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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: PROLIFE who wrote (19831)5/12/2007 12:12:47 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
The Beauty Of Doing What's Right
by Gary Bauer (More by this author)

Posted: 05/11/2007
Remember Tara Conner?

Last December, the reigning Miss U.S.A. became tabloid fodder when it was revealed that she had spent most of her reign gallivanting about New York City, binge drinking, snorting cocaine and engaging in numerous sexual trysts, all the while skipping out on scheduled appearances and other pageant obligations.

When Conner's indiscretions became public, Miss U.S.A. co-owner Donald Trump's initial reaction was to say, "You're fired!" But, after talking with Conner, Trump insisted that while the wayward beauty queen had made some "very, very bad choices," she was "a good person" who deserved "a second chance." A teary-eyed Conner pledged not to "let him down," and contritely declared that she'd be entering that last refuge of the disgraced celebrity: addiction rehab.

Contrast the compassionate treatment of Conne r with that shown to Sara Lawrence, who was recently forced to make a very difficult decision after becoming pregnant during her reign as Miss Jamaica World.

Mickey Haughton-James, Miss Jamaica World's franchise holder, was rather less understanding than Trump, scolding Lawrence, who she said had "made an error of judgment and is now facing up to the consequences..." Haughton-James also said Lawrence would have to give up her tiara because "...her actions could potentially harm the tradition that is the Miss Jamaica World pageant and past and future winners."

Lawrence was offered an alternative, however, that would have allowed her to retain her title: Have an abortion.

Haughton-James alluded to this option when she told Ms. Lawrence that keeping her crown and carrying the baby to term were "incompatible." She also stated that aborting the child was a path most other girls would choose.

It is not surprising that the Miss World pageant would be less than
elated about the prospect of being represented by an unmarried pregnant woman. Beauty pageant contestants are, after all, marketed as role models for young girls, and as women possessing that rare combination of beauty, intelligence, poise and virtue. The Miss World Pageant, for instance, promotes itself: "as not solely about beautiful young women but a pageant [that] assist[s] and promotes the growth and development of the individual's skills, self-esteem and provides a greater sense of worth for the nation's young women."

It is for this reason that most pageants historically barred women who had ever been pregnant from competing.

In recent years, however, many pageants have amended their rules about pregnancy. Today, most beauty competitions, including Miss World, merely exclude women who have ever given birth.

All this means young pageant hopefuls who become pregnant have an implicit, and significant, incentive to abort.

It also begs the question: Does Miss World really believe that urging young women to abort unplanned pregnancies helps "promote the growth and development of the individual's skills, self-esteem and provide a greater sense of worth for the nation's young women"?

Of course, the pageant world often undercuts its own mission when it comes to sexual issues. Consider Erika Harold, Miss America 2003. Harold was ordered by Miss America officials not to speak publicly about sexual abstinence, a cause that she had been advocating among teenage girls in her home state of Illinois.

The pageant suggested that she change her platform to one more
"pertinent" to a national audience. Perhaps they would have preferred that she had talked about world peace ("If we all gave up just one meal a day, we could feed the entire world!") or a "sexier" topic, like the imminent threat of global warming.

But in a time when, according to research by the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation, 83% of television programs directed at adolescents contain sexual content, one can't help but imagine how inspiring it would have been to have seen a beautiful, articulate young woman sharing the message of sexual purity to millions of impressionable young girls.

Instead, the pageant world-rather than embracing a young woman who wanted to address a specific problem with candor-chose to sweep the pertinent issue of personal sexual ethics under the proverbial rug.

There is a silver lining to Sara Lawrence's sad tale. She recently
decided against having an abortion and will step down as Miss Jamaica World. Lawrence came to the decision after, as she put it, "having taken a deeply personal decision to face up to my responsibilities as one who expects to become a mother later this year."

Ms. Lawrence also stated, with the poise that any beauty competition should be proud of, "I believe that it is my moral obligation to do what I believe to be ethically correct and will follow what I believe to be right."

In the end, against the implicit advice of pageant promoters and the prevailing values of the popular culture, Lawrence rejected fame and fortune and instead followed her conscience and chose life.

Beauty pageant winners often wax philosophical when discussing what they hope to accomplish as goodwill ambassadors for their state and country. But what Miss Lawrence will accomplish on the day she first holds her baby will far surpass any public relations campaign pageant directors could have imagined.

And, as Americans prepare to give thanks for the unique love only
mothers can bestow, Miss Lawrence has already demonstrated that true love, and true beauty, begins with doing what's right.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bauer, a 2000 candidate for president, is chairman of Campaign for Working Families and president of American Values.

humanevents.com



To: PROLIFE who wrote (19831)5/18/2007 10:37:45 AM
From: Mr. Palau  Respond to of 71588
 
more on the gw/teddy immigration deal

"Yesterday, the two Cabinet secretaries -- both of whom have been subjects of Kennedy broadsides in the past -- lauded the Democrats' aging lion as the one indispensable player in the negotiating process.

