Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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: Lane3 who wrote (21892)	12/28/2003 7:18:41 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793575

Major Editorial in "The New York Times" today. CSPAN led with it this morning. Their version of the Republican Party. The New Republicans The Republican Party has been in charge of the national agenda for almost three years now — Democratic majorities in Congress don't crimp George W. Bush's style the way they did for his father or Ronald Reagan when they were in office. We have thus had an unobstructed view of what the 21st-century version of the party looks like. It's very clear this is not the father's G.O.P. The most striking thing about the new Republicanism is the way it embraces big government. The Bush administration has presided over a $400 billion expansion of Medicare entitlements. The party that once campaigned to abolish the Department of Education has produced an education plan that involves unprecedented federal involvement in local public schools. There is talk from the White House about a grandiose new moon shot. Budgetary watchdogs like the Heritage Foundation echo the Republican Senator John McCain's complaint about "drunken sailor" spending. All this has left Democrats spluttering over their own hijacked agenda while old-style Republican conservatives despair. "We have come loose from our moorings," Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska concluded as Congress left Washington at the end of the year. It was probably inevitable that a big central government would look a whole lot better to Republicans when they got control of it. And since this page tends to favor activist government, we have little reason to complain when the Bush administration agrees. What has happened to the Republicans does not seem to reflect an actual shift in ideology; indeed, the philosophic center of this administration is hard to pin down. Yet whatever the reason, some formerly reliably Republican doctrines seem to have disappeared. Federalism is a case in point. After decades of extolling state governments as the best laboratory for new ideas, Republicans in Washington have been resisting state experimentation in areas ranging from pollution control to antispam legislation to prescription drugs. Late-20th-century Republicanism was an uneasy alliance of social conservatives — who were comfortable with government intervention in citizens' lives when it came to morality issues — and libertarians who wanted as little interference as possible. That balancing act ended on 9/11. Since then, the Justice Department has enlarged the intrusive powers of government by, among other things, authorizing "sneak and peek" searches of private homes and suspending traditional civil liberties for certain defendants. The story of the military chaplain who was arrested — apparently mistakenly — as a suspected terrorist and then wound up being publicly humiliated with a public vetting of his sex life seems like a summary of a libertarian's worst fears of an overreaching federal government. The Republicans' newly acquired activism, however, has very clear limits. The modern party's key allegiance is to corporate America, and its tolerance for intrusive federal government ends when big business is involved. If there is a consistent center to the domestic philosophy of the current administration, it is the idea that business is best left alone. The White House and Congress have chipped away at environmental protections that interfere with business interests on everything from clean air to use of federal lands. The administration is determined to deliver on corporate America's goal of cutting overtime pay for white-collar workers. At the same time, it has been tepid in asserting greater federal vigilance over the developing scandal of workplace safety. Republicans have always enjoyed their reputation as the champions of business. The difference now is that they no longer couple their business-friendly attitudes with tight-fistedness. Discretionary spending has jumped 27 percent in the last two years; budget hawks complain Congressional pork is up more than 40 percent. Some of that money has gone to buy the allegiance of wavering party members in the closely divided House and Senate, but much of it is directly tied to the demands of big business. Agriculture subsidies to corporate farms have swollen to new heights, while energy policy has been reduced to a miserable grab bag of special benefits for the oil, gas and coal companies. The last Bush energy bill, which passed the House but died in the Senate, seems likely to be remembered most for the now-famous subsidy for an energy-efficient Hooters restaurant in Louisiana. The two halves of Republican policy no longer fit together. A political majority that believes in big government for people, and little or no government for corporations, has produced an unsustainable fiscal policy that combines spending on social programs with pork and tax cuts for the rich. Massive budget deficits have been the inevitable result. Something similar happened in the Reagan administration. But unlike Ronald Reagan, Mr. Bush has given no hint of a midcourse adjustment to repair revenue flow. In fact, his Congressional leaders talk of still more tax cuts next year to extend the $1.7 trillion already enacted. That would compound deficits, which could reach $5 trillion in the decade. This, it appears, is what compassionate conservatism really means. The conservative part is a stern and sometimes intrusive government to regulate the citizenry, but with a hands-off attitude toward business. The compassionate end involves some large federal programs combined with unending sympathy for the demands of special interests. If only it all added up. nytimes.com

