This came to me via email. Not sure of who the writer was but it does make for fun fodder! Here the email:
Dear President Bush:
Congratulations on your victory over all us non-evangelicals. Actually, we're a bit ticked off here in California, so we're leaving. California will now be its own country. And we're taking all of the Blue States with us. In case you are not aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, and all of the Northeast. We spoke to God, and she agrees that the split will be beneficial to almost everybody, and especially to us in the new country of California. In fact, God is so excited about it, she's going to shift the whole country at 4:30 PM EST this Friday. Therefore, please let everyone know they need to be back in their states by then.
So you get Texas and all the former slave states. We get the Governator, stem cell research and the best beaches. We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay. We get the Statue of Liberty. You get Opryland. We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom. We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss. We get 85% of America's venture capitol and entrepreneurs. You get all the technological innovation in Alabama. We get two-thirds of the tax revenue, and you get to make the Red States pay their fair share. Since our divorce rate is 22% lower than the Christian coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms to support, and we know how much you like that. Did I mention we produce about 70% of the nation's veggies? But heck, the only greens the Bible-thumpers eat are the pickles on their Big Macs. Oh yeah, another thing, Don't plan on serving California wine at your state dinners. From now on it's imported French wine for you.
(Ouch, bet that hurts!)
Just so we're clear, the country of California will be pro-choice and anti-war. Speaking of war, we're going to want all Blue State citizens back from Iraq. If you need people to fight, just ask your evangelicals. They have tons of kids they're willing to send off to their deaths for absolutely no purpose. And they don't care if you don't show pictures of their kids caskets coming home. Anyway, we wish you all the best in the next four years and we hope, really hope, you find those weapons of mass destruction. Sincerely. Soon.
With the Blue States in hand, the Democrats have firm control of 80% of the country's fresh water, over 90% of our pineapple and lettuce, 92% of all fresh fruit production, 93% of the artichoke production, 95% of America's export quality wines, 90% of all cheese production, 90% of the high tech industry, most of the US low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven sister schools, plus Harvard, Yale, Amherst, Stanford, Berkeley, CalTech and MIT. We can live simply but well.
The Red States, on the other hand, now have to cope with 88% of all obese Americans (and their projected health care cost spike), 92% of all US mosquitoes, nearly 100% of all tornadoes, 90% of all hurricanes, 99% of all Southern Baptists, 100% of all Televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia. A high price to pay for controlling the presidency. Additionally, 38% of those in the Red States believe Jonah was actually eaten by a whale, 62% believe life is sacred unless we're talking about the death penalty or gun laws, 44% believe that evolution is just a theory, 53% that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 and - most hard to grasp - 61% that Bush is a person of moral conviction.
Sincerely,
California
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
The Government's Need For Student Data. The Education Department Has Gone Mad
Alma Mater As Big Brother
THE WASHINGTON POST EDITRORIAL
By Katherine Haley Will
Tuesday, March 29, 2005; Page A15
A proposal by the Education Department would force every college and university in America to report all their students' Social Security numbers and other information about each individual -- including credits earned, degree plan, race and ethnicity, and grants and loans received -- to a national databank. The government will record every student, regardless of whether he or she receives federal aid, in the databank.
The government's plan is to track students individually and in full detail as they complete their post-secondary education. The threat to our students' privacy is of grave concern, and the government has not satisfactorily explained why it wants to collect individual information.
Researchers at the Education Department say this mammoth project would give them better information on graduation rates and what students pay for college. Perhaps this would be interesting information to collect, but at what cost to individual privacy? At what cost in time and effort to the government and the educational institutions? As a college president who has spent her career in higher education, I know that a system is already in place to collect statistics. This system meets the government's need to inform public policy without intruding on students' privacy. Since 1992 every college or university whose students receive federal financial aid has been required to submit summary data on enrollment, student aid, graduation rates and other matters via the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.
Under the proposal that will soon be submitted to Congress, instead of aggregate statistics, colleges and universities would be required to feed data on each student to the Education Department's National Center for Education Statistics. Should an institution refuse, the government could take away federal grants, loans and work-study funds from every student at the college, a penalty that would fall on students in need while leaving more affluent students unaffected.
Such a proposal is unacceptable, and we should work hard to defeat it. The creation of a gigantic database containing educational records and other personal data on millions would be a costly and troubling assault on privacy. This information could all too easily be shared with other government agencies or even with the private sector.
The potential for abuse of power and violation of civil liberties is immense. The database would begin with 15 million-plus records of students in the first year and grow. These student records would be held by the federal government for at least the life of the student.
Collecting and compiling data for such a system would increase college and university costs for hardware, staffing and training. Such costs would join surging health care and energy expenses in pushing tuitions up. Federal officials have shown no compelling public policy need that outweighs Americans' basic expectations of privacy. The Education Department's proposal to gather unprecedented amounts of personal data on individual students is dangerous and poorly conceived. Congress must reject this measure.
The writer is president of Gettysburg College.
THE WASHINGTON POST EDITRORIAL
By Katherine Haley Will
Tuesday, March 29, 2005; Page A15
A proposal by the Education Department would force every college and university in America to report all their students' Social Security numbers and other information about each individual -- including credits earned, degree plan, race and ethnicity, and grants and loans received -- to a national databank. The government will record every student, regardless of whether he or she receives federal aid, in the databank.
The government's plan is to track students individually and in full detail as they complete their post-secondary education. The threat to our students' privacy is of grave concern, and the government has not satisfactorily explained why it wants to collect individual information.
Researchers at the Education Department say this mammoth project would give them better information on graduation rates and what students pay for college. Perhaps this would be interesting information to collect, but at what cost to individual privacy? At what cost in time and effort to the government and the educational institutions? As a college president who has spent her career in higher education, I know that a system is already in place to collect statistics. This system meets the government's need to inform public policy without intruding on students' privacy. Since 1992 every college or university whose students receive federal financial aid has been required to submit summary data on enrollment, student aid, graduation rates and other matters via the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.
Under the proposal that will soon be submitted to Congress, instead of aggregate statistics, colleges and universities would be required to feed data on each student to the Education Department's National Center for Education Statistics. Should an institution refuse, the government could take away federal grants, loans and work-study funds from every student at the college, a penalty that would fall on students in need while leaving more affluent students unaffected.
Such a proposal is unacceptable, and we should work hard to defeat it. The creation of a gigantic database containing educational records and other personal data on millions would be a costly and troubling assault on privacy. This information could all too easily be shared with other government agencies or even with the private sector.
The potential for abuse of power and violation of civil liberties is immense. The database would begin with 15 million-plus records of students in the first year and grow. These student records would be held by the federal government for at least the life of the student.
Collecting and compiling data for such a system would increase college and university costs for hardware, staffing and training. Such costs would join surging health care and energy expenses in pushing tuitions up. Federal officials have shown no compelling public policy need that outweighs Americans' basic expectations of privacy. The Education Department's proposal to gather unprecedented amounts of personal data on individual students is dangerous and poorly conceived. Congress must reject this measure.
The writer is president of Gettysburg College.
The U.S. Domestic Extremists
Scary indeed. I have been thinking about recents events (during and after W"s election) and thinking, "Am I the only one who is scared as hell about these religious extrenist and their effect on our governing bodies? Finally, someon spoke out expressing my angst precisely. That person is Paul Krugman; here the COLUMN:
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The New York Times
What's Going On?
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 29, 2005
Democratic societies have a hard time dealing with extremists in their midst. The desire to show respect for other people's beliefs all too easily turns into denial: nobody wants to talk about the threat posed by those whose beliefs include contempt for democracy itself.
We can see this failing clearly in other countries. In the Netherlands, for example, a culture of tolerance led the nation to ignore the growing influence of Islamic extremists until they turned murderous.
But it's also true of the United States, where dangerous extremists belong to the majority religion and the majority ethnic group, and wield great political influence.
Before he saw the polls, Tom DeLay declared that "one thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America." Now he and his party, shocked by the public's negative reaction to their meddling, want to move on. But we shouldn't let them. The Schiavo case is, indeed, a chance to highlight what's going on in America.
One thing that's going on is a climate of fear for those who try to enforce laws that religious extremists oppose. Randall Terry, a spokesman for Terri Schiavo's parents, hasn't killed anyone, but one of his former close associates in the anti-abortion movement is serving time for murdering a doctor. George Greer, the judge in the Schiavo case, needs armed bodyguards.
Another thing that's going on is the rise of politicians willing to violate the spirit of the law, if not yet the letter, to cater to the religious right.
Everyone knows about the attempt to circumvent the courts through "Terri's law." But there has been little national exposure for a Miami Herald report that Jeb Bush sent state law enforcement agents to seize Terri Schiavo from the hospice - a plan called off when local police said they would enforce the judge's order that she remain there.
And the future seems all too likely to bring more intimidation in the name of God and more political intervention that undermines the rule of law.
The religious right is already having a big impact on education: 31 percent of teachers surveyed by the National Science Teachers Association feel pressured to present creationism-related material in the classroom.
But medical care is the cutting edge of extremism.
Yesterday The Washington Post reported on the growing number of pharmacists who, on religious grounds, refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control or morning-after pills. These pharmacists talk of personal belief; but the effect is to undermine laws that make these drugs available. And let me make a prediction: soon, wherever the religious right is strong, many pharmacists will be pressured into denying women legal drugs.
And it won't stop there. There is a nationwide trend toward "conscience" or "refusal" legislation. Laws in Illinois and Mississippi already allow doctors and other health providers to deny virtually any procedure to any patient. Again, think of how such laws expose doctors to pressure and intimidation.
But the big step by extremists will be an attempt to eliminate the filibuster, so that the courts can be packed with judges less committed to upholding the law than Mr. Greer.
We can't count on restraint from people like Mr. DeLay, who believes that he's on a mission to bring a "biblical worldview" to American politics, and that God brought him a brain-damaged patient to help him with that mission.
What we need - and we aren't seeing - is a firm stand by moderates against religious extremism. Some people ask, with justification, Where are the Democrats? But an even better question is, Where are the doctors fiercely defending their professional integrity? I think the American Medical Association disapproves of politicians who second-guess medical diagnoses based on video images - but the association's statement on the Schiavo case is so timid that it's hard to be sure.
The closest parallel I can think of to current American politics is Israel. There was a time, not that long ago, when moderate Israelis downplayed the rise of religious extremists. But no more: extremists have already killed one prime minister, and everyone realizes that Ariel Sharon is at risk.
America isn't yet a place where liberal politicians, and even conservatives who aren't sufficiently hard-line, fear assassination. But unless moderates take a stand against the growing power of domestic extremists, it can happen here.
E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The New York Times
What's Going On?
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 29, 2005
Democratic societies have a hard time dealing with extremists in their midst. The desire to show respect for other people's beliefs all too easily turns into denial: nobody wants to talk about the threat posed by those whose beliefs include contempt for democracy itself.
We can see this failing clearly in other countries. In the Netherlands, for example, a culture of tolerance led the nation to ignore the growing influence of Islamic extremists until they turned murderous.
But it's also true of the United States, where dangerous extremists belong to the majority religion and the majority ethnic group, and wield great political influence.
Before he saw the polls, Tom DeLay declared that "one thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America." Now he and his party, shocked by the public's negative reaction to their meddling, want to move on. But we shouldn't let them. The Schiavo case is, indeed, a chance to highlight what's going on in America.
One thing that's going on is a climate of fear for those who try to enforce laws that religious extremists oppose. Randall Terry, a spokesman for Terri Schiavo's parents, hasn't killed anyone, but one of his former close associates in the anti-abortion movement is serving time for murdering a doctor. George Greer, the judge in the Schiavo case, needs armed bodyguards.
Another thing that's going on is the rise of politicians willing to violate the spirit of the law, if not yet the letter, to cater to the religious right.
Everyone knows about the attempt to circumvent the courts through "Terri's law." But there has been little national exposure for a Miami Herald report that Jeb Bush sent state law enforcement agents to seize Terri Schiavo from the hospice - a plan called off when local police said they would enforce the judge's order that she remain there.
And the future seems all too likely to bring more intimidation in the name of God and more political intervention that undermines the rule of law.
The religious right is already having a big impact on education: 31 percent of teachers surveyed by the National Science Teachers Association feel pressured to present creationism-related material in the classroom.
But medical care is the cutting edge of extremism.
Yesterday The Washington Post reported on the growing number of pharmacists who, on religious grounds, refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control or morning-after pills. These pharmacists talk of personal belief; but the effect is to undermine laws that make these drugs available. And let me make a prediction: soon, wherever the religious right is strong, many pharmacists will be pressured into denying women legal drugs.
And it won't stop there. There is a nationwide trend toward "conscience" or "refusal" legislation. Laws in Illinois and Mississippi already allow doctors and other health providers to deny virtually any procedure to any patient. Again, think of how such laws expose doctors to pressure and intimidation.
But the big step by extremists will be an attempt to eliminate the filibuster, so that the courts can be packed with judges less committed to upholding the law than Mr. Greer.
We can't count on restraint from people like Mr. DeLay, who believes that he's on a mission to bring a "biblical worldview" to American politics, and that God brought him a brain-damaged patient to help him with that mission.
What we need - and we aren't seeing - is a firm stand by moderates against religious extremism. Some people ask, with justification, Where are the Democrats? But an even better question is, Where are the doctors fiercely defending their professional integrity? I think the American Medical Association disapproves of politicians who second-guess medical diagnoses based on video images - but the association's statement on the Schiavo case is so timid that it's hard to be sure.
The closest parallel I can think of to current American politics is Israel. There was a time, not that long ago, when moderate Israelis downplayed the rise of religious extremists. But no more: extremists have already killed one prime minister, and everyone realizes that Ariel Sharon is at risk.
America isn't yet a place where liberal politicians, and even conservatives who aren't sufficiently hard-line, fear assassination. But unless moderates take a stand against the growing power of domestic extremists, it can happen here.
E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com
Monday, March 28, 2005
iPods Make The World Go Away
I know this to be true! Never has technolgy produced a more life changing gadget than the iPod. (Leave it to Apple to think differently)
iPods Make the World Go Away
As technology becomes more pervasive in our lives, we seek out other less obtrusive gadgets to protect us from all the noise.
FORTUNE
Thursday, March 24, 2005
By David Kirkpatrick
We're living in a device-centric age. Technology may not yet fully define us, but it increasingly defines how we behave and spend our time. In New York City, I notice that subway riders are quieter than they once were. More and more, I see little white earphone wires emerging from their hats and hair--the telltale sign that they're listening to iPods. Sometimes I'd estimate that as many as 25% of all the commuters either in the cars or on the platforms are listening to music, an audio book, or a Podcast. And in the Tokyo subway, I'm told, silence descends when the doors close. Almost all the commuters in that city pull out cellphones or other electronic devices and peck at their miniature keyboards, sending messages or playing games.
While I've had my share of techno devices and toys (including an original iPod), it wasn't until someone gave me an iPod shuffle last week that I fully joined the new digitized masses. It's giving me new insight into how technology is changing our daily lives. What's different about the shuffle is that it's amazingly small and light. The player, which Apple describes as "about the size of a pack of gum," hangs from a little cord around your neck. Everywhere I go people stop me to ask what it is. And once I tell them that it's a music player, they marvel at its diminutive size.
With the iPod shuffle, it's infinitely easier for me to live in a world of music. In the first five days that I've owned it, I've listened to about three times as much total music as I would have otherwise. I find that I take it off only when my eardrums start to ring. But most of the time, I barely realize that I'm using the shuffle.
This is something the music industry seems not to have fully appreciated: We can now simply listen to more music. That's why downloading music has got to be an unalloyed good for the industry. The music companies probably have to figure out different pricing models, but there's no question in my mind that the industry's opportunities are growing, not diminishing, as people have easier access to music and listen to it more often.
But this raises another question for me: Why do I, and so many others, want to cocoon ourselves off into our little music bubbles, even when we're out and about? I think one reason has to do our exasperation with the other technologies around us: cellphones, PCs, BlackBerries, laptops, etc. With all these devices, we're wired and ready to receive telephone calls, e-mails, IMs, and instant everything all the time.
For me, e-mail is particularly annoying. Every day, I'm finding it more and more debilitating. There's just too much coming in, and it takes me way too much time to manage it all. I have three e-mail accounts, and despite spending hours a day trying to deal with all the messages, I never come close to catching up. E-mail is becoming a curse, not a blessing. It raises my blood pressure. I'm getting shell-shocked by technology. But now a new technology offers me an antidote: the iPod shuffle. And so my music-enveloped cocoon grows tighter. Music soothes the frazzled beast. My blood pressure drops.
