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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (14931)11/2/2003 7:31:45 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793794
 
In other words, neither base is moving. It all depends which way the swing vote moves.

And a lot depends on energized the base is. The last time I held my nose. Now, I will make damn sure I vote. On the opposite side is the person who held their nose for Gore, but now really hates Bush. It's going to be a fun 12 months!



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (14931)11/2/2003 7:45:37 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793794
 
Dowd just can't stay accurate. She seems to operate on the principle of "never tell the truth when a lie will suffice." Here is a quote from today's column.

nytimes.com

Now we're in the postwar war, and President Bush is still manipulating reality. He wants to obscure the intensity and nature of the opposition, choosing to lump anyone who resists the American occupation in the category of terrorist."

Now check out this recent quote from a Sep 7th speech by Bush:

"Some of the attackers are members of the old Saddam regime, who fled the battlefield and now fight in the shadows. Some of the attackers are foreign terrorists, who have come to Iraq to pursue their war on America and other free nations. We cannot be certain to what extent these groups work together. We do know they have a common goal -- reclaiming Iraq for tyranny."

whitehouse.gov

Here is what Bush said in his radio address yesterday.

The terrorists and the Baathists loyal to the old regime will fail because America and our allies have a strategy, and our strategy is working. First, we are taking this fight to the enemy, mounting raids, seizing weapons and funds and bringing killers to justice. One example is Operation Ivy Focus, a series of aggressive raids by the Army's 4th Infantry Division, that in a little over a month has yielded the capture of more than 100 former regime members.

whitehouse.gov

Dowd seems to be so spiteful and hateful that she just can't confine herself to the truth.

EDIT: I just emailed a nicer version of this to the paper.



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (14931)11/2/2003 11:34:35 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793794
 
Wow. This is really nasty. Slashdot Blog.
_________________________________________

@02:17PM
from the manufacturing-antipathy dept.

cluge writes "A recent American Rifleman contained small column that said that Symantec's new Internet Security 2004 would block pro gun rights sites (i.e. NRA sites), while not blocking similar anti-gun rights web sites. Being the eternal skeptic, this claim was tested by downloading the trial version and running some tests against it. To my surprise I found the every NRA site was blocked and was in the category 'weapons.' This even included the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. Some sites that were not blocked were notable anti-gun rights sites such as The Brady Campaign, and Good Bye Guns. The only anti-gun rights site that was blocked that I could find was Hand Gun Control's web site." Read on for more.

cluge continues: "My rather informal test still raises the spectre that a large corporate entity may be clandestinely trying to sway you or your child's political views by censoring content from one side of a political debate. This is indeed chilling, especially considering that such software is required to be used in libraries to protect children. Is this political slant common in censorware? Have slashdotters found similar glitches in other 'parental control' software?"
yro.slashdot.org



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (14931)11/3/2003 1:44:32 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793794
 
This is wonderful news. The Icelandic Gene pool is a godsend.

The test need be taken only once in a lifetime, and if a gene variant were found, a high-calcium diet and plenty of exercise would be prescribed
______________________________________________

Icelandic Company Says It Has Found Osteoporosis Gene
By NICHOLAS WADE NEW YORK TIMES

A gene linked to osteoporosis has been identified by Decode Genetics, the Icelandic company that is leading efforts to find the genes that underlie common human diseases.

People with any of three specific variants of the gene have a threefold risk of developing the disease, which is characterized by brittle bones.

A test for the variant forms of the gene is being developed by Roche Diagnostics and will be available in diagnostic laboratories at the beginning of next year, said Dr. Kari Stefansson, chief executive of Decode. The test need be taken only once in a lifetime, and if a gene variant were found, a high-calcium diet and plenty of exercise would be prescribed, Dr. Stefansson said.

Other genes have been linked to osteoporosis, but results vary from one population to the next. The new gene could be the first consistent contributor to the disease if its link, found so far in three populations, holds worldwide. The finding is being published today in the new online journal Public Library of Science.

Osteoporosis is an increasingly common disease as the population ages. It affects both sexes but particularly women after menopause. There are more than a million bone fractures a year in the United States from osteoporosis.

The new finding comes at a time of particular difficulty for doctors trying to treat the disease. Supplements of estrogen, a hormone that dwindles at menopause, prevent bone loss effectively, but a group of researchers recommended last month that estrogen not be prescribed solely to treat or prevent osteoporosis because of the slightly increased risk of breast cancer for those who take it. The Food and Drug Administration has not yet issued an opinion on the issue.

None of the available alternatives to estrogen is ideal, and the new gene found by Decode may help the search for better drugs.