To: Lane3 who wrote (21892)	12/28/2003 1:00:34 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793575

Planned Parenthood's abuse of Christmas By BERNADETTE MALONE Bernadette Malone is the former editorial page editor for The Union Leader and New Hampshire Sunday News. IF THERE EVER were ever a Christmas card I was glad not to receive, it's the one circulating around the country that reads "Choice on Earth." I'd be embarrassed that the twisted sender even had my address. The sender of this "holiday" card (sold for $15 per package over the Internet, dressed up with lots of celebration and fanfare) is Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the country. Of course, "Choice on Earth," a mockery of the Christian gospel message of "Peace on Earth," is also a euphemism for "Abortion on Earth!" Planned Parenthood really ought to be ashamed of itself for marketing this card year after year, putting their own political militancy and fundraising opportunity ahead of sensitivity to the very grim issue of abortion. I oppose abortion "rights," but I understand that many of my friends see abortion as a necessary evil. Most pro-choice people seem to talk about how abortion is "not a good thing," and while it may be OK to have one in a woman's lifetime — or even two — to have three or thirty would be rather appalling. Why would that be appalling, if "choice" were really something to celebrate? There's a twinge of recognition in many sensible pro-choice people: Abortion may be "necessary" in rare occasions, but abortion is killing something human. Planned Parenthood seems so out of touch with these compassionate pro-choice people. Only the most hard-hearted, un-Christian-like person could celebrate abortion — especially over a holiday that commemorates the birth of a baby to a teen who was unmarried when she conceived him, and was in danger of being excommunicated by her traditional Jewish family and fiance because of her pregnancy. Viewing their Christmas card through a Christmas lens, how many women who walk through Planned Parenthood's doors are as terrified as the Virgin Mary must have been in those days before Joseph agreed to go forward with their marriage, even though he knew he wasn't the baby's father? Planned Parenthood seems to relish the opportunity to provide an abortion to these poor desperate girls; just look at how they market themselves to young people on www.teenwire.com — a Web site brilliantly critiqued by columnist Michelle Malkin. By celebrating abortion on a Christmas card, Planned Parenthood refuses to acknowledge that its work — however "necessary" — is a tragedy, not something to brag about. Whether one believes the contents of a woman's womb — with DNA distinct from the mother's and father's — rise to the level of "humanity," one must acknowledge that something ghastly and morose is happening during an abortion. One must acknowledge that the woman undergoing the abortion will struggle the rest of her life with her decision, if she has a conscience and a heart. For Planned Parenthood, however, there's no recognition of the obvious. The group has turned what some might consider a "necessary" evil into a giddy opportunity for laughs: " 'Tis the season. Send the holiday greeting Bill O'Reilly loves to hate," the headline on the group's Web site giggles, referring to the anti-abortion Fox News Channel personality who also has criticized this card. Where's the sensitivity to scared pregnant women? Where's the sensitivity to Holly Patterson, who died three months ago exercising her "choice on earth" by taking the abortion pill given to her by Planned Parenthood in California? Where's the sensitivity to the dismembered babies — or whatever Planned Parenthood thinks those little images that suck their thumbs in sonograms are? The organization linguistically reduces them to "the products of conception." The "Choice on Earth" Christmas card exposes Planned Parenthood as something other than a socially responsible organization concerned with limiting population growth and providing women with safe, affordable abortions, which is how many pro-choice people regard them (until now, I hope). Its Christmas card reveals Planned Parenthood's true stripes as an organization that has lost all sensitivity to the life-and-death issue it promotes; all sensitivity to the women it purports to serve; and certainly, all sensitivity to the values of Christmas and those who celebrate it. theunionleader.com

To: Lane3 who wrote (21892)	12/28/2003 7:40:01 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793575

It was presented as a classic example of bias to the point of supporting the propaganda of the enemy I think Sullivan presented it his 'award' for its functional behavior, i.e. parroting enemy propaganda, not so much for its intent. He sees bias, and so do I. I should note that bias does not have to be conscious to be bias, and I think most of it is not. You can get an awful lot of bias by mixing unquestioned assumptions together with received frameworks, pack journalism, and large dashes of laziness and timidity.