Some people prefer to retreat from the world with games rather than with music. With today's launch of the Sony PlayStation Portable (PSP), that will become much easier for gamers. (Read my colleague Peter Lewis's insightful review of the new PlayStation, "It's Fun and Games Again at Sony.") It's too early to say what problems the new game player will create and which ones it will solve. But while the PSP is expected to be a huge success, I doubt if it will have the same cultural impact of the newest iPod. Even though it's portable, the PSP is still too big to unobtrusively slip into our lives like the tiny iPod shuffle can. When I'm walking down the street (or riding on the subway), the shuffle just becomes part of my world.
iPods Make the World Go Away
As technology becomes more pervasive in our lives, we seek out other less obtrusive gadgets to protect us from all the noise.
FORTUNE
Thursday, March 24, 2005
By David Kirkpatrick
We're living in a device-centric age. Technology may not yet fully define us, but it increasingly defines how we behave and spend our time. In New York City, I notice that subway riders are quieter than they once were. More and more, I see little white earphone wires emerging from their hats and hair--the telltale sign that they're listening to iPods. Sometimes I'd estimate that as many as 25% of all the commuters either in the cars or on the platforms are listening to music, an audio book, or a Podcast. And in the Tokyo subway, I'm told, silence descends when the doors close. Almost all the commuters in that city pull out cellphones or other electronic devices and peck at their miniature keyboards, sending messages or playing games.
While I've had my share of techno devices and toys (including an original iPod), it wasn't until someone gave me an iPod shuffle last week that I fully joined the new digitized masses. It's giving me new insight into how technology is changing our daily lives. What's different about the shuffle is that it's amazingly small and light. The player, which Apple describes as "about the size of a pack of gum," hangs from a little cord around your neck. Everywhere I go people stop me to ask what it is. And once I tell them that it's a music player, they marvel at its diminutive size.
With the iPod shuffle, it's infinitely easier for me to live in a world of music. In the first five days that I've owned it, I've listened to about three times as much total music as I would have otherwise. I find that I take it off only when my eardrums start to ring. But most of the time, I barely realize that I'm using the shuffle.
This is something the music industry seems not to have fully appreciated: We can now simply listen to more music. That's why downloading music has got to be an unalloyed good for the industry. The music companies probably have to figure out different pricing models, but there's no question in my mind that the industry's opportunities are growing, not diminishing, as people have easier access to music and listen to it more often.
But this raises another question for me: Why do I, and so many others, want to cocoon ourselves off into our little music bubbles, even when we're out and about? I think one reason has to do our exasperation with the other technologies around us: cellphones, PCs, BlackBerries, laptops, etc. With all these devices, we're wired and ready to receive telephone calls, e-mails, IMs, and instant everything all the time.
For me, e-mail is particularly annoying. Every day, I'm finding it more and more debilitating. There's just too much coming in, and it takes me way too much time to manage it all. I have three e-mail accounts, and despite spending hours a day trying to deal with all the messages, I never come close to catching up. E-mail is becoming a curse, not a blessing. It raises my blood pressure. I'm getting shell-shocked by technology. But now a new technology offers me an antidote: the iPod shuffle. And so my music-enveloped cocoon grows tighter. Music soothes the frazzled beast. My blood pressure drops.
Some people prefer to retreat from the world with games rather than with music. With today's launch of the Sony PlayStation Portable (PSP), that will become much easier for gamers. (Read my colleague Peter Lewis's insightful review of the new PlayStation, "It's Fun and Games Again at Sony.") It's too early to say what problems the new game player will create and which ones it will solve. But while the PSP is expected to be a huge success, I doubt if it will have the same cultural impact of the newest iPod. Even though it's portable, the PSP is still too big to unobtrusively slip into our lives like the tiny iPod shuffle can. When I'm walking down the street (or riding on the subway), the shuffle just becomes part of my world.
Don't Ask Don't Tell--Impact On Black Lesbian Couples
Enough is enough on the "Don't Ask-Don't Tell policy in the military. The U.S. military cannot meet it's quotas. Yet we have willing and able gay/lesbian/bisexual citizens willing to serve. But they are out if their sexuality is disclosed. Think of many more are ready and willing to serve but don't because of the discriminatory policy. The costs of getting rid of admitted homosexuals is high, see article on this in earlier post. So, the U.S. goes with a skelton military, already overstretched that could be relieved by elimination of this idiotic policy. Here, The Task Force relases information of the impact of this policy on a very personal level by providing statistics on Lesbian Women Of Color and the devastating effects of the policy. Clearly a call for the Bush adminsistration to end this stupidity and have our military forces at the desirable level. If not, the draft is inevitable. Why not put prejudice aside for the sake of protecting our homeland?? The Task Force PRESS RELEASE:
March 23, 2005
National Gay & Lesbian Task Force Provides Testimony In Support of New York City Council Resolution 438, Which Calls Upon the U.S. Congress to Overturn the Military's "Don"t Ask, Don"t Tell" Policy.
In Honor of Women's History Month, Jason Cianciotto, Research Director of the Task Force Policy Institute, cites data from 2000 U.S. Census on Black Lesbian Military Veterans
New York, NY, March 23, 2005 — The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force joined key gay, lesbian, and bisexual military veteran's organizations yesterday to testify before members of the New York City Council in favor of a resolution calling upon Congress and President Bush to overturn the U.S. Military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy." Among the groups and individuals represented were the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), American Veterans for Equal Rights (AVER), and several openly gay and lesbian retired military officers.
Jason Cianciotto, Research Director of Task Force Policy Institute, delivered testimony in favor of the resolution, citing data from the 2000 U.S. Census to show how black lesbians and their families are disproportionately impacted by the policy. The following is a summary of his comments.
Since 1993, researchers and policy analysts have consistently documented the tragedy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." I am here today to draw from that body of knowledge in support of the repeal of this discriminatory policy.
Given that March is Women's History Month, I will focus on the under-researched plight of lesbian women of color who have chosen to serve their country in the military. Over the past year, The Task Force Policy Institute has analyzed data from the 2000 U.S. Census on black same-sex households, including incidence of military service among this segment of our community. According to the Census, black women serve their country at a very high rate relative to other women. In fact, black women in same-sex households report that they are military veterans at eleven times the rate of all women nationwide, regardless of race or ethnicity.
Consider what happens when a black women is discharged under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." We know from our analysis of 2000 census data, for example, that black women in same-sex households are parenting at almost the same rate as black married opposite-sex households. How does the loss of a steady income, health benefits, and the promise of a secure retirement affect them and their children? Lesbian women of color are serving their country at disproportionately high rates, but are receiving far less in return.
The efficacy and impact of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has been well researched and documented. Based on this information, 79% of Americans--and even a majority of enlisted service members--now support lifting the ban. It is time for President Bush, Congress and the Department of Defense to honor and respect the estimated 65,000 lesbian, gay, and bisexual military personnel who are currently serving by repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
March 23, 2005
National Gay & Lesbian Task Force Provides Testimony In Support of New York City Council Resolution 438, Which Calls Upon the U.S. Congress to Overturn the Military's "Don"t Ask, Don"t Tell" Policy.
In Honor of Women's History Month, Jason Cianciotto, Research Director of the Task Force Policy Institute, cites data from 2000 U.S. Census on Black Lesbian Military Veterans
New York, NY, March 23, 2005 — The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force joined key gay, lesbian, and bisexual military veteran's organizations yesterday to testify before members of the New York City Council in favor of a resolution calling upon Congress and President Bush to overturn the U.S. Military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy." Among the groups and individuals represented were the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), American Veterans for Equal Rights (AVER), and several openly gay and lesbian retired military officers.
Jason Cianciotto, Research Director of Task Force Policy Institute, delivered testimony in favor of the resolution, citing data from the 2000 U.S. Census to show how black lesbians and their families are disproportionately impacted by the policy. The following is a summary of his comments.
Since 1993, researchers and policy analysts have consistently documented the tragedy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." I am here today to draw from that body of knowledge in support of the repeal of this discriminatory policy.
Given that March is Women's History Month, I will focus on the under-researched plight of lesbian women of color who have chosen to serve their country in the military. Over the past year, The Task Force Policy Institute has analyzed data from the 2000 U.S. Census on black same-sex households, including incidence of military service among this segment of our community. According to the Census, black women serve their country at a very high rate relative to other women. In fact, black women in same-sex households report that they are military veterans at eleven times the rate of all women nationwide, regardless of race or ethnicity.
Consider what happens when a black women is discharged under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." We know from our analysis of 2000 census data, for example, that black women in same-sex households are parenting at almost the same rate as black married opposite-sex households. How does the loss of a steady income, health benefits, and the promise of a secure retirement affect them and their children? Lesbian women of color are serving their country at disproportionately high rates, but are receiving far less in return.
The efficacy and impact of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has been well researched and documented. Based on this information, 79% of Americans--and even a majority of enlisted service members--now support lifting the ban. It is time for President Bush, Congress and the Department of Defense to honor and respect the estimated 65,000 lesbian, gay, and bisexual military personnel who are currently serving by repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Saturday, March 26, 2005
Apple eNews, raves for thinking differently
Mike Wendland (Detroit Free Press) has definitely changed his mind. "After first being blase about Pages, I am now gaga over it. The more I use it, the more blown away I am by its elegance."I've played around with most of the other design software over the years," he continues, "and Pages beats them all in ease of operation and the sheer beauty of its output. It’s immediately usable by kids and even computer-challenged adults."
"We often hear about how easy it is for the average user to dive into one of Apple's applications," croons Macworld columnist Jim Dalrymple. "But that message never hit home more dramatically for me than when my nine-year-old son started to teach me how to build songs in GarageBand."
In his comprehensive review for MacNewsWorld, Len Sasso praises Logic Pro 7, calling it "a stellar upgrade to an already top-of-the-line digital audio workstation. Many user requests have been fulfilled; there are a number of clever, time-saving new features; and the new plug-ins alone are worth the price of admission. Performance has been improved as has compatibility with other applications and media. Upgrading is a must, and Logic deserves serious consideration as a first-time purchase."
"We often hear about how easy it is for the average user to dive into one of Apple's applications," croons Macworld columnist Jim Dalrymple. "But that message never hit home more dramatically for me than when my nine-year-old son started to teach me how to build songs in GarageBand."
In his comprehensive review for MacNewsWorld, Len Sasso praises Logic Pro 7, calling it "a stellar upgrade to an already top-of-the-line digital audio workstation. Many user requests have been fulfilled; there are a number of clever, time-saving new features; and the new plug-ins alone are worth the price of admission. Performance has been improved as has compatibility with other applications and media. Upgrading is a must, and Logic deserves serious consideration as a first-time purchase."
iTunes/ Joss and Melissa... download a piece of history in music
CLICK TITLE FOR LINK
I bought it, I thought the grammy performance was stellar. Two big voices that did Joplin well. 99¢ buys it and proceeds go to fight cancer. A win/win situation. Download today. http://www.apple.com/itunes/
Remeber iTunes player is free for Mac and Windows users. Free download every Tuesday. More win/win. YOU CAN'T GO WRONG WITH THE LARGEST MUSIC STORE ONLINE.
Apple iTunes news:
Like to do your good deed for the day? You can support the ongoing battle against cancer with your purchase of “Cry Baby/Piece of My Heart.” All proceeds from the sale of the song — performed at the recent Grammy Awards by Melissa Etheridge and Joss Stone — benefit the research being conducted by the City of Hope and the Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation.
I bought it, I thought the grammy performance was stellar. Two big voices that did Joplin well. 99¢ buys it and proceeds go to fight cancer. A win/win situation. Download today. http://www.apple.com/itunes/
Remeber iTunes player is free for Mac and Windows users. Free download every Tuesday. More win/win. YOU CAN'T GO WRONG WITH THE LARGEST MUSIC STORE ONLINE.
Apple iTunes news:
Like to do your good deed for the day? You can support the ongoing battle against cancer with your purchase of “Cry Baby/Piece of My Heart.” All proceeds from the sale of the song — performed at the recent Grammy Awards by Melissa Etheridge and Joss Stone — benefit the research being conducted by the City of Hope and the Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation.
GOP WOES: "SLEAZO-CON" now even conservatives aptly use it to describe the right-wing conspiracy
"Sleazo-Cons" SOURCE: THE DCCC NEWSLETTER
The alert went out on the internet before the paper had even hit the stands. David Brooks, conservative columnist for the New York Times and generally reliable advocate of the GOP line, had turned his guns squarely on his own with a column entitled "Masters of Sleaze"...
"Back in 1995, when Republicans took over Congress, a new cadre of daring and original thinkers arose. These bold innovators had a key insight: that you no longer had to choose between being an activist and a lobbyist. You could be both. You could harness the power of K Street to promote the goals of Goldwater, Reagan and Gingrich. And best of all, you could get rich while doing it!
"Before long, ringleader Grover Norquist and his buddies were signing lobbying deals with the Seychelles and the Northern Mariana Islands and talking up their interests at weekly conservative strategy sessions - what could be more vital to the future of freedom than the commercial interests of these two fine locales?
"Before long, folks like Norquist and Abramoff were talking up the virtues of international sons of liberty like Angola's Jonas Savimbi and Congo's dictator Mobutu Sese Seko - all while receiving compensation from these upstanding gentlemen, according to The Legal Times. Only a reactionary could have been so discomfited by Savimbi's little cannibalism problem as to think this was not a daring contribution to the cause of Reaganism.
"Soon the creative revolutionaries were blending the high-toned forms of the think tank with the low-toned scams of the buckraker. Ed Buckham, Tom DeLay's former chief of staff, helped run the U.S. Family Network, which supported the American family by accepting large donations and leasing skyboxes at the MCI Center, according to Roll Call. Michael Scanlon, DeLay's former spokesman, organized a think tank called the American International Center, located in a house in Rehoboth Beach, Del., which was occupied, according to Andrew Ferguson's devastating compendium in The Weekly Standard, by a former 'lifeguard of the year' and a former yoga instructor.
"Ralph Reed, meanwhile, smashed the tired old categories that used to separate social conservatives from corporate consultants. Reed signed on with Channel One, Verizon, Enron and Microsoft to shore up the moral foundations of our great nation. Reed so strongly opposes gambling as a matter of principle that he bravely accepted $4 million through Abramoff from casino-rich Indian tribes to gin up a grass-roots campaign.
"As time went by, the spectacular devolution of morals accelerated. Many of the young innovators were behaving like people who, having read Barry Goldwater's 'Conscience of a Conservative,' embraced the conservative part while discarding the conscience part.
"Abramoff's and Scanlon's Indian-gaming scandal will go down as the movement's crowning achievement, more shameless than anything the others would do, but still the culmination of the trends building since 1995. It perfectly embodied their creed and philosophy: 'I'd love us to get our mitts on that moolah!!' as Abramoff wrote to Reed. They made at least $66 million.
"This is a major accomplishment. And remember: Abramoff didn't do it on his own. It took a village. The sleazo-cons thought they could take over K Street to advance their agenda. As it transpired, K Street took over them."
So while one has to hand it to Brooks for deviating from the GOP script, the column does leave much unaddressed. Norquist is a scoundrel, but he is only a scoundrel with any influence because Karl Rove and Tom DeLay let him run the show. Abramoff and Scanlon are both scoundrels, but the only reason anybody's ever heard of them is that Scanlon was DeLay's spokesman and Abramoff was "director of travel for DeLay Inc." Ralph Reed is not just some hypocritical figure on the religious right, he was the chief southern strategist for the Bush campaign. All of these people are nothing but Rove & DeLay's foot soldiers, and yet Brooks does not see fit to lay one iota of blame at their feet, attacking only those who will not have to face a voter in a national election any time soon (Ralph Reed, however, is making a run at Lieutenant Governor in Georgia). And left completely unmentioned is the fact that Rep. Bob Ney, Chairman of the powerful House Administration Committee, is now being looked into by the Senate Finance Committee in addition to the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and an overdue date with the House Ethics Committee for his involvement in precisely this affair.
So kudos to David Brooks on an honest assessment of some of the GOP's most nefarious characters, but as he said, "It took a village." Hopefully he'll look at some of the elder statesmen of that village next time.
The alert went out on the internet before the paper had even hit the stands. David Brooks, conservative columnist for the New York Times and generally reliable advocate of the GOP line, had turned his guns squarely on his own with a column entitled "Masters of Sleaze"...