The Decode team, led by Dr. Unnur Styrkarsdottir, scanned the genomes of 207 Icelandic families with at least one member who had both low bone-mineral density and bone fractures. Searching for stretches of DNA that the patients might have inherited in common, the Decode team identified a gene on Chromosome 20 called BMP-2, for bone morphogenetic protein-2.

The BMP-2 gene exists in several versions that differ very slightly in their sequence of DNA units. The Decode team found that three of these versions presented a particular risk for osteoporosis, since 30 percent of their patients had one or another of them. Carrying one of these versions does not guarantee that a person will develop osteoporosis, but it does make the risk three times as great, Dr. Stefansson said.

A major question is how far the Icelandic findings will prove true in other populations. Iceland was populated from the 10th century onward by vikings from Norway who had picked up several wives apiece from Ireland. Though disease genes found in Iceland are always relevant elsewhere, Dr. Stefansson said, the population tends to have fewer variants of each gene. To capture all such variants with a diagnostic test, the gene needs to be studied elsewhere.

Dr. Stefansson said the link between the BMP-2 variants and osteoporosis had been confirmed in a Danish population and was in the process of being validated in the United States in a group of women who have been studied for many years at the University of California at San Francisco.

Experts in bone loss tend to be skeptical of claims that specific genes are involved in osteoporosis, because several past claims have proved exaggerated.

"So this is one more of a long list," said Dr. Lawrence G. Raisz, chairman of the National Osteoporosis Foundation's scientific advisory board. "Not until much larger studies are done can we even guess. But it's exciting."

Apart from the statistical genetics that support the finding, the Decode result is intuitively plausible: the company conducted an impartial search of the whole human genome and alighted on a gene that was known independently to enhance bone formation.

"I love this stuff," said Dr. Gregory Mundy, an osteoporosis expert at the University of Texas Health Science Center, who has been studying drugs that stimulate the BMP-2 gene. "It supports what we have been doing for a number of years and gives it good credence."

An available measure for the weakening of the bones is called the bone mineral density test, or B.M.D. But the test has been criticized because everyone starts to lose bone strength after a certain youthful peak, and many people have a low score but do not get fractures. Bone density, it seems, does not fully reflect bone quality.

Dr. Stefansson said the test based on BMP-2 would be more useful because it was more predictive. Whereas the density test shows the state of a person's current mineral loss, which may or may not lead to fractures, a positive gene test, taken at any time in a person's life, would indicate a definite risk and would dictate that the patient follow a diet and exercise regimen to allay it, Dr. Stefansson said.

Finding the genes that underlie the common diseases was a central justification of the Human Genome Project, the multiyear effort to sequence the genome. By combining knowledge of the sequence with the special features of the Icelandic population, Decode Genetics has taken a substantial lead in tracking down the variant genes that cause such diseases.

So far the company has discovered 15 such genes, Dr. Stefansson said. Descriptions of four have now been published in scientific journals, and an additional 11 are awaiting publication.
nytimes.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (14931)11/3/2003 3:25:16 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793794
 
The "Washington Times" is excerpting a three-parter from Zell Miller's new book. Too bad John isn't here to holler. But he is off doing "God Knows What."
_____________________________________________
How Democrats lost the South
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published November 3, 2003

First of three parts:

