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 (15043)11/3/2003 8:08:38 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793600
 
I suspect even more than one

Never underestimate the effect on "43" of his walking through ground zero, with the stink and the smoke rising around him, while totally distraught workers walked up to him and said, "you get those bastards!"

And then meeting for hours later with the Families of the dead.

That was a day in Hell for him. He will never, never forget it. And I am sure it affects his decisions.



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (15043)11/3/2003 9:00:00 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793600
 
The group that proposed this "Vision" might as well face reality and join the Republican Party. Their Dem Candidates reject the policies they are proposing.
_______________________________________


RONALD BROWNSTEIN / WASHINGTON OUTLOOK

Democratic Vision of a Strong, Free-Trading, Interventionist U.S.
Ronald Brownstein

November 3, 2003

Talk about swimming upstream.

Last week, an impressive group of centrist Democratic foreign policy thinkers released a thoughtful document urging the party to adopt a "progressive internationalism" built around a strong defense, free trade and American leadership through international alliances "to shape a world in which the values of liberal democracy increasingly hold sway."

As a long-term compass, the manifesto — "Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy" — offers Democrats much sound guidance.

Signed by prominent party thinkers like Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, and Iraq expert Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution, the paper updates for a new century the vision advanced by Democratic presidents like Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman. In that tradition, the authors envision an America that expands its own security by working with allies to encourage the spread of trade and freedom around the globe — but defends its interests with force when threatened.

The open question is whether the party has much interest now in resurrecting that legacy, or even whether it makes sense politically to do so.

The manifesto's underlying political calculation is that a Democrat must demonstrate strength as commander in chief to beat President Bush next year. But much of the Democratic left believes that if conditions in Iraq remain unsettled, Americans may prize prudence more than strength in their next president.

Probably the most important bet Democrats will place this winter will be whether to pick a nominee who symbolizes resolve in the use of military force (say Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri), or one whose primary message is caution about new interventions (like former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean).

As the violence in Iraq has escalated, the Democrats' balance of power has tilted sharply toward those selling caution.

Polls show the persistent instability in Iraq has raised doubts among Americans across the political spectrum about the administration's strategy. But among Democrats, those doubts are especially intense: In a poll released last week, one-third of rank-and-file Democrats said the U.S. should withdraw all its troops from Iraq. Nearly another 40% of Democrats said the U.S. should at least reduce its forces.

In that gale, even the Democratic presidential contenders who backed the war are whispering their support for maintaining the American presence in Iraq, while all the candidates are loudly demanding that Bush shift more of the responsibility for securing and rebuilding Iraq to other nations. It's not quite George S. McGovern's "Come Home America" refrain during Vietnam, but the debate is drifting in that direction.

The manifesto's authors want to shift the party toward an agenda that pursues international cooperation more energetically than Bush, but still acknowledges that America must often bear the greatest responsibility for confronting problems like Iraq. They believe, justifiably, that the challenge for Democrats in 2004 may be to oppose the way Bush has exercised force without sliding back into the reflexive hostility toward the use of force that characterized the party after Vietnam.

The manifesto aims to prove it is possible to strike that balance. It accepts three pillars of Bush's thinking on international security: that the war against terrorism is a long-term, consuming challenge like the Cold War; that preventing alliances between terrorists and rogue states with weapons of mass destruction "is one of the paramount challenges of our time"; and that the war was justified because Saddam Hussein "posed a grave danger to America."

Yet the authors maintain Bush's approach has "weakened America's security." They argue Bush has been too unilateral, too quick to emphasize military force over the economic and cultural tools in America's arsenal, too slow in fortifying defenses against terrorism at home, and too ideological in pursuing massive tax cuts when Washington faces huge bills to meet its new security demands.

They want Democrats to reinvigorate alliances, spend more on defense (while accelerating military reform), push faster to lower trade barriers (especially with Arab nations), work harder to encourage democratic reform in the Mideast, and spend more on homeland security.

Every Democratic presidential candidate, even Dean, echoes much of this thinking, especially the priority on strengthening alliances. But the authors' Roosevelt-like vision of a muscular, free-trading, interventionist America isn't fully shared by any of the Democratic contenders except Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who is languishing in the polls. And by endorsing the war in Iraq, the authors have placed themselves on the retreating side of a civil war in the party.

It's clear that many Democratic activists want a nominee who will argue that the war in Iraq has made America less safe — a view that Dean, retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark and possibly even Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts would carry into the general election.