"Back in 1995, when Republicans took over Congress, a new cadre of daring and original thinkers arose. These bold innovators had a key insight: that you no longer had to choose between being an activist and a lobbyist. You could be both. You could harness the power of K Street to promote the goals of Goldwater, Reagan and Gingrich. And best of all, you could get rich while doing it!
"Before long, ringleader Grover Norquist and his buddies were signing lobbying deals with the Seychelles and the Northern Mariana Islands and talking up their interests at weekly conservative strategy sessions - what could be more vital to the future of freedom than the commercial interests of these two fine locales?
"Before long, folks like Norquist and Abramoff were talking up the virtues of international sons of liberty like Angola's Jonas Savimbi and Congo's dictator Mobutu Sese Seko - all while receiving compensation from these upstanding gentlemen, according to The Legal Times. Only a reactionary could have been so discomfited by Savimbi's little cannibalism problem as to think this was not a daring contribution to the cause of Reaganism.
"Soon the creative revolutionaries were blending the high-toned forms of the think tank with the low-toned scams of the buckraker. Ed Buckham, Tom DeLay's former chief of staff, helped run the U.S. Family Network, which supported the American family by accepting large donations and leasing skyboxes at the MCI Center, according to Roll Call. Michael Scanlon, DeLay's former spokesman, organized a think tank called the American International Center, located in a house in Rehoboth Beach, Del., which was occupied, according to Andrew Ferguson's devastating compendium in The Weekly Standard, by a former 'lifeguard of the year' and a former yoga instructor.
"Ralph Reed, meanwhile, smashed the tired old categories that used to separate social conservatives from corporate consultants. Reed signed on with Channel One, Verizon, Enron and Microsoft to shore up the moral foundations of our great nation. Reed so strongly opposes gambling as a matter of principle that he bravely accepted $4 million through Abramoff from casino-rich Indian tribes to gin up a grass-roots campaign.
"As time went by, the spectacular devolution of morals accelerated. Many of the young innovators were behaving like people who, having read Barry Goldwater's 'Conscience of a Conservative,' embraced the conservative part while discarding the conscience part.
"Abramoff's and Scanlon's Indian-gaming scandal will go down as the movement's crowning achievement, more shameless than anything the others would do, but still the culmination of the trends building since 1995. It perfectly embodied their creed and philosophy: 'I'd love us to get our mitts on that moolah!!' as Abramoff wrote to Reed. They made at least $66 million.
"This is a major accomplishment. And remember: Abramoff didn't do it on his own. It took a village. The sleazo-cons thought they could take over K Street to advance their agenda. As it transpired, K Street took over them."
So while one has to hand it to Brooks for deviating from the GOP script, the column does leave much unaddressed. Norquist is a scoundrel, but he is only a scoundrel with any influence because Karl Rove and Tom DeLay let him run the show. Abramoff and Scanlon are both scoundrels, but the only reason anybody's ever heard of them is that Scanlon was DeLay's spokesman and Abramoff was "director of travel for DeLay Inc." Ralph Reed is not just some hypocritical figure on the religious right, he was the chief southern strategist for the Bush campaign. All of these people are nothing but Rove & DeLay's foot soldiers, and yet Brooks does not see fit to lay one iota of blame at their feet, attacking only those who will not have to face a voter in a national election any time soon (Ralph Reed, however, is making a run at Lieutenant Governor in Georgia). And left completely unmentioned is the fact that Rep. Bob Ney, Chairman of the powerful House Administration Committee, is now being looked into by the Senate Finance Committee in addition to the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and an overdue date with the House Ethics Committee for his involvement in precisely this affair.
So kudos to David Brooks on an honest assessment of some of the GOP's most nefarious characters, but as he said, "It took a village." Hopefully he'll look at some of the elder statesmen of that village next time.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
The Task Force Fills New Position For Movement Building Dept.
March 23, 2005
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Announces Russell Roybal to Head New Movement Building Department
"We are thrilled that Russell Roybal has chosen to bring his expertise to the Task Force. He is smart, strategic, thoughtful, and understands the necessity of being attentive to the needs of our movement's organizations. Our movement has yet to unleash our full potential to be as dynamic, well-resourced, diverse, and inspiring as we can be. Russell will play a key role in helping us all to get there."
-- Rea Carey, Deputy Executive Director
WASHINGTON, March 23. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force today announced the appointment of Russell Roybal to serve as the Director of the Task Force's new Movement Building Department.
Russell D. Roybal is a noted capacity building expert, fundraiser, trainer, and movement leader in the LGBT community. For the past six years, he was on staff at the Denver-based Gill Foundation, serving as Director of Training and Capacity Building. Under Roybal's leadership, the program eventually became a national model. He has the notable distinction of having worked with LGBT organizations in every state, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Additionally, Roybal has served as the Chair of the Board and a senior consultant with the Grassroots Institute for Fundraising Training, a non-profit training group focused on building the fundraising skills of people of color working for social justice. He has also served as development officer and director for local and national non-profit organizations, including the San Diego LGBT Community Center.
Roybal's relationship with the Task Force is long-standing, beginning with his participation in the organization's groundbreaking Youth Leadership Training Institute in 1995. Since that time, Roybal has also served on the Task Force's Board of Directors and as an advisor to staff of the organization in a variety of capacities.
As Director of the Movement Building Department, Roybal will oversee initiatives to build organizational and leadership skills in the LGBT movement. In the first year, Roybal will spearhead intensive organizational development and capacity building work with five statewide LGBT organizations and manage other capacity building activities for a broad range of local and state organizations serving the LGBT community. Roybal, and the new department, will play a pivotal role in ensuring that the Task Force as a whole is working to strengthen the movement’s infrastructure at the regional, state and local level through a range of activities, including the Creating Change conference. Roybal brings considerable talents and experience to this new position and it is expected that his high-level expertise in implementing training, technical assistance and other support for grassroots activists will serve the movement well. Roybal begins his position with the Task Force on May 2, 2005.
"My entire career has been dedicated to building capacity at the state and local level because I believe that's where real change happens. I'm excited to bring that experience to the Task Force, the premier organization working to build grassroots political strength," said Roybal.
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Announces Russell Roybal to Head New Movement Building Department
"We are thrilled that Russell Roybal has chosen to bring his expertise to the Task Force. He is smart, strategic, thoughtful, and understands the necessity of being attentive to the needs of our movement's organizations. Our movement has yet to unleash our full potential to be as dynamic, well-resourced, diverse, and inspiring as we can be. Russell will play a key role in helping us all to get there."
-- Rea Carey, Deputy Executive Director
WASHINGTON, March 23. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force today announced the appointment of Russell Roybal to serve as the Director of the Task Force's new Movement Building Department.
Russell D. Roybal is a noted capacity building expert, fundraiser, trainer, and movement leader in the LGBT community. For the past six years, he was on staff at the Denver-based Gill Foundation, serving as Director of Training and Capacity Building. Under Roybal's leadership, the program eventually became a national model. He has the notable distinction of having worked with LGBT organizations in every state, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Additionally, Roybal has served as the Chair of the Board and a senior consultant with the Grassroots Institute for Fundraising Training, a non-profit training group focused on building the fundraising skills of people of color working for social justice. He has also served as development officer and director for local and national non-profit organizations, including the San Diego LGBT Community Center.
Roybal's relationship with the Task Force is long-standing, beginning with his participation in the organization's groundbreaking Youth Leadership Training Institute in 1995. Since that time, Roybal has also served on the Task Force's Board of Directors and as an advisor to staff of the organization in a variety of capacities.
As Director of the Movement Building Department, Roybal will oversee initiatives to build organizational and leadership skills in the LGBT movement. In the first year, Roybal will spearhead intensive organizational development and capacity building work with five statewide LGBT organizations and manage other capacity building activities for a broad range of local and state organizations serving the LGBT community. Roybal, and the new department, will play a pivotal role in ensuring that the Task Force as a whole is working to strengthen the movement’s infrastructure at the regional, state and local level through a range of activities, including the Creating Change conference. Roybal brings considerable talents and experience to this new position and it is expected that his high-level expertise in implementing training, technical assistance and other support for grassroots activists will serve the movement well. Roybal begins his position with the Task Force on May 2, 2005.
"My entire career has been dedicated to building capacity at the state and local level because I believe that's where real change happens. I'm excited to bring that experience to the Task Force, the premier organization working to build grassroots political strength," said Roybal.
Sunday, March 20, 2005
Politics At It's Worst: Congress Ignores The Courts In Schiavo Move & Bush Even Cuts A day From His Vacation (This Is Big)
The New York Times
March 20, 2005
Congress Ready to Approve Bill in Schiavo Case
By ROBIN TONER and CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON, March 19 - Congressional leaders reached a compromise Saturday on legislation to force the case of Terri Schiavo into federal court, an extraordinary intervention intended to prolong the life of the brain-damaged woman whose condition has reignited a painful national debate over when medical treatment should be withdrawn.
Top lawmakers in both the House and the Senate said they hoped to pass the compromise bill as early as Sunday. They said it would allow Ms. Schiavo's parents to ask a federal judge to restore her feeding tube on the ground that their daughter's constitutional rights were being violated by the withholding of nutrition needed to keep her alive.
The White House announced late Saturday that President Bush, who was vacationing at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., would make an unscheduled return on Sunday to Washington, where he would remain until early Monday in anticipation of signing the measure.
Conservative lawmakers scrambled to find a way to override a Florida judge's order Friday to remove Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube. Her husband, Michael Schiavo, has maintained for years that his wife would not want to be kept alive in her current state by artificial means.
Ms. Schiavo suffered extensive brain damage when her heart stopped briefly 15 years ago due to a potassium deficiency; she remains in what doctors have testified is a "persistent vegetative state."
Ms. Schiavo left no written directive. Her husband testified that she had told him she would not want to be kept alive artificially, but her parents maintain that she is responsive, and they want to keep her alive.
Representative Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas and the House majority leader, who is at the center of the Congressional intervention, said on Saturday: "We should investigate every avenue before we take the life of a living human being. That is the very least we can do." In Crawford, the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, said: "Everyone recognizes that time is important here. This is about defending life."
Republican senators had been provided with talking points about how to respond to requests about the Schiavo case, which was described by party aides as a "great political issue" that resonates with Christian conservatives.
Mr. McClellan said that a bill could be flown to Crawford for the president's signature, but that a woman's life was at stake and Mr. Bush did not want to waste a moment. In a phone call to reporters Saturday night, Mr. McClellan dismissed any suggestions that there were political considerations in the president's hurried and dramatic return to Washington. Mr. DeLay and others in the largely deserted Capitol said they were trying to move quickly to limit any health damage to Ms. Schiavo, whose feeding tube was disconnected Friday afternoon.
But Congressional leaders acknowledged that quick approval of the bill was not certain, since it requires that no lawmakers in either chamber object.
While lawmakers wrestled with legislation on Capitol Hill, the debate played out around the country. Social conservatives asserted that it was essential for Congress to step into the long legal battle between Ms. Schiavo's parents and her husband, arguing that her case represents a test of the political system and of the culture itself.
But in random interviews around the country, many Americans questioned why Congress was involved in what is often an intensely private matter. Steve Reed, 57, a clerk at a Chicago law firm, asserted: "It is not the business of Congress." Charles Benjamin, 40, a certified public accountant who lives in Bolingbrook, Ill., said it was "a typical example of government intrusion into our private lives, if you ask me."
Jonathan Wells, 29, an environmental lawyer in Atlanta, said: "It is a family issue. At most it's a state issue. Congress shouldn't step in."
But Nancy Morgan, 37, a dental assistant from Phenix City, Ala., said, "There are some things Congress should stay out of, but on this one, they did the right thing."
Social conservatives, who have generated tens of thousands of calls and e-mail messages in recent days, urged lawmakers to stay in the fight. "Today it's Terri, tomorrow it's another disabled person," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, one of many groups pushing Congress to act. "We've tolerated abortion in this country for the last 30 years, and now we're talking about eliminating those who cannot speak for themselves."
Advocates of the right to decline medical treatment said that Congressional intervention could set a dangerous precedent.
"In this political climate, with this kind of thing going on in Congress, everyone must take steps to protect themselves - making an advance directive, documenting their wishes, making sure their loved ones know about them," said Barbara Coombs Lee, co-chief executive of Compassion and Choices in Portland and an advocate of Oregon's assisted suicide law.
"The greatest fear of our constituents is that other people - complete strangers - will make end-of-life decisions for them," Ms. Lee added. "And God forbid that it would be politicians."
Bob Nykaza, 43, a security consultant who lives in Hoffman Estates, Ill., said his wife died seven weeks ago from lung cancer, in his arms. "We drew up a living will so we didn't get into a situation like that," he said. "My wife was adamant about letting her go at a specific time."
Mr. Nykaza said he thought it was ridiculous for Congress to step into a case like the Schiavos'. "Don't they have enough to do? Why are they wasting money on that?" he said.
But many social conservatives assert that this is not a typical case. "She wasn't dying until a couple of hours ago when they took her feeding tube out," said Carrie Gordon Earll, with the conservative group Focus on the Family, on Friday. "This is not a good case for the right-to-die movement to be hanging their hat on."
Catholic leaders agreed that the case should be treated differently because it involved a feeding tube.
"It's significant because it does narrow the issue down to food and water," said Cathy Cleaver Ruse, a spokeswoman for the United States Conference of Bishops. "It is really not a case of life-sustaining medical treatment." Ms. Ruse noted that Pope John Paul II said last year that even patients in a "vegetative state retain their human dignity" and had a right to basic care like nutrition and hydration.
The Schiavo case was striking a particular chord among social conservatives because, they said, it showed the power and what Mr. Perkins called "the arrogance" of the judiciary involved in the case. They were all the more enraged on Friday, after a showdown between Congressional leaders and Judge George W. Greer of Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Court, the presiding judge in Ms. Schiavo's case since 1998.
When the House and Senate failed to agree on legislation earlier in the week, House and Senate committees tried to block the removal by issuing subpoenas to Ms. Schiavo and her husband. Judge Greer rejected those efforts, saying Congress had no jurisdiction in the case.
After his ruling, the House committee made an emergency request to the Supreme Court to try to reinsert the feeding tube while appeals were pursued in lower courts, but the Supreme Court rejected the request without comment.
Until now, the House and Senate had been divided over how far to go in giving federal courts new jurisdiction over medical issues like those in the Schiavo case. Conservative House Republicans had raced through a bill that would apply to all "incapacitated persons" and transfer their cases to federal courts if all state legal efforts had been exhausted and they had not executed a living will. The Senate enacted a narrower bill addressing only the Schiavo case.
The changes reached in the compromise were intended to reduce objections by clearly spelling out that the legislation was not intended to set a new precedent. Though it applies only to Ms. Schiavo, as the Senate preferred, the measure will also not be labeled a "private relief" bill, to ease traditional House objections to passing bills for specific individuals. It is rare but not unheard of for Congress to act on behalf of individuals; lawmakers in the last session passed about a dozen such bills, most of them related to immigration.
In an effort to pass this bill, a series of procedural steps were initiated Saturday night, when the Senate met briefly and passed an adjournment resolution. That cleared the way for House and Senate leaders, whose members are scattered around the country and the world on what was to have been a two-week recess, to call an emergency session.
The House will meet on Sunday to try to pass the new measure with the unanimous agreement of both parties. If an objection is raised - and at least three Democratic congressmen from Florida indicated Saturday night that they would object - the House will then wait until immediately after midnight to try again. Should a roll call vote be demanded, members would have to be summoned back.
But if the House is able to act immediately, the Senate is prepared to follow suit under special streamlined procedures that would not require most senators to return.
After the brief Senate session Saturday attended by just four lawmakers, Senator Tom Harkin, the Iowa Democrat who helped craft the legislation, said he was disappointed that the health care drama had been "dragged out in the media" over the past few days when the House could have simply accepted the Senate measure last week. He also took issue with Mr. DeLay, who had lashed out at Senate Democrats for blocking the House proposal.
"I must say I have been quite upset over the last couple of days over the tone and tenor of the words of the majority leader of the House," he told reporters.
Reporting for this article was contributed by Daniel I. Dorfman from Chicago, Ariel Hart from Atlanta, Carolyn Marshall from San Francisco and Elisabeth Bumiller from Crawford, Tex.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
March 20, 2005
Congress Ready to Approve Bill in Schiavo Case
By ROBIN TONER and CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON, March 19 - Congressional leaders reached a compromise Saturday on legislation to force the case of Terri Schiavo into federal court, an extraordinary intervention intended to prolong the life of the brain-damaged woman whose condition has reignited a painful national debate over when medical treatment should be withdrawn.
