion of perversion is thrown into The Reagans, by having Ronald refer to Nancy as "Mommy" during romantic moments. If we all had to answer for the pet names we use and are given, there'd be a lot of red-faced "Snooky Ookums" and "Hunny Wunny Sugar Bums" looking for corners to hide. Can you imagine what Brolin uses for Streisand? During the early years of the last century, the time when Reagan was growing up, it was the common custom for a husband to refer to his wife, if they had children, as "Mother" or, more familiarly, as "Mommy." It was a tribute to the role of mother that grew out of ordinary domestic conversation. Dad would, when talking to Mom in front of the kids, refer to her respectfully as "Mother" and not by her first name because that wasn't how the children knew her. Mom would do the same in reverse, using "Father." After years of this, it was natural for spouses to refer to each other in this way, even when the children had long left the family nest. Catch an old Andy Hardy film on the late, late show and you'll see Judge Hardy calling his wife "Mother." It was considered a classy thing to do and even romantic, in that it recalled the children the couple had raised together. Using this custom to suggest a creepy relationship is a cheap, heartless shot.

Nancy Reagan gets more rough treatment when The Reagans brings up the expenses of redecorating the White House. She is portrayed as extravagant and desirous of luxury. It's the same attack that was made when she accepted an expensive set of china for the White House. Political enemies clucked and wagged their fingers at her "spending" so much on dishes when poor Americans were presumably eating their meals off of flat rocks. If only she weren't so wasteful, they told the rubes, you could get a piece of that money and eat on bone china. The fact was that the new china was replacing damaged dishware and wasn't being bought with public funds; it was being bought with donations from people who liked the Reagans and liked the White House and wanted to be associated with both. It was actually a great bargain for the government. All they had to do was unpack it when it was delivered.

Another bit of stale controversy from the Reagan years is dredged up to slam Nancy in The Reagans. When an official suggested that ketchup should be treated like a vegetable when planning school lunches, an explosion of indignation followed. How cruel to force children to skip a hearty bowl of boiled, government broccoli! In The Reagans, virtually out of thin air, the old issue is revived, with a sneering Nancy Reagan snapping, "Ketchup is a vegetable! It is not a meat, right? So IT IS a vegetable." It's meant to be a "Let them eat cake" moment. Never mind that there's no record of Nancy publicly saying such a thing. Done with lots of high camp and ominous background music, the miniseries viewers are supposed to accept it as true. As it is with the false "wages of sin" statement attributed to her husband, what's important to the makers of The Reagans isn't the truth. They want to create a nasty image of Nancy in the public mind, then make it the "truth" through repetition. Unfortunately, as history has shown, the tactic works.

Public officials can easily be slandered when they happen to be hated by the makers of popular culture. Years ago, the wife of a mob boss pursued by J. Edgar Hoover decided to make up a rumor to get some payback for the FBI boss's "persecution" of her honest, gangster husband. She told a reporter that the Mob had photos of Hoover in a dress. She didn't have copies of the photos. Nobody else had copies. No one ever backed her claim in any way. But the media hated Hoover and the story delighted them. It was repeated and embellished endlessly, till the image of Hoover in a cocktail dress is now more firmly established in American folklore than young George Washington and the cherry tree. Hoover was a controversial figure with detractors on both the Right and the Left who criticized him for his investigations, but it is by his actions, not the smears spewed up by his enemies, that he should be judged.

The substitution of propaganda for fact is dangerous. It's not by accident that tyrants create "history" to justify their schemes. Hitler couldn't have taken control of Germany without the many anti-Semitic myths that had been allowed to fester and go unchallenged. Stalin and Mao couldn't have kept a heel on the neck of their countries without self-glorifying myths that demonized anyone who stood in their way. In this case, simple justice demands that the lies about Ronald and Nancy Reagan must not go unchallenged but, in a larger sense, truth itself must be defended. Attempts to distort our history must be resisted. Historical truth is simply too valuable to be made a plaything for biased filmmakers rewriting it to fit their politics.

JUST SAY "NO"
So, what can we do?