The authors of the "Progressive Internationalism" blueprint are convinced that's a formula for electoral suicide. But with car bombs and steady casualties dominating the headlines from Iraq, it's no longer clear, even to some of the war's most ardent supporters, that skepticism about the invasion and occupation is a guaranteed political loser.

"You tell me what happens in Iraq, I'll tell you whether [opposition to the war] is good or bad for the Democrats," says Republican strategist Bill Kristol, one of the war's leading proponents. "The more I think about this election, the more it hinges on what happens on the ground in Iraq and around the world rather than the tactics of Bush or the Democrats. I think it has become a referendum on the war in Iraq, and more broadly on the Bush doctrine — his response to Sept. 11."

Ronald Brownstein's column appears every Monday. See current and past columns on The Times' Web site at latimes.com .



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (15043)11/3/2003 9:45:40 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793600
 
Too bad John isn't around to get my needle. I really wonder how long some of these SS Professors can keep up their attitude. They think they can take a kid and reprogram him into a militant Socialist without an outcry from the public and the kids
_________________________________________________

On campus: Free speech for you but not for me? Conservative students say they're marginalized
By Mary Beth Marklein
USA TODAY

Most college presidents argue that their campuses and classrooms encourage the free exchange of ideas. Where else but here, they say, can difficult issues be debated?

But as campus officials look for ways to accommodate the growing diversity of their student bodies, an increasingly vocal number of students -- most of them white and predominantly conservative or Christian -- say there is little room for their opinions and beliefs.

On campuses large and small, public and private, students describe a culture in which freshmen are encouraged, if not required, to attend diversity programs that portray white males as oppressors. It's a culture in which students can be punished if their choice of words offends a classmate, and campus groups must promise they won't discriminate on the basis of religion or sexual orientation -- even if theirs is a Christian club that doesn't condone homosexuality.

Colleges ''seek to privilege one predominantly leftist point of view,'' says Thor Halvorssen of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a Philadelphia-based non-profit founded four years ago. ''Universities should welcome all perspectives, no matter where on the political spectrum.''

Increasingly, with financial and legal backing from a loose national network of conservative, religious and civil liberties groups, those students are fighting back.

In April, two students sued Shippensburg University in Shippensburg, Pa., arguing that several parts of the school's conduct code and diversity policies intimidated them into keeping silent about their conservative politics and beliefs. Since then, other students have sued Texas Tech University in Lubbock and a California community college. All three lawsuits are part of FIRE's campaign to abolish campus speech codes.

Christian student groups also have gone to court on similar First Amendment grounds, the most recent case filed last month against the University of Minnesota.

On about 90 campuses, meanwhile, students have joined Students for Academic Freedom, created four months ago by leftist turned conservative activist David Horowitz. They argue that campuses are overwhelmingly liberal and demand that administrations seek a more balanced point of view among faculty and in programs such as lecture series.

On some campuses, specific incidents have prompted an uproar. A senior at California Polytechnic State University-San Luis Obispo sued campus officials in September, on a claim that he was unfairly punished after he tried to post a flier promoting a speech by a black author whose conservative ideas a group of black students found offensive. At Citrus College in California, a speech instructor offered extra credit to students if they wrote to President Bush protesting the war in Iraq.

But many students, like recent Shippensburg University graduate Ellen Wray, say they are simply frustrated by policies that dismiss or ignore conservative points of view.

''I wanted to help all the students that felt oppressed like I did,'' says Wray, 22, who sued the school. ''All my professors were liberal except one, and he retired the first year I was there.'' After professors belittled her, ''I finally just stopped raising my hand.'' She works for a Republican organization in Washington, D.C.

The issue is gaining traction beyond campus borders. Colorado lawmakers are considering a bill that would encourage colleges to ensure ''intellectual diversity'' -- that is, that all viewpoints are represented. Nationally, nearly 20 House Republicans co-sponsored a similar bill introduced last week. A Senate education committee is looking into the subject, too.

'Dry-cleaned' ideas

Higher-education officials balk at the notion of lawmakers meddling with faculty or campus decisions. ''For every anecdote on one side of the political spectrum, there can be found an anecdote on the other,'' says Jonathan Knight, a spokesman with the American Association of University Professors.