Top lawmakers in both the House and the Senate said they hoped to pass the compromise bill as early as Sunday. They said it would allow Ms. Schiavo's parents to ask a federal judge to restore her feeding tube on the ground that their daughter's constitutional rights were being violated by the withholding of nutrition needed to keep her alive.
The White House announced late Saturday that President Bush, who was vacationing at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., would make an unscheduled return on Sunday to Washington, where he would remain until early Monday in anticipation of signing the measure.
Conservative lawmakers scrambled to find a way to override a Florida judge's order Friday to remove Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube. Her husband, Michael Schiavo, has maintained for years that his wife would not want to be kept alive in her current state by artificial means.
Ms. Schiavo suffered extensive brain damage when her heart stopped briefly 15 years ago due to a potassium deficiency; she remains in what doctors have testified is a "persistent vegetative state."
Ms. Schiavo left no written directive. Her husband testified that she had told him she would not want to be kept alive artificially, but her parents maintain that she is responsive, and they want to keep her alive.
Representative Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas and the House majority leader, who is at the center of the Congressional intervention, said on Saturday: "We should investigate every avenue before we take the life of a living human being. That is the very least we can do." In Crawford, the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, said: "Everyone recognizes that time is important here. This is about defending life."
Republican senators had been provided with talking points about how to respond to requests about the Schiavo case, which was described by party aides as a "great political issue" that resonates with Christian conservatives.
Mr. McClellan said that a bill could be flown to Crawford for the president's signature, but that a woman's life was at stake and Mr. Bush did not want to waste a moment. In a phone call to reporters Saturday night, Mr. McClellan dismissed any suggestions that there were political considerations in the president's hurried and dramatic return to Washington. Mr. DeLay and others in the largely deserted Capitol said they were trying to move quickly to limit any health damage to Ms. Schiavo, whose feeding tube was disconnected Friday afternoon.
But Congressional leaders acknowledged that quick approval of the bill was not certain, since it requires that no lawmakers in either chamber object.
While lawmakers wrestled with legislation on Capitol Hill, the debate played out around the country. Social conservatives asserted that it was essential for Congress to step into the long legal battle between Ms. Schiavo's parents and her husband, arguing that her case represents a test of the political system and of the culture itself.
But in random interviews around the country, many Americans questioned why Congress was involved in what is often an intensely private matter. Steve Reed, 57, a clerk at a Chicago law firm, asserted: "It is not the business of Congress." Charles Benjamin, 40, a certified public accountant who lives in Bolingbrook, Ill., said it was "a typical example of government intrusion into our private lives, if you ask me."
Jonathan Wells, 29, an environmental lawyer in Atlanta, said: "It is a family issue. At most it's a state issue. Congress shouldn't step in."
But Nancy Morgan, 37, a dental assistant from Phenix City, Ala., said, "There are some things Congress should stay out of, but on this one, they did the right thing."
Social conservatives, who have generated tens of thousands of calls and e-mail messages in recent days, urged lawmakers to stay in the fight. "Today it's Terri, tomorrow it's another disabled person," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, one of many groups pushing Congress to act. "We've tolerated abortion in this country for the last 30 years, and now we're talking about eliminating those who cannot speak for themselves."
Advocates of the right to decline medical treatment said that Congressional intervention could set a dangerous precedent.
"In this political climate, with this kind of thing going on in Congress, everyone must take steps to protect themselves - making an advance directive, documenting their wishes, making sure their loved ones know about them," said Barbara Coombs Lee, co-chief executive of Compassion and Choices in Portland and an advocate of Oregon's assisted suicide law.
"The greatest fear of our constituents is that other people - complete strangers - will make end-of-life decisions for them," Ms. Lee added. "And God forbid that it would be politicians."
Bob Nykaza, 43, a security consultant who lives in Hoffman Estates, Ill., said his wife died seven weeks ago from lung cancer, in his arms. "We drew up a living will so we didn't get into a situation like that," he said. "My wife was adamant about letting her go at a specific time."
Mr. Nykaza said he thought it was ridiculous for Congress to step into a case like the Schiavos'. "Don't they have enough to do? Why are they wasting money on that?" he said.
But many social conservatives assert that this is not a typical case. "She wasn't dying until a couple of hours ago when they took her feeding tube out," said Carrie Gordon Earll, with the conservative group Focus on the Family, on Friday. "This is not a good case for the right-to-die movement to be hanging their hat on."
Catholic leaders agreed that the case should be treated differently because it involved a feeding tube.
"It's significant because it does narrow the issue down to food and water," said Cathy Cleaver Ruse, a spokeswoman for the United States Conference of Bishops. "It is really not a case of life-sustaining medical treatment." Ms. Ruse noted that Pope John Paul II said last year that even patients in a "vegetative state retain their human dignity" and had a right to basic care like nutrition and hydration.
The Schiavo case was striking a particular chord among social conservatives because, they said, it showed the power and what Mr. Perkins called "the arrogance" of the judiciary involved in the case. They were all the more enraged on Friday, after a showdown between Congressional leaders and Judge George W. Greer of Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Court, the presiding judge in Ms. Schiavo's case since 1998.
When the House and Senate failed to agree on legislation earlier in the week, House and Senate committees tried to block the removal by issuing subpoenas to Ms. Schiavo and her husband. Judge Greer rejected those efforts, saying Congress had no jurisdiction in the case.
After his ruling, the House committee made an emergency request to the Supreme Court to try to reinsert the feeding tube while appeals were pursued in lower courts, but the Supreme Court rejected the request without comment.
Until now, the House and Senate had been divided over how far to go in giving federal courts new jurisdiction over medical issues like those in the Schiavo case. Conservative House Republicans had raced through a bill that would apply to all "incapacitated persons" and transfer their cases to federal courts if all state legal efforts had been exhausted and they had not executed a living will. The Senate enacted a narrower bill addressing only the Schiavo case.
The changes reached in the compromise were intended to reduce objections by clearly spelling out that the legislation was not intended to set a new precedent. Though it applies only to Ms. Schiavo, as the Senate preferred, the measure will also not be labeled a "private relief" bill, to ease traditional House objections to passing bills for specific individuals. It is rare but not unheard of for Congress to act on behalf of individuals; lawmakers in the last session passed about a dozen such bills, most of them related to immigration.
In an effort to pass this bill, a series of procedural steps were initiated Saturday night, when the Senate met briefly and passed an adjournment resolution. That cleared the way for House and Senate leaders, whose members are scattered around the country and the world on what was to have been a two-week recess, to call an emergency session.
The House will meet on Sunday to try to pass the new measure with the unanimous agreement of both parties. If an objection is raised - and at least three Democratic congressmen from Florida indicated Saturday night that they would object - the House will then wait until immediately after midnight to try again. Should a roll call vote be demanded, members would have to be summoned back.
But if the House is able to act immediately, the Senate is prepared to follow suit under special streamlined procedures that would not require most senators to return.
After the brief Senate session Saturday attended by just four lawmakers, Senator Tom Harkin, the Iowa Democrat who helped craft the legislation, said he was disappointed that the health care drama had been "dragged out in the media" over the past few days when the House could have simply accepted the Senate measure last week. He also took issue with Mr. DeLay, who had lashed out at Senate Democrats for blocking the House proposal.
"I must say I have been quite upset over the last couple of days over the tone and tenor of the words of the majority leader of the House," he told reporters.
Reporting for this article was contributed by Daniel I. Dorfman from Chicago, Ariel Hart from Atlanta, Carolyn Marshall from San Francisco and Elisabeth Bumiller from Crawford, Tex.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
Dowd Uses The Full Power of Her X-Tra Chromosone
The New York Times
March 20, 2005
OP-ED COLUMNIST
X-celling Over Men
By MAUREEN DOWD
Men are always telling me not to generalize about them.
But a startling new study shows that science is backing me up here.
Research published last week in the journal Nature reveals that women are genetically more complex than scientists ever imagined, while men remain the simple creatures they appear.
"Alas," said one of the authors of the study, the Duke University genome expert Huntington Willard, "genetically speaking, if you've met one man, you've met them all. We are, I hate to say it, predictable. You can't say that about women. Men and women are farther apart than we ever knew. It's not Mars or Venus. It's Mars or Venus, Pluto, Jupiter and who knows what other planets."
Women are not only more different from men than we knew. Women are more different from each other than we knew - creatures of "infinite variety," as Shakespeare wrote.
"We poor men only have 45 chromosomes to do our work with because our 46th is the pathetic Y that has only a few genes which operate below the waist and above the knees," Dr. Willard observed. "In contrast, we now know that women have the full 46 chromosomes that they're getting work from and the 46th is a second X that is working at levels greater than we knew."
Dr. Willard and his co-author, Laura Carrel, a molecular biologist at the Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, think that their discovery may help explain why the behavior and traits of men and women are so different; they may be hard-wired in the brain, in addition to being hormonal or cultural.
So is Lawrence Summers right after all? "Only time will tell," Dr. Willard laughs.
The researchers learned that a whopping 15 percent - 200 to 300 - of the genes on the second X chromosome in women, thought to be submissive and inert, lolling about on an evolutionary Victorian fainting couch, are active, giving women a significant increase in gene expression over men.
As the Times science reporter Nicholas Wade, who is writing a book about human evolution and genetics, explained it to me: "Women are mosaics, one could even say chimeras, in the sense that they are made up of two different kinds of cell. Whereas men are pure and uncomplicated, being made of just a single kind of cell throughout."
This means men's generalizations about women are correct, too. Women are inscrutable, changeable, crafty, idiosyncratic, a different species.
"Women's chromosomes have more complexity, which men view as unpredictability," said David Page, a molecular biologist and expert on sex evolution at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Mass.
Known as Mr. Y, Dr. P calls himself "the defender of the rotting Y chromosome." He's referring to studies showing that the Y chromosome has been shedding genes willy-nilly for millions of years and is now a fraction of the size of its partner, the X chromosome. "The Y married up," he notes. "The X married down."
Size matters, so some experts have suggested that in 10 million years or even much sooner - 100,000 years - men could disappear, taking Maxim magazine, March Madness and cold pizza in the morning with them.
Dr. Page drolly conjures up a picture of the Y chromosome as "a slovenly beast," sitting in his favorite armchair, surrounded by the litter of old fast food takeout boxes.
"The Y wants to maintain himself but doesn't know how," he said. "He's falling apart, like the guy who can't manage to get a doctor's appointment or can't clean up the house or apartment unless his wife does it.
"I prefer to think of the Y as persevering and noble, not as the Rodney Dangerfield of the human genome."
Dr. Page says the Y - a refuge throughout evolution for any gene that is good for males and/or bad for females - has become "a mirror, a metaphor, a blank slate on which you can write anything you want to think about males." It has inspired cartoon gene maps that show the belching gene, the inability-to-remember-birthdays-and-anniversaries gene, the fascination-with-spiders-and-reptiles gene, the selective-hearing-loss-"Huh" gene, the inability-to-express-affection-on-the-phone gene.
The discovery about women's superior gene expression may answer the age-old question about why men have trouble expressing themselves: because their genes do.
E-mail: liberties@nytimes.com
March 20, 2005
OP-ED COLUMNIST
X-celling Over Men
By MAUREEN DOWD
Men are always telling me not to generalize about them.
But a startling new study shows that science is backing me up here.
Research published last week in the journal Nature reveals that women are genetically more complex than scientists ever imagined, while men remain the simple creatures they appear.
"Alas," said one of the authors of the study, the Duke University genome expert Huntington Willard, "genetically speaking, if you've met one man, you've met them all. We are, I hate to say it, predictable. You can't say that about women. Men and women are farther apart than we ever knew. It's not Mars or Venus. It's Mars or Venus, Pluto, Jupiter and who knows what other planets."
Women are not only more different from men than we knew. Women are more different from each other than we knew - creatures of "infinite variety," as Shakespeare wrote.
"We poor men only have 45 chromosomes to do our work with because our 46th is the pathetic Y that has only a few genes which operate below the waist and above the knees," Dr. Willard observed. "In contrast, we now know that women have the full 46 chromosomes that they're getting work from and the 46th is a second X that is working at levels greater than we knew."
Dr. Willard and his co-author, Laura Carrel, a molecular biologist at the Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, think that their discovery may help explain why the behavior and traits of men and women are so different; they may be hard-wired in the brain, in addition to being hormonal or cultural.
So is Lawrence Summers right after all? "Only time will tell," Dr. Willard laughs.
The researchers learned that a whopping 15 percent - 200 to 300 - of the genes on the second X chromosome in women, thought to be submissive and inert, lolling about on an evolutionary Victorian fainting couch, are active, giving women a significant increase in gene expression over men.
As the Times science reporter Nicholas Wade, who is writing a book about human evolution and genetics, explained it to me: "Women are mosaics, one could even say chimeras, in the sense that they are made up of two different kinds of cell. Whereas men are pure and uncomplicated, being made of just a single kind of cell throughout."
This means men's generalizations about women are correct, too. Women are inscrutable, changeable, crafty, idiosyncratic, a different species.
"Women's chromosomes have more complexity, which men view as unpredictability," said David Page, a molecular biologist and expert on sex evolution at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Mass.
Known as Mr. Y, Dr. P calls himself "the defender of the rotting Y chromosome." He's referring to studies showing that the Y chromosome has been shedding genes willy-nilly for millions of years and is now a fraction of the size of its partner, the X chromosome. "The Y married up," he notes. "The X married down."
Size matters, so some experts have suggested that in 10 million years or even much sooner - 100,000 years - men could disappear, taking Maxim magazine, March Madness and cold pizza in the morning with them.
Dr. Page drolly conjures up a picture of the Y chromosome as "a slovenly beast," sitting in his favorite armchair, surrounded by the litter of old fast food takeout boxes.
"The Y wants to maintain himself but doesn't know how," he said. "He's falling apart, like the guy who can't manage to get a doctor's appointment or can't clean up the house or apartment unless his wife does it.
"I prefer to think of the Y as persevering and noble, not as the Rodney Dangerfield of the human genome."
Dr. Page says the Y - a refuge throughout evolution for any gene that is good for males and/or bad for females - has become "a mirror, a metaphor, a blank slate on which you can write anything you want to think about males." It has inspired cartoon gene maps that show the belching gene, the inability-to-remember-birthdays-and-anniversaries gene, the fascination-with-spiders-and-reptiles gene, the selective-hearing-loss-"Huh" gene, the inability-to-express-affection-on-the-phone gene.
The discovery about women's superior gene expression may answer the age-old question about why men have trouble expressing themselves: because their genes do.
E-mail: liberties@nytimes.com
Condi's Version Of State Department--Just Another Mouth Piece of Bush With As Much Spin
Analysis
The Washington Post
Sunday, March 20, 2005; Page A22
Rice Gives Diplomacy New Focus
Secretary of State Reshapes State Department in White House Image
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
SEOUL, March 19 -- Since becoming secretary of state two months ago, Condoleezza Rice has transformed the language and image of U.S. diplomacy, offering a relentless and consistent message that has turned the State Department into an adjunct of the White House communications machine.
"We are not going to turn a blind eye to the human desire for freedom anywhere in the world," Rice told students Saturday at Tokyo's Sophia University. Later, after flying to a military command center buried in a mountain south of Seoul, near the North Korean border, she hailed U.S. and South Korean troops as being on the "front lines of freedom."
Similarly, speaking to U.S. troops in Afghanistan on Thursday, Rice declared, "Desire for freedom is spreading. It spread to Iraq. It spread to Lebanon. It's spreading throughout the Middle East."
Colin L. Powell, Rice's predecessor, had forged an identity as an independent operator, representing the views of the State Department in the foreign policy debate within the administration. That attitude irritated many officials in the White House, who believed that the president's promotion of democracy was viewed skeptically inside the agency.
Now, the former national security adviser is bringing the White House's views to the State Department -- and by extension to the rest of the world.
The promotion of democracy -- and an unabashed promotion of American values and ideas -- is a theme Rice sounds in every news conference, interview and speech she gives. She told the troops in Kabul, "It's in the finest tradition of America that power comes with compassion . . . that strength comes with a belief in values."
During her first European trip and now her tour of Asia this week, Rice has also delivered major policy addresses designed to place President Bush's vision within a larger strategic framework. Powell appeared uncomfortable giving speeches that articulated grand themes, but aides say Rice is eager to give such addresses, believing that they help explain the administration's positions and advance her diplomatic goals.