A boycott of the sponsors of The Reagans is a start. Don't buy anything advertised during this broadcast. Write or e-mail the sponsors and CBS to tell them of your choice. This may help prevent such biased productions in the future. You can also write newspapers and magazines to protest the miniseries and to encourage others to boycott sponsors. A boycott of sponsors, however, doesn't reach CBS directly. They are airing The Reagans during Sweeps, hoping controversy about it will spike their ratings. High ratings during Sweeps allows them to charge higher rates for advertising. They are willing to take heat from sponsors if their ad rates can be inflated. It can produce millions for them in the future. The only way to defeat this despicable exploitation is to try to reduce the CBS's ratings.

Television ratings are produced by Nielsen Media Research. They recruit American families to voluntarily supply them with data about their viewing choices. It is these families who determine which television programs succeed. They are the only effective boycotters. So, for CBS to feel any displeasure with their broadcast of The Reagans the Nielsen families must boycott CBS. So let me address any Nielsen family members reading this:

I appeal to all Nielsen families to boycott not only The Reagans but to boycott all CBS programming during Sweeps Week. This is a time for you, whether you are Republicans, Democrats, or Independents, to tell CBS that it's not right to lie to the American people about their country's history. Tell CBS that the truth is important to you by boycotting their lies.

It's not as if there aren't other choices. You can tune in Court TV and see liars being prosecuted. You can watch ESPN, where there are rules about how the games are played. There's the History Channel, where the historical record is respected or the Discovery Channel, where you might catch some nice nature show. Maybe something with chimpanzees — Reagan liked Bonzo. MTV might be running Punk'd, the show where a Hollywood actor lies to other celebrities and tricks them into making fools of themselves. And there's E! They might be showing one of their celebrity biographies. Maybe even one on Barbra Streisand. Perhaps they'll quote Walter Matthau, one of her film costars, who said, "I had no disagreement with Barbra Streisand. I was merely exasperated at her tendency to be a complete megalomaniac." Or film critic Rex Reed, who said, "To know her is not necessarily to love her."

THE REAL DEAL
As for Ronald and Nancy Reagan, their story is a lot better than The Reagans. He was a small-town, Illinois kid from a modest home. He became a college football star and lifeguard who saved dozens of lives before going into sports radio, where he was an announcer for the Chicago Cubs. He got a break and was cast to play a radio announcer in a film and became a star in Hollywood during its Golden Age. His career had ups and downs. He married an actress who divorced him when her career rose above his. During World War II, at 30, he enlisted in the Army, where poor eyesight relegated him to the unglamorous task of making training films. He returned to entertainment films after the war and became a labor leader. He was caught up in the anti-Communist controversies of the 1950s and did the best he could as he saw it. When his film career faded, Reagan didn't blame retribution for his politics, he just moved on. Television was then considered a step down for a film actor, but he embraced it and was successful. In 1952, Reagan married a second actress, Nancy, who, at age seven, had been a guest at a White House Easter Egg Roll hosted by Grace Coolidge.

Nancy became a true partner for her husband. They shared the problems of child-rearing during a time when children were virtually required to rebel, and they shared political views when Reagan began publicly speaking on current events. His ideas were well received and he became governor of California, and then, after one unsuccessful run for the Republican presidential nomination, he was elected president of the United States. His personal hardships and setbacks had never destroyed his optimism, and he infused this spirit into an America suffering from what Jimmy Carter so memorably called "malaise." When Reagan was nearly killed by a disturbed assassin, his humor and courage impressed all but his fanatical enemies. His economic policies produced the longest period of prosperity in modern American history. His foreign policy reversed years of uncertainty with a policy of strength. With the help of Pope John Paul II, Reagan confronted Communism in Poland, triggering the fall of the Iron Curtain. His military policies so badly strained the Soviet Union that it collapsed and the Cold War, the longest and most dangerous of all wars, was won by the West. After he left office, Reagan fell victim to Alzheimer's disease. His wife stood by him as his mind clouded and his world shrank. When his daughter Maureen died, she kept the news from him to spare him extra pain. Nancy bravely endured the horror of watching her husband forget all that they had shared. Fair-minded people share her sadness for they know that Reagan loved his country and strived to do his best for it. While he made mistakes and didn't solve all the world's problems, he certainly did more than any other politician of his time to improve humanity's lot.