Few dispute the notion that faculty tend to be liberal as a group -- certainly more liberal than many of their students. Shippensburg draws most of its student body from largely Republican central Pennsylvania. And a survey out this month by Harvard's Institute of Politics found that 38% of students identify themselves as independents, compared with 31% Republican and 27% Democrats.

Some professors stress that part of their job is to challenge students to question their beliefs. ''We're in the business of helping people become critical thinkers,'' says Shippensburg sociology professor Debra Cornelius. Though she acknowledges her own liberal politics, she says, ''We on a daily basis struggle with . . . making sure people behave in a tolerant way (without) chilling speech.''

But those who see a bias in higher education say the public has a right to know what goes on inside the ivory tower.

''Legislators, taxpayers, tuition payers, and donors have no idea what their dollars are underwriting,'' says Luann Wright, the parent of a senior at the University of California-San Diego. So outraged was she by her son's 2001 freshman writing syllabus -- ''basically the whole thrust was on the toxicity of the white race,'' she says -- that she created a non-profit Web site (noindoctrination.org) where students can anonymously post incidents of bias on their campuses.

Conservative students aren't the only ones feeling pinched. In May, Wesleyan University President Douglas Bennet banned a long-standing tradition, particularly popular among gay rights groups, of writing messages in chalk on sidewalks. Some faculty were targeted by name, and increasingly vulgar obscenities, sexual and racial slurs had spurred complaints.

But the most well-oiled attack is driven by conservative and Christian students, ''who basically feel they're targets for getting their minds dry-cleaned to think the right way,'' says Jordan Lorence, a litigator for the Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona Christian organization involved in several lawsuits.

Speech codes and other restrictions became popular in the late 1980s and early 1990s as campuses looked for ways to address the growing number of racial minorities on campus, along with concerns about sexual harassment. By the mid-1990s, after several courts ruled that certain campus speech bans were unconstitutional, many schools withdrew those policies.

Since then, racial slurs and other incidents have persisted. In 2001, the latest year for which statistics are available, the FBI received 987 reports of hate crimes and incidents at schools and college campuses -- about 10% of all hate incidents that year.

And ''the level of discourse in the outside world has become more confrontational,'' says Roger Williams University Provost Edward Kavanagh, whose Bristol, R.I., campus temporarily froze funding for a College Republicans newspaper this month. Kavanagh objected to its Sept. 30 edition, which featured a series of articles opposed to homosexuality, including a description of a crime in which a seventh-grade boy was raped and sodomized. He vowed to strengthen oversight of future publications.

But junior Jason Mattera, 20, an editor of the paper, says, ''You're not automatically a bigot if you don't agree with (homosexuality). What they're essentially doing is silencing the only conservative voice here on campus.''

The administrative response is typical, some say. Indeed, many schools, including the University of Virginia and Harvard Law School, created task forces in the past year in response to similar incidents on their campuses.

In the process, says David French, the lawyer representing the Shippensburg students, speech codes have reappeared -- though often disguised as anti-harassment statements or non-discrimination policies.

Today, FIRE estimates that two-thirds of colleges have speech codes. Other experts disagree: In a recent study of 100 randomly selected institutions, George Mason University professor Jon Gould found that 30% of institutions have a policy that restricts hate speech, but less than 10% would be unconstitutional.

Campuses say civility is the goal

Campus officials say their goal is not to stifle students but to promote civil discourse. ''What we attempt to do is try to create a civil democracy, where everybody is respected,'' Shippensburg President Anthony Ceddia says.

Since 1990, he says, the campus has pledged a commitment to racial tolerance, cultural diversity and social justice, and since 2000, it has required students to take a course that meets a diversity requirement. Students also are strongly encouraged to attend university-funded ''Art of Being'' programs, which highlight a particular culture -- Jewish, African-American and Asian-American were among those offered this semester.

Some students welcome the programs. In a column in the student newspaper, opinion editor Christopher Kirkhoff lauded Ceddia for ''stressing the danger of prejudice and the administration's intolerance'' for homophobia, which he said ''is running rampant on this campus.''

But French says that, taken together, a number of Shippensburg's campus policies, while never enforced, dampened his clients' ability to express themselves. One sentence in the conduct code, for example, suggests that student expression should not ''provoke, harass, intimidate or harm'' another. But ''if you're part of an intellectual minority, it's difficult for your speech not to provoke,'' he says.

The Bush administration, too, has weighed in. Key officials notified colleges and universities in August that federal civil rights regulations ''do not require or prescribe speech, conduct, or harassment codes that impair the exercise of rights protected under the First Amendment.''