In Paris, for instance, she gave a well-received speech that aides say helped lay the groundwork for an agreement with European officials on confronting Iran over its nuclear programs. Then, in Tokyo on Saturday, she outlined a new U.S. vision of Japan's increasing importance as a global power and challenged China to work harder to "embrace some form of open and generally representative government."
Given the White House's sensitivity to the power of media images, Rice's political staff pays particular attention to the shots of her that are shown around the globe -- and, more importantly, in the United States..
Rice has taken other steps to bring the State Department under her control. She has appointed diplomats to some key posts, but she has also given her seventh-floor staff more power. Powell traveled overseas with State Department professionals, leaving his political staff at home. On her tour of Asia this week, Rice brought along her chief of staff, her "counselor" (adviser-without-portfolio Philip D. Zelikow) and a senior media adviser, as well as a speechwriter.
Rice has also lectured her senior staff about the perils of media leaks, causing normally talkative officials to speak carefully, in hushed tones. Several officials said shortly after becoming secretary, she devoted a half-hour senior staff meeting entirely to a discussion of a problematic newspaper article on North Korea policy -- and word quickly spread through Foggy Bottom to limit contacts with reporters.
With steely discipline, Rice refuses to address questions from reporters that might detract from the well-honed talking points prepared in advance. Any number of carefully phrased questions on a subject will yield almost exactly the same answer. Indeed, she often ignores inquiries that raise uncomfortable issues about the administration's democracy campaign -- such as whether she questioned Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, on when he would abide by his promise to give up his army post.
Powell was often responsive to reporters' questions but tended to paper over differences with other countries. Some Bush administration officials say they believe Powell's upbeat answers muddled diplomatic signals and sometimes exposed policy differences within the administration.
Rice has not hesitated to send stern diplomatic messages to countries that displease her -- or, as she might put it, are on the wrong side of freedom. She canceled a trip to the Middle East last month because she was annoyed that Egypt had not responded to her request to release an imprisoned opposition political figure; he was released last week. The day after former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri was killed in a bomb blast, she withdrew the U.S. ambassador from Syria and suggested additional sanctions might be taken under the Syrian Accountability Act -- a law that was viewed skeptically in Powell's State Department.
On Sunday, Rice plans to attend a Palm Sunday church service in Beijing. The visit to the Gangwashi Protestant Church is being described as a private visit by a deeply religious woman, but it also has significant political implications, especially since Rice criticized China's lack of religious freedom in Tokyo on Saturday.
But the tough approach has also backfired. The North Korean government has claimed it pulled out of disarmament talks because Rice had labeled it an "outpost of tyranny," just days before Bush announced in his inauguration speech that he would fight tyranny around the globe. The North Korean government has said it will not return to the talks until she apologizes. Rice has refused, but she has also not repeated the statement.
In another striking departure, Rice has brought new media sophistication to an agency that long prided itself on its focus on policy, not image. She has dropped Powell's practice of talking to reporters in front of the glass doors of the State Department after he escorted foreign officials to their cars. Instead, she brings reporters upstairs to the more visually striking Benjamin Franklin room, reminiscent of rooms in the White House, where she sits with foreign dignitaries in front of a fireplace.
Unlike Powell, who disliked tourism, Rice often schedules a quick visit to a cultural landmark because, aides said, she believes it demonstrates respect and an interest in a country's heritage. The pictures are more evocative than typical images of a Powell trip -- photographs of officials standing at news conferences and the secretary getting on and off his government jet.
When Rice took a half-hour tour Wednesday of the 16th-century Humayun's Tomb in New Delhi, the model for the Taj Mahal, her entourage was directed to move out of camera range so there would be no background distraction in the photographs. The pictures of Rice touring the grounds appeared on the front pages of many Indian newspapers, and across the United States as well.
Condi
In Japan, she was greeted by a former sumo wrestler, Konishiki, one of Japan's most popular sports personalities. The image of the gigantic wrestler -- who topped 600 pounds as a professional -- hugging a woman easily one-quarter his size was featured on morning television news programs in the United States.
The Washington Post
Sunday, March 20, 2005; Page A22
Rice Gives Diplomacy New Focus
Secretary of State Reshapes State Department in White House Image
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
SEOUL, March 19 -- Since becoming secretary of state two months ago, Condoleezza Rice has transformed the language and image of U.S. diplomacy, offering a relentless and consistent message that has turned the State Department into an adjunct of the White House communications machine.
"We are not going to turn a blind eye to the human desire for freedom anywhere in the world," Rice told students Saturday at Tokyo's Sophia University. Later, after flying to a military command center buried in a mountain south of Seoul, near the North Korean border, she hailed U.S. and South Korean troops as being on the "front lines of freedom."
Similarly, speaking to U.S. troops in Afghanistan on Thursday, Rice declared, "Desire for freedom is spreading. It spread to Iraq. It spread to Lebanon. It's spreading throughout the Middle East."
Colin L. Powell, Rice's predecessor, had forged an identity as an independent operator, representing the views of the State Department in the foreign policy debate within the administration. That attitude irritated many officials in the White House, who believed that the president's promotion of democracy was viewed skeptically inside the agency.
Now, the former national security adviser is bringing the White House's views to the State Department -- and by extension to the rest of the world.
The promotion of democracy -- and an unabashed promotion of American values and ideas -- is a theme Rice sounds in every news conference, interview and speech she gives. She told the troops in Kabul, "It's in the finest tradition of America that power comes with compassion . . . that strength comes with a belief in values."
During her first European trip and now her tour of Asia this week, Rice has also delivered major policy addresses designed to place President Bush's vision within a larger strategic framework. Powell appeared uncomfortable giving speeches that articulated grand themes, but aides say Rice is eager to give such addresses, believing that they help explain the administration's positions and advance her diplomatic goals.
In Paris, for instance, she gave a well-received speech that aides say helped lay the groundwork for an agreement with European officials on confronting Iran over its nuclear programs. Then, in Tokyo on Saturday, she outlined a new U.S. vision of Japan's increasing importance as a global power and challenged China to work harder to "embrace some form of open and generally representative government."
Given the White House's sensitivity to the power of media images, Rice's political staff pays particular attention to the shots of her that are shown around the globe -- and, more importantly, in the United States..
Rice has taken other steps to bring the State Department under her control. She has appointed diplomats to some key posts, but she has also given her seventh-floor staff more power. Powell traveled overseas with State Department professionals, leaving his political staff at home. On her tour of Asia this week, Rice brought along her chief of staff, her "counselor" (adviser-without-portfolio Philip D. Zelikow) and a senior media adviser, as well as a speechwriter.
Rice has also lectured her senior staff about the perils of media leaks, causing normally talkative officials to speak carefully, in hushed tones. Several officials said shortly after becoming secretary, she devoted a half-hour senior staff meeting entirely to a discussion of a problematic newspaper article on North Korea policy -- and word quickly spread through Foggy Bottom to limit contacts with reporters.
With steely discipline, Rice refuses to address questions from reporters that might detract from the well-honed talking points prepared in advance. Any number of carefully phrased questions on a subject will yield almost exactly the same answer. Indeed, she often ignores inquiries that raise uncomfortable issues about the administration's democracy campaign -- such as whether she questioned Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, on when he would abide by his promise to give up his army post.
Powell was often responsive to reporters' questions but tended to paper over differences with other countries. Some Bush administration officials say they believe Powell's upbeat answers muddled diplomatic signals and sometimes exposed policy differences within the administration.
Rice has not hesitated to send stern diplomatic messages to countries that displease her -- or, as she might put it, are on the wrong side of freedom. She canceled a trip to the Middle East last month because she was annoyed that Egypt had not responded to her request to release an imprisoned opposition political figure; he was released last week. The day after former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri was killed in a bomb blast, she withdrew the U.S. ambassador from Syria and suggested additional sanctions might be taken under the Syrian Accountability Act -- a law that was viewed skeptically in Powell's State Department.
On Sunday, Rice plans to attend a Palm Sunday church service in Beijing. The visit to the Gangwashi Protestant Church is being described as a private visit by a deeply religious woman, but it also has significant political implications, especially since Rice criticized China's lack of religious freedom in Tokyo on Saturday.
But the tough approach has also backfired. The North Korean government has claimed it pulled out of disarmament talks because Rice had labeled it an "outpost of tyranny," just days before Bush announced in his inauguration speech that he would fight tyranny around the globe. The North Korean government has said it will not return to the talks until she apologizes. Rice has refused, but she has also not repeated the statement.
In another striking departure, Rice has brought new media sophistication to an agency that long prided itself on its focus on policy, not image. She has dropped Powell's practice of talking to reporters in front of the glass doors of the State Department after he escorted foreign officials to their cars. Instead, she brings reporters upstairs to the more visually striking Benjamin Franklin room, reminiscent of rooms in the White House, where she sits with foreign dignitaries in front of a fireplace.
Unlike Powell, who disliked tourism, Rice often schedules a quick visit to a cultural landmark because, aides said, she believes it demonstrates respect and an interest in a country's heritage. The pictures are more evocative than typical images of a Powell trip -- photographs of officials standing at news conferences and the secretary getting on and off his government jet.
When Rice took a half-hour tour Wednesday of the 16th-century Humayun's Tomb in New Delhi, the model for the Taj Mahal, her entourage was directed to move out of camera range so there would be no background distraction in the photographs. The pictures of Rice touring the grounds appeared on the front pages of many Indian newspapers, and across the United States as well.
Condi
In Japan, she was greeted by a former sumo wrestler, Konishiki, one of Japan's most popular sports personalities. The image of the gigantic wrestler -- who topped 600 pounds as a professional -- hugging a woman easily one-quarter his size was featured on morning television news programs in the United States.
Only A Woman Could Do It, Maureen Dowd Redefined Editorial Writing
Ms. Dowd is by far the most clever editorial columinist. She rewrote the rules after all. I get excited every day her column appear in The New York Times. Here, a very interesting look at what Dowd had to overcome to win in the editorial world. And win, she did. When some choose to compare poor Ann Coulter with Dowd, it is an insult to all of even the dumbest among us. But, then again, Coulter is a proclaimed Conservative writer, one could hardly expect more out of her.
The EDITORIAL:
Sunday, March 20, 2005
The Washington Post
He Wrote, She Wrote
By Michael Kinsley
When the New York Times anointed Maureen Dowd as a columnist nine years ago, I gave her some terrible advice. I said, "You've got to write boy stuff. The future of NATO, campaign spending reform. Throw weights. Otherwise, they won't take you seriously." The term "throw weights" had been made famous by a Reagan-era official who said that women can't understand them -- whatever they are, or were.
Dowd wisely ignored me and proceeded to reinvent the political column as a comedy of manners and a running commentary on the psychopathologies of power. It is the first real innovation in this tired literary form since Walter Lippmann. Eighty years ago, Lippmann developed the self-important style in which lunch with a VIP produces a judicious expression of concern by the columnist the next day about developments in danger of being overlooked. Most of today's columns are still variations and corruptions of this formula. But Dowd is different, and she is the most influential columnist of our time.
So the question is: Did it have to be a girl? Or could a boy have built an op-ed career out of feelings and motives and all that ick? The question is pressing because of the current controversy over the number of women's bylines on newspaper opinion pages. (Only one in five or so at the Los Angeles Times and even fewer at the Other Times and The Washington Post.) As the guy in charge of opinion at the L.A. Times, I have endured some horrendous insults, such as being compared to the president of Harvard University.
Harvard President Lawrence Summers is in trouble for suggesting that inherent differences between men and women may be part of the reason so few women are at the scholarly peaks of fields such as math and science. To be a university president, you are supposed to reject any such notion out of hand.
In the op-ed controversy, by contrast, talk of innate differences between men and women is not merely permissible, it is the very justification offered by some women (and deeply resented by others) for demanding more women's bylines. Dowd declares a girlish reluctance to be mean, which she says she overcame, but she urges her sisters to play the boys' game with the boys. The linguist Deborah Tannen pretty much shares Dowd's analysis, but says women shouldn't have to adapt to the peacocky political culture created by men; the culture should learn from and adapt to women.
Meanwhile Dahlia Lithwick, writing in Slate, observes that this discussion has been all-girls so far, and she demands that the boys jump right in. This is a terrifying invitation. Even the most testosteronic male commentator might be excused for deciding that developments in Uzbekistan really require his insights this week. In such circumstances, I always ask myself, "What would the president of Harvard do?" So I proceed.
It is hard to think of a hiring decision in which sex or race ought to matter less than in choosing a professor of mathematics. That makes it a good focus for a discussion of meritocracy, reverse discrimination, innate abilities, cultural prejudice and so on. It's too bad that Harvard seems incapable of having -- or at least allowing its president to participate in -- such a discussion.
By contrast, there cannot be many places where "diversity" is less a euphemism for reverse discrimination and more a common-sense business requirement than on a newspaper op-ed page. Diversity of voices, experiences and sensibilities is not about fairness to writers. It is about serving up a good meal for readers. Sure, it's possible that a man might have come up with the Maureen Dowd formula that has so enriched the New York Times op-ed page. But in this busy world, diversity in the traditional categories of ethnicity and gender is a sensible, efficient shortcut. Everyone involved should be trying harder, including me.
Newspaper opinion sections also want diversity of political views. In recent years, that, frankly, has led to reverse discrimination in favor of conservatives. And an unpleasant reality is that each type of diversity is at war with the others. If pressure for more women succeeds -- as it will -- there will be fewer black voices, fewer Latinos and so on.
Why should this be so? Aren't there black women and conservative Latinos? Of course there are. There may even be a wonderfully articulate disabled Latino gay conservative who is undiscovered because she is outside the comfortable old-boy network. But there probably aren't two.
It's not a question of effort, it's mathematics. Each variable added to the equation subverts efforts to maximize all the other variables. You can seek out the best Japanese restaurant in town, or the best steakhouse. But if you want a Japanese steakhouse, you will have to settle for Benihana's of Tokyo. Or something like that. Where is that Harvard math professor when you need her?
The writer is editorial and opinion editor of the Los Angeles Times.
The EDITORIAL:
Sunday, March 20, 2005
The Washington Post
He Wrote, She Wrote
By Michael Kinsley
When the New York Times anointed Maureen Dowd as a columnist nine years ago, I gave her some terrible advice. I said, "You've got to write boy stuff. The future of NATO, campaign spending reform. Throw weights. Otherwise, they won't take you seriously." The term "throw weights" had been made famous by a Reagan-era official who said that women can't understand them -- whatever they are, or were.
Dowd wisely ignored me and proceeded to reinvent the political column as a comedy of manners and a running commentary on the psychopathologies of power. It is the first real innovation in this tired literary form since Walter Lippmann. Eighty years ago, Lippmann developed the self-important style in which lunch with a VIP produces a judicious expression of concern by the columnist the next day about developments in danger of being overlooked. Most of today's columns are still variations and corruptions of this formula. But Dowd is different, and she is the most influential columnist of our time.
So the question is: Did it have to be a girl? Or could a boy have built an op-ed career out of feelings and motives and all that ick? The question is pressing because of the current controversy over the number of women's bylines on newspaper opinion pages. (Only one in five or so at the Los Angeles Times and even fewer at the Other Times and The Washington Post.) As the guy in charge of opinion at the L.A. Times, I have endured some horrendous insults, such as being compared to the president of Harvard University.
Harvard President Lawrence Summers is in trouble for suggesting that inherent differences between men and women may be part of the reason so few women are at the scholarly peaks of fields such as math and science. To be a university president, you are supposed to reject any such notion out of hand.
In the op-ed controversy, by contrast, talk of innate differences between men and women is not merely permissible, it is the very justification offered by some women (and deeply resented by others) for demanding more women's bylines. Dowd declares a girlish reluctance to be mean, which she says she overcame, but she urges her sisters to play the boys' game with the boys. The linguist Deborah Tannen pretty much shares Dowd's analysis, but says women shouldn't have to adapt to the peacocky political culture created by men; the culture should learn from and adapt to women.
Meanwhile Dahlia Lithwick, writing in Slate, observes that this discussion has been all-girls so far, and she demands that the boys jump right in. This is a terrifying invitation. Even the most testosteronic male commentator might be excused for deciding that developments in Uzbekistan really require his insights this week. In such circumstances, I always ask myself, "What would the president of Harvard do?" So I proceed.