Once upon a time, the most successful Democratic leader of them all, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, looked south and said, "I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished."
Today our national Democratic leaders look south and say, "I see one-third of a nation and it can go to hell."
Too harsh? I don't think so. Consider these facts.
In 1960, the state of Georgia gave Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kennedy a higher percentage of its vote than did JFK's home state of Massachusetts. "You can look it up," as Casey Stengel used to say. Only the percentage in Rhode Island was greater.
And Georgians were not disappointed in Kennedy's performance as president. He stared down the Russians over Cuba and cut taxes in a significant way that stimulated the economy. Had he not been assassinated, he could have carried Georgia a second time.
In the last nine presidential elections, except for 1976 when regional pride was a huge factor and native son Jimmy Carter lost only Virginia among the 11 states of the old Confederacy, the scoreboard read like this:
Hubert Humphrey carried Texas in 1968 because of Lyndon Johnson, but no other state of the 11. Carter carried only Georgia in 1980; the others left the incumbent. In 1992, another native son of the South, Bill Clinton, carried Georgia, Arkansas, Louisiana and Tennessee. In 1996, Clinton lost Georgia but picked up Florida and kept Arkansas, Louisiana and Tennessee.
So, four times — 1972, 1984, 1988 and 2000 — the Democratic candidate couldn't carry a single Southern state. Not one. Zero. Zilch. And two times, 1968 and 1980, only one Southern state favored the Democrat.
Either the Democratic Party is not a national party or the candidates were not national candidates. Take your pick.
But there is more to this sorry tale. In the mid-term elections of 2002, not a single national Democratic leader could come to the South to campaign without doing more harm than good.
Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe couldn't come. He was too liberal. Bill Clinton couldn't come. He was too liberal. The party's titular head, Al Gore of Tennessee, who two years earlier had put up a big fat zero in the region, couldn't come. Too liberal. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle couldn't come, nor House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt. Too liberal.
Little has changed, except that Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California has taken the place of Gephardt, which makes it even worse when it comes to romancing the South.
If this is a national party, sushi is our national dish. If this is a national party, surfing has become our national pastime. The people leading our party and those asking to lead our country are like a bunch of naive fraternity boys who don't know what they don't know.
A foreign land
National Democratic leaders know nothing about the modern South. They still see it as a land of magnolias and mint juleps, with the pointy-headed KKK lurking in the background, waiting to burn a cross or lynch blacks and Jews.
They are like Shreve McCannon, the Canadian in William Faulkner's "Absalom, Absalom!" who asks the Southerner Quentin Compson: "Tell me about the South. What's it like there? What do they do there? Why do they live there? Why do they live at all?"
The modern South and rural America are as foreign to our Democratic leaders as some place in Asia or Africa. In fact, more so. I'm sure each could explain the culture and economy of Pakistan, Taiwan or Kenya better than that of the American South.
Average Americans, especially those who follow the job market, know a lot more. They know the South has become a land of great promise with an unlimited future. It isn't rusting and rotting away like a lot of places up North. Recent census statistics on the 100 fastest-growing counties show two-thirds are in the South. Many arrivals are immigrants from the "blue" states.
If you were to separate 15 Southeastern states from the rest of the Union (I'm not advocating that; 11 tried once), their joint economy alone would rank as the third-largest in the world, behind only the United States as a whole and Japan. The population would be far greater than New England. Georgia alone has the 17th-largest economy in the world, larger than Singapore, Hong Kong or Saudi Arabia.
Fiber-optic cable was developed in the South. Atlanta has three times more fiber-optic lines than New York City and is at the most significant fiber-optic intersection in North America. This is the region where the modem was developed and the first mobile satellite uplink was produced. Nearly a third of the Fortune 500 companies have headquarters in the region.
Georgia was the first state to deliver insurance-reimbursable medical care by telecommunication. The New York Times even called it "sophisticated." I was so shocked by the Times calling anything down South sophisticated, I cut out the article and saved it.
We're further along in racial politics than the national Democrats ever could imagine or choose to believe.
Minority Southerners complete high school at the same rate as whites. The percentage of minority Southerners with college degrees tripled in the past 25 years. When Newsweek recently named "the cream of the crop" of high schools, seven of the top 10 were in the South, as were 22 of the top 50.
In 1990, a total of 565 African-Americans held elective office in the 11 states of the old Confederacy. You know what the number was in 2000? Almost 10 times that: 5,579.
In Georgia, which is 70 percent white, seven blacks have been elected statewide. Three have been elected twice. While Sen. Max Cleland and Gov. Roy Barnes, both Democrats, were losing in 2002 with about 47 percent of the vote, state Attorney General Thurbert Baker and Commissioner of Labor Michael Thurmond were getting about 57 percent. They carried predominately white counties overwhelmingly, as they had four years before.
Reprobate uncle
I could continue citing facts like these for pages. As Dizzy Dean once said, "If you've done it, it ain't bragging." The South that Democratic Party leaders have stuck in their minds is gone with the wind.
Democrats in Washington also believe in purity. Like that old Ivory Soap commercial, 99.44 percent pure is all that will do. You cannot agree on just seven of their 10 issues, or even nine. All 10 must be embraced and ostentatiously hugged to your bosom with slobbering kisses.
Remember how Democrats wouldn't even let Pennsylvania Gov. Bob Casey speak at their national convention because he was pro-life? That was keeping the convention "pure."
Democratic leaders are as nervous as a long-tailed cat around a rocking chair when they travel south or get out in rural America. They have no idea what to say or how to act. I once saw one try to eat a boiled shrimp without peeling it. Another one loudly gagged on the salty taste of country ham.