For now, at least, the courts appear to side with the students. A U.S. district judge ruled last year that a policy at the University of Houston unfairly gave administrators ''unfettered discretion'' in deciding what events could be held outside designated speech zones on campus. In June, administrators said they would drop some restrictions and pay $93,000 in attorneys' fees to settle a lawsuit by student abortion protesters.

And in September, a U.S. district judge said Shippensburg's conduct codes, though well-intentioned, ''could certainly be used to truncate debate and free expression by students.'' He encouraged campus administrators to revise seven sentences in their policies.

The anti-speech-code crowd hopes the momentum will continue as more students join the fight. ''Now they know they can win,'' FIRE's Halvorssen says.

But for their part, some students say they have more modest goals. ''I'm not looking to pick a fight,'' says Joe Jones, 22, a senior at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and member of a Christian group. ''I want the freedom to say what I want to say."

usatoday.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (15043)11/4/2003 2:36:16 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793600
 
New York Times Imitates ScrappleFace

"The latest figures on decreased jobless claims and a huge increase in third-quarter Gross Domestic Product (GDP) signal a continuation of the Clinton-Gore economic boom, according to an expert."--ScrappleFace.com, Oct. 31

"Adding to the Democrats' challenge is a fundamental economic reality that existed well before household and business spending soared this summer. As much as the economy weakened in the last three years, it was coming off such a high that it remains stronger by most measures than in the early 1990's. That high was reached on Mr. Clinton's watch, but it could help Mr. Bush next year."--New York Times, Nov. 2

Defeatist Déjà Vu

"How We Botched the German Occupation"--headline, Saturday Evening Post, Jan. 26, 1946 (263 days after V-E Day)

"Blueprint for a Mess: How the Bush administration's prewar planners bungled postwar Iraq."--headline and Web blurb, New York Times magazine, Nov. 2, 2003 (185 days after President Bush declared the end of "major combat operations")
opinionjournal.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (15043)11/4/2003 4:03:49 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 793600
 
Interesting Sullivan this morning.
____________________________________

THE 9/11 ELECTION: I keep getting emails like the following:
"If any of the Democrats want to win, they will need to get my vote. I understand that this sort of statement will ring of self-grandeur in such a way that it may dissuade you from reading further, but consider this:

Unlike in your email of the day, I knew no one who died in September 11th. But nonetheless, I consider myself in many ways a "September 11th Republican." That is, before September 11th, I was a passionate Democrat. I voted for Clinton twice, campaigned on behalf of Al Gore (despite the fact that the man had no personal charisma). And in my heart, I guess I sort of want to be a Democrat, primarily because all of my friends are, and I want them to like me. And I want to think of myself as a caring humanitarian (which embodies liberalism at its best) rather than a calculated realist.

But I can't. Not after September 11th. Not with the raving lunacy that has captured the Democratic party. Not when National Security is considered dispensable, if considered at all. Not when the Democrats fault George Bush for creating French obstruction. Not when the Democrats secretly applaud American deaths because it proves George Bush is "wrong." Not for a party that hates the South, the West, anything not New York (I'm from New York, so I can say that) or San Francisco, or anyone who feels proud flying the American flag. And above all else, not for a party that panders to the protesters who waive signs blaming "the Zionists" for the world's ills. No. This former Democrat, this September 11th Republican, will vote for George Bush."

Now I'm not sure how widespread this feeling is, but I have little doubt that the key issue in the next election will be a relatively simple one: do you approve or disapprove of the transformation of American foreign policy in the wake of 9/11? Iraq will be factored into that, but I don't think trouble there will necessarily sink the president for one simple reason.

The issue next November will not be: were we wrong to go after Saddam? It will be: what would either candidate do now? How do we maintain pressure on the threats that beset us? Do we decide that Bush's policy is fundamentally mistaken, that we are not as much at risk as we thought, that we can return to what John Kerry has called a "law enforcement" approach to terror, rather than outright warfare against both terrorism and its sponsoring states? Or do we stick with the guy who led us in those terrible post-9/11 months and won our trust at the time? Maybe memories will have faded by then - but I still think they won't have faded enough for a Dean-style isolationism or Kerry-style legalism to do well. This presidential election will be the first since 9/11. It will be about 9/11. And it will be critical.
- 12:03:32 AM
andrewsullivan.com