It is hard to think of a hiring decision in which sex or race ought to matter less than in choosing a professor of mathematics. That makes it a good focus for a discussion of meritocracy, reverse discrimination, innate abilities, cultural prejudice and so on. It's too bad that Harvard seems incapable of having -- or at least allowing its president to participate in -- such a discussion.
By contrast, there cannot be many places where "diversity" is less a euphemism for reverse discrimination and more a common-sense business requirement than on a newspaper op-ed page. Diversity of voices, experiences and sensibilities is not about fairness to writers. It is about serving up a good meal for readers. Sure, it's possible that a man might have come up with the Maureen Dowd formula that has so enriched the New York Times op-ed page. But in this busy world, diversity in the traditional categories of ethnicity and gender is a sensible, efficient shortcut. Everyone involved should be trying harder, including me.
Newspaper opinion sections also want diversity of political views. In recent years, that, frankly, has led to reverse discrimination in favor of conservatives. And an unpleasant reality is that each type of diversity is at war with the others. If pressure for more women succeeds -- as it will -- there will be fewer black voices, fewer Latinos and so on.
Why should this be so? Aren't there black women and conservative Latinos? Of course there are. There may even be a wonderfully articulate disabled Latino gay conservative who is undiscovered because she is outside the comfortable old-boy network. But there probably aren't two.
It's not a question of effort, it's mathematics. Each variable added to the equation subverts efforts to maximize all the other variables. You can seek out the best Japanese restaurant in town, or the best steakhouse. But if you want a Japanese steakhouse, you will have to settle for Benihana's of Tokyo. Or something like that. Where is that Harvard math professor when you need her?
The writer is editorial and opinion editor of the Los Angeles Times.
Saturday, March 19, 2005
Note To Self: Have a Living Will To Avoid Congressional Politics
Personal, difficult decisons are hard to make in dealing with matters of keeping a loved one alive by artificial means. For me, it is clearcut, I do not want to be kept alive by a feeding tube or any other medical means once my brain is dead. Now, this case of Schiavo has become a politcial issue, I know that I need to make my wishes clear. Politics and personal tragedy is a deadly mix. All the way up from Jeb to Pres. W a very disturbing trend that is clearly an effort to mobilize the right wing yet again. And Tom Delay, the protected one among Republicans, weighing in to distract from his ethics problems (Delay is going down). Shame on them, Republicans & the Democrats who choose to disrupt a very personal issue. A new low that can only happen in This Nation's Capital. Praise for the few that chose to dissent. Tonight, I write out my personal wishes.
NOTEWORTHY NEWS:
washingtonpost.com > Nation
Federal Lawmakers Reach Deal in Schiavo Case
Compromise Bill Would Allow Her to Resume Being Fed While Federal Court Reviews Case
By SIOBHAN McDONOUGH
Associated Press Writer
Saturday, March 19, 2005; 5:37 PM
PINELLAS PARK, Fla. -- Congressional leaders said Saturday they reached a compromise that would call on federal courts to decide Terri Schiavo's fate, as emotions swelled outside the hospice where the brain-damaged woman spent her second day without a feeding tube.
Four protesters were arrested after they symbolically tried to smuggle bread and water to Schiavo, and her mother pleaded for the 41-year-old woman's life.
"We laugh together, we cry together, we smile together, we talk together," Mary Schindler told reporters as supporters maintained a vigil outside the hospice where her daughter is cared for. "Please, please, please save my little girl."
Congressional leaders announced a compromise that would allow the brain-damaged woman's case to be reviewed by federal courts that could restore her feeding tube. The legislation may be considered as early as Sunday, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said.
"We should investigate every avenue before we take the life of a living human being," said DeLay, R-Texas. "That's the very least we can do for her."
The measure would effectively take Schiavo's fate out of Florida state courts, where judges ordered the feeding tube removed on Friday, and allow Schiavo's parents to take their case to a federal judge. DeLay said that would likely mean restoration of the feeding tube "for as long as this appeal endures."
Bush spokesman Jeanie Mamo said the White House remains "supportive of the efforts by congressional leaders."
The development was the latest in an epic right-to-die battle between Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, and her husband, Michael Schiavo, over whether she should be permitted to die or kept alive by the feeding tube.
Randall Terry, an anti-abortion activist who is acting as a Schindler family spokesman, described the parents as "hopeful" that the congressional compromise would succeed. He said the parents also were concerned about the tight security in their daughter's room, which includes a police officer standing guard.
"They are so determined to kill her that they don't want mom or dad to even put an ice chip in her mouth," Terry said.
In Tallahassee, Gov. Jeb Bush's spokesman Jacob DiPietre said the governor applauded the actions in Congress and would work with legislative leaders "to adjust our laws in a similar fashion."
Passage of the measure would require the presence of only a handful of lawmakers. Congress is on its spring recess, making it more difficult to locate lawmakers.
President Bush, who has said he favors a "presumption of life" for Schiavo, would also have to sign the bill into law. Schiavo, 41, could linger for one or two weeks if the tube is not reinserted -- as has happened twice before.
The attempted compromise would mark the latest wrinkle in the long-running legal battle over the fate of Schiavo, who doctors say is in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery. Her husband has insisted she never wanted to live in such a condition.
"I am 100 percent sure," Michael Schiavo said Saturday on NBC's "Today." He did not respond to requests for an interview from The Associated Press.
Michael Schiavo was at his wife's bedside after the tube was removed and said he felt that "peace was happening" for her. "And I felt like she was finally going to get what she wants, and be at peace and be with the Lord," he said.
About three dozen supporters of Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, maintained a vigil outside the hospice where she lives. Four people, including right wing leader James Gordon "Bo" Gritz, were arrested on misdemeanor trespassing charges when they attempted to bring Schiavo bread and water, which she would be unable to consume.
"A woman is being starved to death, and I have to do something," said Brandi Swindell, 28, from Boise, Idaho. "There are just certain things that you have to do, that you have to try."
A spokesman for Schiavo's parents, Paul O'Donnell, later told reporters that they do not want supporters to engage in civil disobedience on their daughter's behalf.
"The family is asking that the protests remain peaceful," said O'Donnell, a Roman Catholic Franciscan monk.
Schiavo's parents have been attempting for years to remove Michael Schiavo as their daughter's guardian and keep in place the tube that has kept her alive for more than 15 years.
Schiavo suffered severe brain damage in 1990 when a chemical imbalance apparently brought on by an eating disorder caused her heart to stop beating for a few minutes. She can breathe on her own, but has relied on the feeding and hydration tube to keep her alive.
Court-appointed physicians testified her brain damage was so severe that there was no hope she would ever have any cognitive abilities.
Republicans on Capitol Hill were rebuffed by state and federal courts Friday when they tried to halt the tube's removal by issuing subpoenas for Schiavo, her husband and caregivers to appear at congressional hearings.
Both sides accused each other of being motivated by greed over a $1 million medical malpractice award from doctors who failed to diagnose the chemical imbalance.
The Schindlers also said Michael Schiavo wants their daughter dead so he can marry his longtime girlfriend, with whom he has young children. They have begged him to divorce their daughter, and let them care for her.
The case has encompassed at least 19 judges in at least six different courts.
In 2001, Schiavo went without food and water for two days before a judge ordered the tube reinserted when a new witness surfaced.
When the tube was removed in October 2003, the governor pushed through "Terri's Law," and six days later the tube was reinserted. The Florida Supreme Court ruled in September 2004 that Bush had overstepped his authority and declared the law unconstitutional
NOTEWORTHY NEWS:
washingtonpost.com > Nation
Federal Lawmakers Reach Deal in Schiavo Case
Compromise Bill Would Allow Her to Resume Being Fed While Federal Court Reviews Case
By SIOBHAN McDONOUGH
Associated Press Writer
Saturday, March 19, 2005; 5:37 PM
PINELLAS PARK, Fla. -- Congressional leaders said Saturday they reached a compromise that would call on federal courts to decide Terri Schiavo's fate, as emotions swelled outside the hospice where the brain-damaged woman spent her second day without a feeding tube.
Four protesters were arrested after they symbolically tried to smuggle bread and water to Schiavo, and her mother pleaded for the 41-year-old woman's life.
"We laugh together, we cry together, we smile together, we talk together," Mary Schindler told reporters as supporters maintained a vigil outside the hospice where her daughter is cared for. "Please, please, please save my little girl."
Congressional leaders announced a compromise that would allow the brain-damaged woman's case to be reviewed by federal courts that could restore her feeding tube. The legislation may be considered as early as Sunday, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said.
"We should investigate every avenue before we take the life of a living human being," said DeLay, R-Texas. "That's the very least we can do for her."
The measure would effectively take Schiavo's fate out of Florida state courts, where judges ordered the feeding tube removed on Friday, and allow Schiavo's parents to take their case to a federal judge. DeLay said that would likely mean restoration of the feeding tube "for as long as this appeal endures."
Bush spokesman Jeanie Mamo said the White House remains "supportive of the efforts by congressional leaders."
The development was the latest in an epic right-to-die battle between Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, and her husband, Michael Schiavo, over whether she should be permitted to die or kept alive by the feeding tube.
Randall Terry, an anti-abortion activist who is acting as a Schindler family spokesman, described the parents as "hopeful" that the congressional compromise would succeed. He said the parents also were concerned about the tight security in their daughter's room, which includes a police officer standing guard.
"They are so determined to kill her that they don't want mom or dad to even put an ice chip in her mouth," Terry said.
In Tallahassee, Gov. Jeb Bush's spokesman Jacob DiPietre said the governor applauded the actions in Congress and would work with legislative leaders "to adjust our laws in a similar fashion."
Passage of the measure would require the presence of only a handful of lawmakers. Congress is on its spring recess, making it more difficult to locate lawmakers.
President Bush, who has said he favors a "presumption of life" for Schiavo, would also have to sign the bill into law. Schiavo, 41, could linger for one or two weeks if the tube is not reinserted -- as has happened twice before.
The attempted compromise would mark the latest wrinkle in the long-running legal battle over the fate of Schiavo, who doctors say is in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery. Her husband has insisted she never wanted to live in such a condition.
"I am 100 percent sure," Michael Schiavo said Saturday on NBC's "Today." He did not respond to requests for an interview from The Associated Press.
Michael Schiavo was at his wife's bedside after the tube was removed and said he felt that "peace was happening" for her. "And I felt like she was finally going to get what she wants, and be at peace and be with the Lord," he said.
About three dozen supporters of Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, maintained a vigil outside the hospice where she lives. Four people, including right wing leader James Gordon "Bo" Gritz, were arrested on misdemeanor trespassing charges when they attempted to bring Schiavo bread and water, which she would be unable to consume.
"A woman is being starved to death, and I have to do something," said Brandi Swindell, 28, from Boise, Idaho. "There are just certain things that you have to do, that you have to try."
A spokesman for Schiavo's parents, Paul O'Donnell, later told reporters that they do not want supporters to engage in civil disobedience on their daughter's behalf.
"The family is asking that the protests remain peaceful," said O'Donnell, a Roman Catholic Franciscan monk.
Schiavo's parents have been attempting for years to remove Michael Schiavo as their daughter's guardian and keep in place the tube that has kept her alive for more than 15 years.
Schiavo suffered severe brain damage in 1990 when a chemical imbalance apparently brought on by an eating disorder caused her heart to stop beating for a few minutes. She can breathe on her own, but has relied on the feeding and hydration tube to keep her alive.
Court-appointed physicians testified her brain damage was so severe that there was no hope she would ever have any cognitive abilities.
Republicans on Capitol Hill were rebuffed by state and federal courts Friday when they tried to halt the tube's removal by issuing subpoenas for Schiavo, her husband and caregivers to appear at congressional hearings.
Both sides accused each other of being motivated by greed over a $1 million medical malpractice award from doctors who failed to diagnose the chemical imbalance.
The Schindlers also said Michael Schiavo wants their daughter dead so he can marry his longtime girlfriend, with whom he has young children. They have begged him to divorce their daughter, and let them care for her.
The case has encompassed at least 19 judges in at least six different courts.
In 2001, Schiavo went without food and water for two days before a judge ordered the tube reinserted when a new witness surfaced.
When the tube was removed in October 2003, the governor pushed through "Terri's Law," and six days later the tube was reinserted. The Florida Supreme Court ruled in September 2004 that Bush had overstepped his authority and declared the law unconstitutional
A Left-Wing Response To Right-Wing Ideology On Campuses
Op/Ed - The Nation
Taking Back the Campuses
Fri Mar 18, 4:20 PM ET
Katrina vanden Heuvel
For all the talk of left-wing bias in academia, little notice has been given to the right's growing influence on America's college campuses. As part of the conservative message machine's decades-long project to spread its ideology, the right currently pumps over $35 million a year into college campuses, funding speakers, backing conservative papers, and pampering young leaders with internships and job opportunities.
In the past month, however, two promising organizations have emerged to aggressively counter the right's operations and promote progressive values on campuses and beyond.
The Center for American Progress officially launched its Campus Progress initiative in February, and has already created significant media buzz with its "Name Ann Coulter's Next Book" contest (the winning submission was "Roosevelt: Wheelchair-Riding, America-Hating Terrorist"). Campus Progress currently provides funding to fourteen progressive college papers nationwide, sponsors film screenings and lectures by CAP fellows and progressive leaders, and in July, will host a national student conference in Washington. (In addition to providing speakers to the lecture circuit, The Nation will be co-sponsoring the student conference.)
The Roosevelt Institution, America's first national student-run think thank, also emerged this February. Independently launched by students at Stanford University, the Roosevelt Institution hopes to counter the far-reaching impact of right-wing think tanks-- such as Stanford's own Hoover Institution--with fresh progressive ideas and policy suggestions. Instead of seeing student papers such as Jenny Tolan's thesis on AIDS in Africa filed away, the Roosevelt Institution is ensuring that these findings are brought to the attention of the public.
"Progressive students are already generating smart, bold ideas in their classes everyday," Kai Stinchcombe, president of the think tank, told the Stanford Daily. "The Roosevelt Institution fills a huge, but relatively simple, need by providing an infrastructure to forward those ideas to the public, to influence the decision makers." The institution has grown rapidly since its inception, opening branches at Yale, Columbia, Middlebury; dozens of other schools have chapters underway.
The campus left looks more organized and unified than it has been in decades.
We also want to hear from you. Please let us know if you have a sweet victory you think we should cover by emailing to: nationvictories@gmail.com. This week, we're particularly interested in any creative antiwar protests that take place this weekend.
Co-written by Sam Graham-Felsen, a freelance journalist, documentary filmmaker, and blogger (www.boldprint.net) living in Brooklyn.
Taking Back the Campuses
Fri Mar 18, 4:20 PM ET
Katrina vanden Heuvel
For all the talk of left-wing bias in academia, little notice has been given to the right's growing influence on America's college campuses. As part of the conservative message machine's decades-long project to spread its ideology, the right currently pumps over $35 million a year into college campuses, funding speakers, backing conservative papers, and pampering young leaders with internships and job opportunities.
In the past month, however, two promising organizations have emerged to aggressively counter the right's operations and promote progressive values on campuses and beyond.
The Center for American Progress officially launched its Campus Progress initiative in February, and has already created significant media buzz with its "Name Ann Coulter's Next Book" contest (the winning submission was "Roosevelt: Wheelchair-Riding, America-Hating Terrorist"). Campus Progress currently provides funding to fourteen progressive college papers nationwide, sponsors film screenings and lectures by CAP fellows and progressive leaders, and in July, will host a national student conference in Washington. (In addition to providing speakers to the lecture circuit, The Nation will be co-sponsoring the student conference.)
The Roosevelt Institution, America's first national student-run think thank, also emerged this February. Independently launched by students at Stanford University, the Roosevelt Institution hopes to counter the far-reaching impact of right-wing think tanks-- such as Stanford's own Hoover Institution--with fresh progressive ideas and policy suggestions. Instead of seeing student papers such as Jenny Tolan's thesis on AIDS in Africa filed away, the Roosevelt Institution is ensuring that these findings are brought to the attention of the public.
"Progressive students are already generating smart, bold ideas in their classes everyday," Kai Stinchcombe, president of the think tank, told the Stanford Daily. "The Roosevelt Institution fills a huge, but relatively simple, need by providing an infrastructure to forward those ideas to the public, to influence the decision makers." The institution has grown rapidly since its inception, opening branches at Yale, Columbia, Middlebury; dozens of other schools have chapters underway.
The campus left looks more organized and unified than it has been in decades.