It's quite a story. Maybe someone should make a movie about it.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


nationalreview.com



To: Ilaine who wrote (14815)11/2/2003 3:05:08 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793677
 
Clarence Page weighs in on my favorite new book on Education, "No Excuses."

Among the most intriguing possible reasons for this disparity is an intriguing group difference in the way students measure their family's "trouble threshold," according to one study that the Thernstroms cite. The "trouble threshold" is the lowest grade that students think they can receive before their parents go volcanic with anger and start clamping down on TV time, etc.
_____________________________________________________


No more excuses for the parents
Clarence Page

October 26, 2003

WASHINGTON -- As much as I love to argue, especially in front of vast national television audiences, I had to bow out when a popular cable TV talk show recently asked me to debate author Abigail Thernstrom on the delicate topic of the academic achievement gap between black and white students.

Thernstrom, a liberal supporter of the civil rights movement for most of her life, has become a leading neo-conservative voice on the U. S. Civil Rights Commission since her appointment by President Bush.

Her latest book, co-authored with her husband Stephan Thernstrom, "No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in Learning," (Simon & Schuster ), argues that black and Hispanic students do not perform as well as white and Asian students because their parents do not push the value of education on their children as much.

The program's booker was looking for someone to argue against that position. "I can't do that," I told the booker. "I agree with her position, although I'm sure my 14-year-old son would have another view."

There was a brief moment of silence on the other end of the line. I felt my shot at the national limelight evaporate and they would not be interested in booking my son. That's show biz.

The program needed an argument--Sparks! Fire! Invective!-- not a discussion. Yet, ironically, reasoned and candid discussion is precisely what the persistent racial achievement gap needs.

One of the most disturbing disappointments in the years since the 1960s civil rights revolution is that the black-white academic performance gap (as much as four years by the time they graduate high school) persists, even among children of the new black middle class.

For that reason, whether I agree with everything the Thernstroms have to say or not (And I have disagreed with them regarding the merits of affirmative action), I appreciate their contribution to an issue that has, by no means, been over-discussed. In fact, if we could solve the racial academic achievement gap, our need for affirmative action would evaporate with it.

Yet, whites are not the top performing group. As the Thernstroms point out, the gap between white and Asian-American student performance is actually wider than the gap between blacks and whites, with Hispanics performing about as poorly as blacks.

Among the most intriguing possible reasons for this disparity is an intriguing group difference in the way students measure their family's "trouble threshold," according to one study that the Thernstroms cite. The "trouble threshold" is the lowest grade that students think they can receive before their parents go volcanic with anger and start clamping down on TV time, etc. In the survey by Laurence Steinberg, a Temple University social scientist, published in his 1996 book, "Beyond the Classroom," most of the black and Hispanic students surveyed said they could avoid trouble at home as long as their grades stayed above C-minus.

Most of the whites, by contrast, said their parents would give them a hard time if their children came home with anything less than a B-minus.

By contrast, most of the Asian students, whether immigrant or native-born, said that their parents would be upset if they brought home anything less than an A-minus.

Unlike most non-Asian parents, who tended to think of academic success in terms of innate ability, good fortune, teacher bias or other matters "outside their personal control," Steinberg found that Asian parents tended to believe that academic performance depended entirely on how hard they worked.

Is that standard too harsh? Despite the contrary view of certain teen-agers I know, I don't. Instead I am startled by another study that the Thernstroms cite which found that nearly a third of black twelfth graders spent five or more hours on school nights in front of TV sets. Some called it their "social homework." Whatever they may call it, their TV viewership was five times the proportion of whites and more than twice that for Latinos.

Another study found that the average white kindergartner had 93 books at home, twice the average of their black classmates' homes.

The result, as Harvard economist Ronald Ferguson found a few years ago, is that almost half of the black middle and high school pupils in 15 affluent school districts said they "completely" understood the teacher's lesson only "half the time or less"--almost twice the figure for whites in answer to the same question.

"Black folks don't want white folks coming into their communities and saying, `You ought to be more like us'," said Ferguson, who is black. Yet, he insists, the point needs to be confronted. He's right. Before we lose another generation, we need to have higher expectations for our children and their schools. No excuses.
chicagotribune.com