"He's awesome," gushed Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff , as he left a news conference announcing the bipartisan agreement. "I'd say he was one of the critical leaders in putting together this deal."

nice bonus photo of the fruits of bipartisanship as well

boston.com



To: PROLIFE who wrote (19831)2/22/2008 11:17:36 PM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 71588
 
The Bush Secrecy Myth
By GABRIEL SCHOENFELD
February 22, 2008; Page A15

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is now holding up an urgently needed revision to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The reason she and her colleagues cite is the Bush administration's alleged penchant for trampling privacy rights and excessive secrecy.

This has become something of a mantra in left-leaning circles. Helen Thomas, who has covered the White House since John F. Kennedy was president, calls the Bush administration "the most secretive administration I have ever covered." Barack Obama sees it as "one of the most secretive administrations in our history."

Has the Bush administration really been so secretive? And if so, is that such a bad thing?

Our democracy faces a challenging conundrum. On the one hand, openness is an essential prerequisite of self-government. The electorate depends on the free flow of information to make considered choices about policies and the political leaders who will carry them out.

On the other hand, secrecy is an equally essential prerequisite of self-governance. To be effective, even the ordinary business of democratic rule -- from the development of policies to the selection of personnel -- must often take place behind closed doors. When one turns to the extraordinary business of democratic governance -- self-preservation carried out through the conduct of foreign policy and the waging of war -- the imperative of secrecy becomes a matter of survival.

This is not an ordinary time. Yet in the midst of our war on terror, elements of the press and a host of interest groups have been waging a battle for ever more openness. Most of the tactics and stratagems of this movement are legitimate. Whatever attitude one might take toward the underlying policy disputes, the particular methods in use -- petitioning Congress and filing suits -- are part and parcel of our political and judicial system.

But there is an element of this war on secrecy that is extra-legal, and that has already endangered American security: namely, leaks of classified information to the press.

Ever since the Pentagon Papers case in 1971, which involved leaked information about U.S. involvement in Vietnam, leaks have become a prominent feature of the Washington landscape. But as the "most secretive administration in our history" goes through its final year, the problem has become particularly acute. The Bush administration has been plagued by leak after leak. The reasons are not difficult to comprehend.

As in the Nixon era, America today is a country deeply divided over a controversial war. Today, as then, there is no shortage of disgruntled present and former government employees willing to dump secret documents into the public domain. Today, as then, these malefactors are aided by a press eager to glorify their actions.

But things have fundamentally changed in the decades that have elapsed, and for the worse. The Vietnam War documents that former Pentagon and State Department official Daniel Ellsberg provided to the New York Times in 1971, however sensitive, were all historical in nature. Not one page in the multi-volume collection of classified documents was written after 1968.

Today, the secrets that are routinely leaked to the press typically concern operational intelligence, i.e., secrets about ongoing intelligence programs. The New York Times's publication in 2006 of details of the joint CIA-Treasury program to monitor al Qaeda financial transactions is one of the most egregious cases in point. But one could cite many other damaging leaks.

Such unauthorized disclosures of classified information have the direct and obvious effect of conveying vital information to America's adversaries. They have a range of harmful second-order effects as well.

The ever-present possibility of disclosure throws a wrench into the machinery of deliberation. In this environment, discussion of policy alternatives must be confined to small groups of reliable officials, and certain policy alternatives cannot be discussed at all lest their disclosure generate outrage.

Also, foreign governments cannot depend upon the U.S. to protect their secrets, and therefore cannot share them. When that happens, communication even among friendly states, a vital part of intelligence, dries up.

What's more, leaks aimed at influencing policy subvert the rule of law and the democratic process. Decision-making that is supposed to be the work of a democratically elected government is supplanted by the decision-making of anonymous officials and Pulitzer-Prize seeking journalists -- individuals who have private agendas.

This state of affairs -- government policy hijacked by leakers, government decision-making paralyzed by the fear of leaks and the repercussion of leaks -- is exceptionally dangerous. And worse is yet to come.

Already the Internet hosts an organization called wikileaks.org, whose purpose is to develop "an uncensorable version of Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis" that will combine "the protection and anonymity of cutting-edge cryptographic technologies. . . . Anybody can post comments to it. No technical knowledge is required." A federal judge has been trying to shut down wikileaks for its role in publishing stolen corporate documents, but mirror sites are popping up all over the Web containing an identical array of material.

What is to be done? Richard Nixon created the "plumbers" unit to try stop leaks. In short order its actions mushroomed into a scandal that brought down his presidency. But however much Nixon's misdeeds discredited the idea, plugging leaks remains a legitimate function of government. Indeed, acting through the democratic process, the American people have assigned their elected officials the responsibility of keeping secret the information vital to their safety.

The Bush administration has been lambasted for excessive secrecy. But its persistently passive attitude toward the torrent of leaks that have sprung from its intelligence and national-security apparatus make it one of the country's least-secretive administrations. It would be much better for the country if the administration took seriously the dangers of transparency in an age when the revelation of secrets can get us killed by the thousands. This would involve not only the vigorous enforcement of existing laws, but exercising leadership to change a culture in which leakers are hailed by the press as "whistleblowers," even as they flout their oaths of office and violate the law.

Mr. Schoenfeld, senior editor of Commentary, writes daily for connectingthedots.us.com.

online.wsj.com