We also want to hear from you. Please let us know if you have a sweet victory you think we should cover by emailing to: nationvictories@gmail.com. This week, we're particularly interested in any creative antiwar protests that take place this weekend.
Co-written by Sam Graham-Felsen, a freelance journalist, documentary filmmaker, and blogger (www.boldprint.net) living in Brooklyn.
How Does One Parallel Black's Civil Rights & Gay's Civil Rights?
Gay rights parallel civil rights arguments
Source: The Ohio City Press- Citizen-Opinion
By Tobias Barrington Wolff, Guest Opinion
Saturday, March 19, 2005
San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer made a bold choice in Mon-day's opinion recognizing the equal right of gay couples to marry: He invoked Brown vs. Board of Education and the American legacy of segregation to explain a part of his ruling ("Judge rules for gay marriage," March 15).
Isn't it sufficient, the state had asked in its briefs, to allow gay couples to en-ter into "domestic partnerships" with all the basic rights of marriage under a different name?
Absolutely not, responded Kramer in his decision, because such a "separate but equal" institution would give gay people a "feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community" -- the same type of harm that segregated students experienced under Jim Crow and that led the U.S. Supreme Court in 1954 to outlaw school segregation.
It was bold to wrap the marriage ruling in the mantle of Brown because, frank-ly, many blacks take offense when people draw parallels between gay rights and the issue of race in the United States. The comparison, many say, feels like a misappropriation of their history. The problem is made worse by the fact that the public face of the gay community is too often exclusively white.
Historical reality
I come to the issue as both a gay man and a constitutional scholar who has tried hard to understand the history of slavery and Jim Crow in our nation. From that vantage, I see the need for more care on all sides in making these arguments.
First, there is a historical reality that we must ack-nowledge. The oppression of gay people in the United States is not morally equivalent to the oppression that blacks have endured. It just isn't. I cringe when gay people, rightly outraged at the discrimination that they face, take that extra step and say, "Excluding us from the right to marry is like telling us that we're three-fifths of a person."
When the Supreme Court declared in Brown that the tradition of "separate but equal" has no place in our public institutions and recognized individual dignity as a constitutional value that must be respected, that statement was uniquely the result of the black experience in the United States.
But the enduring power of Brown derives from the fact that its principles are not limited to black Ameri-cans. In the same year that the court decided Brown, it also recognized the right of Mexican-Americans to equal citizenship through jury service. Within 20 years, the court had applied those same principles to women and religious minor-ities.
Gay people do have a right to claim a place in that constitutional tradition. The second-class citizenship that gay people continue to endure may not be as bad as Jim Crow and slavery, but it is bad enough.
Excluded from open military service, unable to claim federal workplace protection and denied equal support for their families in most parts of the country, gay people can have little doubt what it means for their place within the community when the state refuses to allow them to marry.
Gay people enter a house built by the labor of others when they invoke the tradition of Brown, and they should claim that place with a degree of humility. None-theless, they have earned that place through blood and tears. It is no threat to the legacy of the civil rights movement to recognize their claim. It is a vindication.
Thus, the San Francisco court was correct to rely upon Brown in analyzing California's exclusion of gay couples from civil marriage. Brown does not require us to ask who among us is the most oppressed. It requires us to ask how discrimination against any group of people affects their status as equal citizens.
Reach Tobias Barrington Wolff, a professor at University of California-Davis Law School and executive board member of the Equal Justice Society, a civil rights advocacy group, at tbwolff@ucdavis.edu.
Source: The Ohio City Press- Citizen-Opinion
By Tobias Barrington Wolff, Guest Opinion
Saturday, March 19, 2005
San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer made a bold choice in Mon-day's opinion recognizing the equal right of gay couples to marry: He invoked Brown vs. Board of Education and the American legacy of segregation to explain a part of his ruling ("Judge rules for gay marriage," March 15).
Isn't it sufficient, the state had asked in its briefs, to allow gay couples to en-ter into "domestic partnerships" with all the basic rights of marriage under a different name?
Absolutely not, responded Kramer in his decision, because such a "separate but equal" institution would give gay people a "feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community" -- the same type of harm that segregated students experienced under Jim Crow and that led the U.S. Supreme Court in 1954 to outlaw school segregation.
It was bold to wrap the marriage ruling in the mantle of Brown because, frank-ly, many blacks take offense when people draw parallels between gay rights and the issue of race in the United States. The comparison, many say, feels like a misappropriation of their history. The problem is made worse by the fact that the public face of the gay community is too often exclusively white.
Historical reality
I come to the issue as both a gay man and a constitutional scholar who has tried hard to understand the history of slavery and Jim Crow in our nation. From that vantage, I see the need for more care on all sides in making these arguments.
First, there is a historical reality that we must ack-nowledge. The oppression of gay people in the United States is not morally equivalent to the oppression that blacks have endured. It just isn't. I cringe when gay people, rightly outraged at the discrimination that they face, take that extra step and say, "Excluding us from the right to marry is like telling us that we're three-fifths of a person."
When the Supreme Court declared in Brown that the tradition of "separate but equal" has no place in our public institutions and recognized individual dignity as a constitutional value that must be respected, that statement was uniquely the result of the black experience in the United States.
But the enduring power of Brown derives from the fact that its principles are not limited to black Ameri-cans. In the same year that the court decided Brown, it also recognized the right of Mexican-Americans to equal citizenship through jury service. Within 20 years, the court had applied those same principles to women and religious minor-ities.
Gay people do have a right to claim a place in that constitutional tradition. The second-class citizenship that gay people continue to endure may not be as bad as Jim Crow and slavery, but it is bad enough.
Excluded from open military service, unable to claim federal workplace protection and denied equal support for their families in most parts of the country, gay people can have little doubt what it means for their place within the community when the state refuses to allow them to marry.
Gay people enter a house built by the labor of others when they invoke the tradition of Brown, and they should claim that place with a degree of humility. None-theless, they have earned that place through blood and tears. It is no threat to the legacy of the civil rights movement to recognize their claim. It is a vindication.
Thus, the San Francisco court was correct to rely upon Brown in analyzing California's exclusion of gay couples from civil marriage. Brown does not require us to ask who among us is the most oppressed. It requires us to ask how discrimination against any group of people affects their status as equal citizens.
Reach Tobias Barrington Wolff, a professor at University of California-Davis Law School and executive board member of the Equal Justice Society, a civil rights advocacy group, at tbwolff@ucdavis.edu.
Civil Injustice: Police Turn A Blind Eye To A Battered Woman
This editorial describes a situation that I find to be almost unbelieveable. Battered women are far too often ignored when they plead for help. This case ended with the very worst results. I for one am incensed and will start my letter writing immediately. This is an atrocity and deserves everyone's attention and call to action. The EDITORIAL:
The Washington Post
Saturday, March 19, 2005
Battered Justice for Battered Women
By Joan Meier
It is common for the public and the courts to criticize women who are victims of domestic abuse for staying in an abusive relationship and tolerating it. But what happens when women do try to end the abuse? Jessica Gonzales's story provides one horrifying answer.
In May 1999 Gonzales received a protection order from her suicidal and frightening husband, Simon Gonzales, whom she was divorcing. The order limited his access to the home and the children. On June 22 the three girls disappeared near their house. But when Jessica Gonzales called the Castle Rock, Colo., police department, she received no assistance. Over a period of eight hours, the police refused to take action, repeatedly telling her that there was nothing they could do and that she should call back later -- even after she had located her husband and daughters by cell phone. The three young girls, ages 7, 9 and 10, were not to survive the night. At 3 a.m. on June 23, Simon Gonzales arrived at the police station in his truck, opened fire and was killed by return fire. The bodies of Leslie, Katheryn and Rebecca were found in the back of his truck.
Next week the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case of Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Jessica Gonzales, which stems from Gonzales's lawsuit against the police. The question before the court is whether the constitutional guarantee of procedural due process was violated by the police department's dismissal of the protection order, in clear violation of the state statute, which required them to use "every reasonable means" to enforce it. If procedural due process -- required by the 14th Amendment -- means anything, then it must be found that it was violated here, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit has so ruled.
The doctrine of procedural due process derives from the principle that when a state chooses to establish a benefit or right for citizens, it may not deny such benefits in an arbitrary or unfair way. In this case, the state established a benefit of mandated police enforcement of protection orders. Aware that police discretion too often fails, the Colorado legislation required the police to make arrests or otherwise to enforce domestic violence restraining orders of the sort issued to Jessica Gonzales. Police discretion was limited to determining whether a violation of an order had occurred. Yet in this case the police did nothing; they simply ignored the complaint, a clear example of "arbitrary" conduct.
This type of police behavior has to be understood in its historical and legal context. Early English common law and some U.S. courts once endorsed the right of men to beat their wives and children, on the grounds that the man was head of the household. By the mid-19th century, most states had abandoned such legal doctrines, but the courts and police continued to refuse to protect victims of violence in the family in the name of so-called family privacy. In the past few decades, while many police departments have implemented better procedures, too many have continued to be indifferent and sometimes even hostile to women's calls for help. Thus many states such as Colorado have tried to force change by requiring police responses to victims of abuse, particularly where a protection order has been violated.
The Castle Rock police department and its defenders, such as the National League of Cities, the National Sheriffs' Association and others, are arguing that the police could not have predicted the terrible outcome of what appeared at the time to be a mere "domestic dispute." But it was not the police department's job to make predictions. As in 19 other states and the District of Columbia, Colorado's mandatory-arrest statute was adopted to end precisely this type of speculative decision making by police. Indeed, the Castle Rock police department's dismissive attitude not only defied the law, it flouted standard practices for domestic violence cases. Four police associations and the police-led Americans for Effective Law Enforcement have signed on to a brief opposing the Castle Rock police department, and the International Association of Chiefs of Police has refused to support the town's position.
Castle Rock and, shamefully, the Bush administration argue that to uphold the 10th Circuit's finding of a constitutional violation would be to inappropriately insert the federal courts into state matters. But here the state has done everything it could to ensure police action: Both the legislature and courts have spoken emphatically to require police protection in domestic violence cases. A negative decision from the high court, far from respecting the state's policy, would undercut it and would give police everywhere a green light to ignore state mandates requiring enforcement. Such a decision would encourage police to do less than they do now, drastically weakening the effectiveness of protection orders, which are a crucial legal means of protecting battered women and children.
In fact, the history of profound gender inequality in the government's treatment of wife-beating makes the problem one of core constitutional concern. No less than police brutality, this kind of passive misconduct implicates fundamental civil rights.
The writer is a professor of clinical law at George Washington University and director of the Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project. She is co-author of a friend-of-the-court brief submitted to the Supreme Court in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales.
The Washington Post
Saturday, March 19, 2005
Battered Justice for Battered Women
By Joan Meier
It is common for the public and the courts to criticize women who are victims of domestic abuse for staying in an abusive relationship and tolerating it. But what happens when women do try to end the abuse? Jessica Gonzales's story provides one horrifying answer.
In May 1999 Gonzales received a protection order from her suicidal and frightening husband, Simon Gonzales, whom she was divorcing. The order limited his access to the home and the children. On June 22 the three girls disappeared near their house. But when Jessica Gonzales called the Castle Rock, Colo., police department, she received no assistance. Over a period of eight hours, the police refused to take action, repeatedly telling her that there was nothing they could do and that she should call back later -- even after she had located her husband and daughters by cell phone. The three young girls, ages 7, 9 and 10, were not to survive the night. At 3 a.m. on June 23, Simon Gonzales arrived at the police station in his truck, opened fire and was killed by return fire. The bodies of Leslie, Katheryn and Rebecca were found in the back of his truck.
Next week the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case of Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Jessica Gonzales, which stems from Gonzales's lawsuit against the police. The question before the court is whether the constitutional guarantee of procedural due process was violated by the police department's dismissal of the protection order, in clear violation of the state statute, which required them to use "every reasonable means" to enforce it. If procedural due process -- required by the 14th Amendment -- means anything, then it must be found that it was violated here, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit has so ruled.
The doctrine of procedural due process derives from the principle that when a state chooses to establish a benefit or right for citizens, it may not deny such benefits in an arbitrary or unfair way. In this case, the state established a benefit of mandated police enforcement of protection orders. Aware that police discretion too often fails, the Colorado legislation required the police to make arrests or otherwise to enforce domestic violence restraining orders of the sort issued to Jessica Gonzales. Police discretion was limited to determining whether a violation of an order had occurred. Yet in this case the police did nothing; they simply ignored the complaint, a clear example of "arbitrary" conduct.
This type of police behavior has to be understood in its historical and legal context. Early English common law and some U.S. courts once endorsed the right of men to beat their wives and children, on the grounds that the man was head of the household. By the mid-19th century, most states had abandoned such legal doctrines, but the courts and police continued to refuse to protect victims of violence in the family in the name of so-called family privacy. In the past few decades, while many police departments have implemented better procedures, too many have continued to be indifferent and sometimes even hostile to women's calls for help. Thus many states such as Colorado have tried to force change by requiring police responses to victims of abuse, particularly where a protection order has been violated.
The Castle Rock police department and its defenders, such as the National League of Cities, the National Sheriffs' Association and others, are arguing that the police could not have predicted the terrible outcome of what appeared at the time to be a mere "domestic dispute." But it was not the police department's job to make predictions. As in 19 other states and the District of Columbia, Colorado's mandatory-arrest statute was adopted to end precisely this type of speculative decision making by police. Indeed, the Castle Rock police department's dismissive attitude not only defied the law, it flouted standard practices for domestic violence cases. Four police associations and the police-led Americans for Effective Law Enforcement have signed on to a brief opposing the Castle Rock police department, and the International Association of Chiefs of Police has refused to support the town's position.
Castle Rock and, shamefully, the Bush administration argue that to uphold the 10th Circuit's finding of a constitutional violation would be to inappropriately insert the federal courts into state matters. But here the state has done everything it could to ensure police action: Both the legislature and courts have spoken emphatically to require police protection in domestic violence cases. A negative decision from the high court, far from respecting the state's policy, would undercut it and would give police everywhere a green light to ignore state mandates requiring enforcement. Such a decision would encourage police to do less than they do now, drastically weakening the effectiveness of protection orders, which are a crucial legal means of protecting battered women and children.
In fact, the history of profound gender inequality in the government's treatment of wife-beating makes the problem one of core constitutional concern. No less than police brutality, this kind of passive misconduct implicates fundamental civil rights.
The writer is a professor of clinical law at George Washington University and director of the Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project. She is co-author of a friend-of-the-court brief submitted to the Supreme Court in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales.
Friday, March 18, 2005
Common Cents...Social Security A Politcal Gamble For All While Bush Is Out Spreading Rhetoric
As Pres. Bush makes his tour dates to preach his foolishness, the Senate seems to understand what the real issues are. Rather pathetic that GWB thinks this is a polaroid moment. Duhhhh....
Politicians to take a hit with any benefits fix
Fri Mar 18, 6:13 AM ET
Politics - USATODAY.com
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan) said this week that Social Security "is not a hugely difficult problem to solve."
Senators passed a resolution 100-0 the same day calling on themselves to work together to solve the financial problems confronting the nation's retirement program.
So why the trouble getting anything done? The math is easy. The politics are hard. No matter what the fix, Americans will pay more or get less - possibly both.
"Politicians aren't sure what to do. They're looking for the answer that upsets the fewest voters the least," says Jennifer Duffy, managing editor of The Cook Political Report, a non-partisan newsletter that covers politics. "Tinkering with Social Security has always been politically damaging."
President Bush started a debate in January when he proposed allowing younger workers to divert some of their Social Security taxes into private investment accounts. The discussion has expanded to include a wide range of proposed solutions. All are variations on the same theme: raise taxes or cut benefits. But they vary dramatically in who gets hurt and the political repercussions that may follow.
The financial effects of the proposed changes are clear. Last month, Social Security actuaries estimated how 18 proposals would affect the program's long-term financial health.
Social Security faces a $3.7 trillion shortfall over the next 75 years caused by the retirements of 79 million baby boomers, starting in 2008. That means the benefits paid in future years will exceed the amount of Social Security payroll taxes that finance the program.
"Raising the retirement age and many other options are on the table now that weren't under consideration six months ago," says Maya MacGuineas, fiscal policy director at the New America Foundation, a think tank. "That's a healthy development."
Among the major options:
•Raising the retirement age. A one-year increase in the full retirement age amounts to a 7% cut in lifetime benefits. The full retirement age for 62-year-olds who qualify for Social Security this year is 66, but they can retire early at a reduced monthly benefit. The age for full retirement will rise gradually to 67 in 2022. About 75% of Americans begin receiving Social Security before they reach the full retirement age. The benefit increases slightly each month people delay retirement.