Democrats have never seen a snail darter they didn't want to protect, but sometimes I think the one endangered species they don't want to save is the Southern conservative Democrat.
We're like the alcoholic uncle that families try to hide in a room up in the attic: After the primaries are over and the general election nears, national Democrats trot out the South and show us off — at arm's length — as if to say, "Look how tolerant we are; see how caring? Why, we even allow people 'like this' in our party of the big tent. We still love that strange old reprobate uncle."
As soon as the election is over, the old boy is banished to the attic and ignored for another two years.
Al Gore became only the third Democrat since the Civil War to lose every state in the old Confederacy, plus two border states. George McGovern and Walter Mondale were the others. But they had an excuse: They were crushed in national landslides.
Gore's loss was different. Had he won any state in the old Confederacy or one more border state, he would be president today. Gore lost his home state of Tennessee, Clinton's home state of Arkansas and the Democratic bastion of West Virginia. Even Michael Dukakis — hardly a son of the South — didn't manage to lose there.
The campaign in the South was a mess, and it didn't have to happen. The region had more Democratic governors than Republican governors, and the Democrats held a majority of state legislative chambers. Largely because of the debacle, three Democratic governors also bit the dust in 2002.
In 2004, if we have the same popular-vote split between the Democratic and Republican candidates for president, and if these candidates win the same states, the Electoral College margin for the Republican will be bigger. How much bigger? The Republican would have a majority not by four electors, as George W. Bush did in 2000, but by 18.
A matter of trust
If Southern voters think you don't understand them — or much worse, if they think you look down on them — they will never vote for you. Folks in the South have a simple way of saying this: "He's not one of us." When a politician hears those words, he's already dead.
For Southern voters, the issues you choose to talk about are as important as the positions you take on those issues. Voters may say they're for gun control, and they may well be for gun control, but they simply don't trust anybody who spends too much time talking about it. Clinton understood that. Gore did not.
There was a time when the leaders of my party understood both the policy and political value of cutting taxes. The Kennedy-Johnson tax bill in 1964 cut all brackets. It was passed by an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress as part of an aggressive agenda that included the creation of Medicare.
And how did opponents attack the Kennedy-Johnson proposal? As fiscally irresponsible, because it didn't pay off the debt and was nothing more than a quick fix.
Who was attacking these tax cuts? Why, lo and behold, it was Republicans. It was a political fiasco. Republicans would not regain control of the House or the Senate for a generation, and not until they had reversed their party's position on cutting taxes.
I know from personal experience that you can be a Democrat and have a solid Democratic agenda while cutting taxes and holding the line on spending. When I was governor of Georgia, we cut taxes by almost a billion dollars, reduced spending and cut personnel by 5,000 positions.
That was why I was able to raise the salaries of university professors and public school teachers to the highest in the South and get a lottery passed by the voters in my Bible Belt state. We provided pre-kindergarten education for every 4-year-old; technical training for every high school graduate; and the HOPE Scholarship, which gives a tuition-free college education to every student who maintains a B average.
We Democrats need to remember that talking about an aggressive agenda for America is quite different from getting it done. For us to get it done, the people we serve have to trust us.
Britain's Conservative Party, with towering figures like Margaret Thatcher, dominated that country's politics for 18 years until the Labor Party led by Tony Blair was able to reclaim power. It happened because Blair took his party kicking and screaming toward the middle. The extreme left wing was obliterated and the influence of the trade unions was greatly diminished.
If Clinton had followed through and governed as he campaigned, it would have happened here for the Democrats.
A waiting grave
For many years in the South, the magic formula for the Democratic nominee to win against a Republican has been to get 40 percent of the white vote and 90 percent of the black vote. Increasingly, it has been easier to get the latter.
But the margin of black votes for the Democrats is going to change soon. It has to change only a fraction to make a huge difference. Ralph Reed, the brilliant strategist and former Republican chairman of Georgia, understands this. So do Bush strategist Karl Rove and many other Republicans.
It will be similar to what happened in a couple of governor's races in Virginia in the 1990s. Virginia Republicans figured out that they were not going to get many more white votes. They started quietly going after black support.
George Allen and then James Gilmore each received nearly 20 percent of the black vote, just by reaching out and working for it. Going after this constituency directly cost the Democrats core votes. And, by moderating the look of the Republican Party, it indirectly cost the Democrats swing votes.
Allen and Gilmore crushed Democratic opponents in 1993 and 1997. To his credit, Democrat Mark Warner made sure that didn't happen to him in 2001.
Only time will tell the effect of seeing President Bush surround himself with black Americans like Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson.
I own a fiddle that supposedly belonged to Zeb Vance, the great North Carolina mountaineer elected governor in 1862. Vance opposed much of what Confederate President Jefferson Davis was doing in Richmond. He was too young to be involved in the Whig Party at the height of its popularity, but he had been "born a Whig."
And many thought this moderate, independent-minded, vigorous young leader might be the one to keep the party alive in the South. When Vance was approached to do so in 1865, he was typically direct: "The party is dead and buried and the tombstone placed over it and I don't care to spend the rest of my days mourning at its grave."
Like the Whig Party of the late 1850s, the Democratic Party has become dangerously fragmented. And, considering the present leadership, it can only get worse.
The special-interest groups have come between the Democratic Party and the people. The party is no longer a link to most Americans. Each advocacy group has become more important than the sum of the whole.
It is a rational party no more. It is a national party no more. So, bang the drum slowly and play the fife lowly, for the sun is setting over a waiting grave.

Copyright Zell Miller, 2003. All rights reserved. For information, visit zellmillerbook.com.
washtimes.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (14931)11/3/2003 3:46:22 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793794
 
I am clueless, Nadine. "Go Figure!" The Guardian
________________________________________

Arafat Willing to Enter Peace Talks

Monday November 3, 2003 4:31 AM
By MARK LAVIE
Associated Press Writer

JERUSALEM (AP) - Following an Israeli offer, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat said Sunday he is ready for peace talks, while about 6,000 Palestinians returned to jobs in Israel for the first time in a month.

In an abrupt turnaround last week, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said contacts were already underway with Palestinian officials, adding, ``We are ready to enter negotiations at any time.''

Sharon had previously conditioned talks on a crackdown on violent Palestinian groups responsible for attacks on Israelis.

Asked about Sharon's remarks, Arafat told reporters he would accept an offer for talks.

``There is no official communication, but we are ready,'' he said after meeting a delegation of Greek lawmakers at his headquarters in the West Bank town of Ramallah.

Talks on the U.S.-backed ``road map'' peace plan have been stalled for weeks because of Palestinian bombing attacks and Israeli military operations, along with the Palestinians' inability to form a stable government.

Arafat has often said he is ready to talk peace, but Israel and the United States are boycotting him, charging that he is tainted by terrorism. They insist on dealing with an empowered prime minister.

On Sunday, Arafat formally asked Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia to form a government, and Qureia said he accepted. Palestinian officials said they hoped the work could be completed in a few days.

Arafat's first choice for premier, Mahmoud Abbas, lasted only four months before resigning Sept. 6 after repeated clashes with Arafat over who would run the Palestinian security forces. Abbas also blamed Israel for its failure to stop military operations and ease restrictions.

Qureia has been serving as the head of an emergency 30-day Cabinet. He, too, could not agree with the veteran Palestinian leader over who should be the new interior minister in charge of the armed forces.

The one-month decree runs out Tuesday. Qureia said Sunday he hopes to put together a government that is ``acceptable to everyone,'' but Palestinian officials said the dispute with Arafat over interior minister has not been resolved.

Early Monday, Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi said his group was prepared for a partial truce. ``The only thing which can be offered is to continue resistance but to avoid civilians from both sides, if the enemy accepts that,'' he said.

Reflecting a relative downturn in violence in recent weeks, the Israelis announced on Sunday that they would permit about 15,000 Palestinians to enter the country for work. A military announcement referred to ``confidence-building measures'' decided by the government.

Before dawn, about 6,200 workers over the age of 35 crowded the Erez crossing point from Gaza, submitted to strict security checks and went to jobs in Israel.

The permits arrived at the beginning of the second week of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, when families traditionally splurge for festive evening meals at the end of the daily fast.

``It is a miracle from God because I was running out of money due to the holy month of Ramadan and I was thinking how I would manage to feed my children in this very bad economic situation,'' said Mohammed Salman, a 42-year-old construction worker who has seven children.

However, Salman was unhappy with the security checks, which make a trip from his home in the Jebaliya refugee camp to Tel Aviv last several hours instead of less than an hour.

Strict closures were placed on Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza before the Jewish New Year holiday in September because of increased concerns about attacks. The restrictions, which had been extended through a series of Jewish holidays - and the Oct. 4 suicide bombing at a that killed 21 - prevented nearly 3 million Palestinians from leaving their communities.

Many Palestinian farmers could not reach their fields, badly damaging the annual olive harvest.

Before fighting erupted three years ago, more than 50,000 Palestinians from Gaza and 100,000 from the West Bank worked in Israel. Also Sunday, Sharon traveled to Moscow, where he was expected to talk with President Vladimir Putin about Israel's concerns over Iran's nuclear program.

Iran has pledged to open its nuclear program to unfettered inspections and to suspend uranium enrichment. But Israeli officials fear Iran is covertly acquiring nuclear arms know-how, at least some of it from countries of the former Soviet Union.

guardian.co.uk