If the full retirement age were increased to 70, Social Security's long-term deficit would be reduced 36%-68%, depending on how fast the change was made and whether the age continued to rise with life expectancies.
"Politically, it would be very difficult to cut everyone's benefit by 7%," says Ron Gebhardtsbauer, a Social Security expert for the American Academy of Actuaries. "But you can get the same result by raising the retirement age, and it still lets people choose their benefit level by deciding when they retire."
Raising the retirement age also leaves Social Security benefits for the disabled untouched, he says.
•Changing the formula used to compute benefits. Social Security now bases benefits on a formula that considers a worker's 35 highest-earning years. Changing this to 40 years - essentially adding 5 low-income years to the calculation - would cut benefits about 4% for new retirees. That would shave 22% off Social Security's long-term shortfall.
The most substantial proposal would base a retiree's initial benefit on a formula that uses inflation, rather than wage growth. This change would wipe out the entire shortfall. Inflation is, on average, about 1 percentage point less than wage growth. Benefits would still increase, but about 1% less per year than under the current formula.
People retiring in the first year after such a change would get a starting benefit 1% less. For example, a person entitled to a $1,000 monthly benefit under the current formula would get $990 instead - or 1% less. A person with the same wage history who retired 10 years after the change would get a starting benefit of $1,305 a month under the inflation-adjusted formula, rather than $1,466 under the wage-growth formula - 10% less than the current formula. All retirees would still get annual cost-of-living increases as they do now.
President Bush's Commission to Strengthen Social Security, created in 2001, listed this as an option in a combination with private accounts.
The United Kingdom made the change in the 1980s, and it has improved the financial health of that country's pension program, Gebhardtsbauer says. But it has brought criticism that benefits are now inadequate, he says.
• Increasing the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax. The Social Security payroll tax of 12.4% will be levied on the first $90,000 of income in 2005. The amount rises annually with inflation. About 16% of all wages are untaxed.
An ABC/Washington Post poll this week showed that raising the cap on taxable wages is the most popular option to improve Social Security's finances. President Bush says he will consider it, but Republican leaders in the House of Representatives have ruled it out. The president and congressional leaders have ruled out raising the Social Security tax rate.
The AARP, a lobbying group for people 50 and older, says 43% of the system's deficit would be eliminated by raising the taxable income limit to $140,000. Actuaries say 93% would be eliminated if the cap were removed entirely.
One problem: Social Security bases benefits on a retiree's income that is subject to the Social Security tax.
"The taxable limit is there partly so Social Security doesn't have to cut $100,000 monthly checks to Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Donald Trump," says David John, a Social Security expert for the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington.
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and other liberals oppose denying benefits to the affluent because they fear it will change the image of Social Security from a quasi-pension system to a welfare program. That could diminish its broad political support.
Congress has other ways to make the wealthy pay more or get less. It could increase the amount of Social Security benefits subject to the federal income tax. It could change the benefit formula so that higher wages earn less credit for benefits than now.
MacGuineas of the New America Foundation says cutting benefits for the wealthy isn't enough to fix the program. Benefit cuts would have to extend to people who earn $50,000 to $100,000 to make the program sound.
"The fiscal crisis for the whole government revolves around middle class entitlements," MacGuineas says.
She says it would be a mistake to lift the Social Security tax limit without creating private accounts or reforming the way benefits are computed.
Social Security actuaries, in their report, count on Congress repaying $1.7 trillion borrowed from the program's trust fund to pay for other government programs such as defense and education. But the report does not speculate how that money will be raised.
"Voters want the Social Security problem solved - as long as it doesn't affect their lives in any way," political analyst Duffy says. "Legislators have a hard time pleasing voters who want it all."
Politicians to take a hit with any benefits fix
Fri Mar 18, 6:13 AM ET
Politics - USATODAY.com
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan) said this week that Social Security "is not a hugely difficult problem to solve."
Senators passed a resolution 100-0 the same day calling on themselves to work together to solve the financial problems confronting the nation's retirement program.
So why the trouble getting anything done? The math is easy. The politics are hard. No matter what the fix, Americans will pay more or get less - possibly both.
"Politicians aren't sure what to do. They're looking for the answer that upsets the fewest voters the least," says Jennifer Duffy, managing editor of The Cook Political Report, a non-partisan newsletter that covers politics. "Tinkering with Social Security has always been politically damaging."
President Bush started a debate in January when he proposed allowing younger workers to divert some of their Social Security taxes into private investment accounts. The discussion has expanded to include a wide range of proposed solutions. All are variations on the same theme: raise taxes or cut benefits. But they vary dramatically in who gets hurt and the political repercussions that may follow.
The financial effects of the proposed changes are clear. Last month, Social Security actuaries estimated how 18 proposals would affect the program's long-term financial health.
Social Security faces a $3.7 trillion shortfall over the next 75 years caused by the retirements of 79 million baby boomers, starting in 2008. That means the benefits paid in future years will exceed the amount of Social Security payroll taxes that finance the program.
"Raising the retirement age and many other options are on the table now that weren't under consideration six months ago," says Maya MacGuineas, fiscal policy director at the New America Foundation, a think tank. "That's a healthy development."
Among the major options:
•Raising the retirement age. A one-year increase in the full retirement age amounts to a 7% cut in lifetime benefits. The full retirement age for 62-year-olds who qualify for Social Security this year is 66, but they can retire early at a reduced monthly benefit. The age for full retirement will rise gradually to 67 in 2022. About 75% of Americans begin receiving Social Security before they reach the full retirement age. The benefit increases slightly each month people delay retirement.
If the full retirement age were increased to 70, Social Security's long-term deficit would be reduced 36%-68%, depending on how fast the change was made and whether the age continued to rise with life expectancies.
"Politically, it would be very difficult to cut everyone's benefit by 7%," says Ron Gebhardtsbauer, a Social Security expert for the American Academy of Actuaries. "But you can get the same result by raising the retirement age, and it still lets people choose their benefit level by deciding when they retire."
Raising the retirement age also leaves Social Security benefits for the disabled untouched, he says.
•Changing the formula used to compute benefits. Social Security now bases benefits on a formula that considers a worker's 35 highest-earning years. Changing this to 40 years - essentially adding 5 low-income years to the calculation - would cut benefits about 4% for new retirees. That would shave 22% off Social Security's long-term shortfall.
The most substantial proposal would base a retiree's initial benefit on a formula that uses inflation, rather than wage growth. This change would wipe out the entire shortfall. Inflation is, on average, about 1 percentage point less than wage growth. Benefits would still increase, but about 1% less per year than under the current formula.
People retiring in the first year after such a change would get a starting benefit 1% less. For example, a person entitled to a $1,000 monthly benefit under the current formula would get $990 instead - or 1% less. A person with the same wage history who retired 10 years after the change would get a starting benefit of $1,305 a month under the inflation-adjusted formula, rather than $1,466 under the wage-growth formula - 10% less than the current formula. All retirees would still get annual cost-of-living increases as they do now.
President Bush's Commission to Strengthen Social Security, created in 2001, listed this as an option in a combination with private accounts.
The United Kingdom made the change in the 1980s, and it has improved the financial health of that country's pension program, Gebhardtsbauer says. But it has brought criticism that benefits are now inadequate, he says.
• Increasing the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax. The Social Security payroll tax of 12.4% will be levied on the first $90,000 of income in 2005. The amount rises annually with inflation. About 16% of all wages are untaxed.
An ABC/Washington Post poll this week showed that raising the cap on taxable wages is the most popular option to improve Social Security's finances. President Bush says he will consider it, but Republican leaders in the House of Representatives have ruled it out. The president and congressional leaders have ruled out raising the Social Security tax rate.
The AARP, a lobbying group for people 50 and older, says 43% of the system's deficit would be eliminated by raising the taxable income limit to $140,000. Actuaries say 93% would be eliminated if the cap were removed entirely.
One problem: Social Security bases benefits on a retiree's income that is subject to the Social Security tax.
"The taxable limit is there partly so Social Security doesn't have to cut $100,000 monthly checks to Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Donald Trump," says David John, a Social Security expert for the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington.
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and other liberals oppose denying benefits to the affluent because they fear it will change the image of Social Security from a quasi-pension system to a welfare program. That could diminish its broad political support.
Congress has other ways to make the wealthy pay more or get less. It could increase the amount of Social Security benefits subject to the federal income tax. It could change the benefit formula so that higher wages earn less credit for benefits than now.
MacGuineas of the New America Foundation says cutting benefits for the wealthy isn't enough to fix the program. Benefit cuts would have to extend to people who earn $50,000 to $100,000 to make the program sound.
"The fiscal crisis for the whole government revolves around middle class entitlements," MacGuineas says.
She says it would be a mistake to lift the Social Security tax limit without creating private accounts or reforming the way benefits are computed.
Social Security actuaries, in their report, count on Congress repaying $1.7 trillion borrowed from the program's trust fund to pay for other government programs such as defense and education. But the report does not speculate how that money will be raised.
"Voters want the Social Security problem solved - as long as it doesn't affect their lives in any way," political analyst Duffy says. "Legislators have a hard time pleasing voters who want it all."
Financing Democracy: Bush Can't Put Our Money Where His Mouth Is
Funding Scarce for Export of Democracy
Fri Mar 18,11:41 AM ET
Politics - washingtonpost.com
By Peter Baker, Washington Post Staff Writer
In the weeks after a popular uprising toppled a corrupt government in Ukraine, President Bush (hailed the so-called Orange Revolution as proof that democracy was on the march and promised $60 million to help secure it in Kiev. But Republican congressional allies balked and slashed it this week to $33.7 million.
The shrinking financial commitment to Ukrainian democracy highlights a broader gap between rhetoric and resources among budget writers in the Bush administration and on Capitol Hill as the president vows to devote his second term to "ending tyranny in our world," according to budget documents, congressional critics and democracy advocates.
The administration has pumped substantial new funds into promoting democracy in Muslim countries but virtually nowhere else in the world. The administration has cut budgets for groups struggling to build civil society and democratic institutions in Russia, Eastern Europe and Asia, even as Moscow has pulled back from democracy and governments in China, Burma, Uzbekistan and elsewhere remain among the most repressive in the world.
Funding for the National Endowment for Democracy has remained flat for the past two years except in the Middle East, while separate democracy-building programs have been slashed by 38 percent in Eastern Europe and 46 percent in the former Soviet Union during Bush's presidency. The venerable beacons of American-style democracy, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia, are receiving no sizable increases.
Lorne W. Craner, who until recently was assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor, said the shifting priorities are a logical byproduct of the post-Sept. 11 world, in which fostering democracy in Muslim communities came to be seen as a means to combat terrorism.
"People in other regions for two or three years after 9/11 said, 'You're not giving us as much attention as we deserve,' and I think that was a fair critique and the reason was we were creating a whole new policy for the Middle East," Craner said. "A lot of people's time was taken up by the Middle East that, but for 9/11, would have gone to other areas. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so. Certainly I would say we needed to pay more attention to the Middle East."
The focus on Iraq, he added, will be critical to setting a role model for other regions as well. "If Iraq doesn't work," he said, "a lot of people are going to say, 'Is that what you mean by democracy?' "
But others took issue with the selective aid. "The president is not putting his money where his mouth is," said Tom Malinowski, Washington director of Human Rights Watch. While giving Bush credit for investing in democracy in the Middle East, he added, "There are just big country-by-country, region-by-region differences when it comes to the administration's commitment to democracy promotion."
"There are a number of countries that aren't getting much democracy aid," said Thomas Carothers, director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's project on democracy and the rule of law. Carothers pointed to mass arrests of protesters seeking restoration of democracy in Nepal this week. "There are places like that where we're losing because they're on the edge of the world and people aren't paying attention."
Among groups that will lose out is the Asia Foundation, which works to reform legal codes, foster civil society and promote women's rights in places such as Indonesia, where it is credited with helping the transition from decades of dictatorship. The Bush budget for the 2006 fiscal year cuts the foundation's grant from $13 million to $10 million. "Any cut at that level would be very difficult for our program," said Nancy Yuan, a foundation vice president.
Also facing cuts is the Eurasia Foundation, which has been told that the final installment of a $25 million grant to set up a U.S.-European-Russian democracy program in Russia may be delayed despite President Vladimir Putin's moves to clamp down on political opposition. "We can't give up," said Charles William Maynes, president of the Eurasia Foundation. "It would be disastrous if we do."
The International Republican Institute (IRI) and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), the main U.S. agencies that teach political activists how to conduct fair elections, devote about half of their budgets to Iraq and the Middle East, according Craner, who is now IRI president.
Measuring how much Washington spends on democracy promotion is difficult because the money is scattered among programs and much of it is embedded in grants by the U.S. Agency for International Development. But recent trends have been clear. USAID spending on democracy and governance programs alone shot up from $671 million in 2002 to $1.2 billion in 2004, but almost all of that increase was devoted to Iraq and Afghanistan. Without those two countries, the USAID democracy spending in 2004 was $685 million, virtually unchanged from two years earlier.
Bush broadened his focus beyond the Middle East in his second inaugural address when he issued a manifesto to promote democracy around the globe, declaring it U.S. policy "to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture."
The budget he submitted to Congress two weeks later, however, included no huge new investment in such institutions beyond the Muslim world.
The National Endowment for Democracy, which funds the IRI, the NDI and other programs, received $80 million, twice its budget of two years ago, but the entire $40 million increase went to Bush's Middle East democracy initiative, leaving everything else flat. Voice of America received an extra $10 million, but it was devoted to expanding programs in Persian, Dari, Urdu and Pashtu aimed at non-Arabic Muslim listeners. The only other broadcasts to get major funding increases were those aimed at Cuba, which went from $27 million to $37.9 million.
At the same time, funding for the Support for East European Democracy Act was sliced by an additional $14 million, to $382 million. The largest part of this program is aimed at Serbia, still in transition from the era of Slobodan Milosevic. And funding for the Freedom Support Act focusing on Russia and 11 other former Soviet republics was slashed by $78 million, to $482 million, down from $894 million in 2002.
"The U.S. government is not well organized right now to realize the administration's rhetoric on democracy," said Jennifer Windsor, executive director of Freedom House, an organization that promotes democracy abroad.
The cuts to the Freedom Support Act have drawn criticism from Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.); his panel this month adopted a statement urging the administration "to consider the harm its proposed cuts in funding assistance could have on U.S. interests in stability, democracy and market reform" in the region.
The funding reductions come at a time when such programs have enjoyed successes in Georgia and Ukraine, where U.S.-trained activists helped push out unpopular governments. To help consolidate the gains, Bush attached $60 million for Ukraine to his supplemental appropriation bill funding the war in Iraq, with money earmarked to promote judicial independence, youth participation in politics, legal protections for press freedom and preparations for parliamentary elections.
But even as Bush plans to host new Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko, the House cut the funding request nearly in half.
Rep. Jim Kolbe (news, bio, voting record) (R-Ariz.), chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations, said he focused on programs that will help Yushchenko in the short term and promised to revisit Ukraine in upcoming budget deliberations for fiscal 2006.
"There's finite resources," Kolbe said. "There's never enough to do what you want to do, but I think we're making a good effort."
Fri Mar 18,11:41 AM ET
Politics - washingtonpost.com
By Peter Baker, Washington Post Staff Writer
In the weeks after a popular uprising toppled a corrupt government in Ukraine, President Bush (hailed the so-called Orange Revolution as proof that democracy was on the march and promised $60 million to help secure it in Kiev. But Republican congressional allies balked and slashed it this week to $33.7 million.
The shrinking financial commitment to Ukrainian democracy highlights a broader gap between rhetoric and resources among budget writers in the Bush administration and on Capitol Hill as the president vows to devote his second term to "ending tyranny in our world," according to budget documents, congressional critics and democracy advocates.
The administration has pumped substantial new funds into promoting democracy in Muslim countries but virtually nowhere else in the world. The administration has cut budgets for groups struggling to build civil society and democratic institutions in Russia, Eastern Europe and Asia, even as Moscow has pulled back from democracy and governments in China, Burma, Uzbekistan and elsewhere remain among the most repressive in the world.
Funding for the National Endowment for Democracy has remained flat for the past two years except in the Middle East, while separate democracy-building programs have been slashed by 38 percent in Eastern Europe and 46 percent in the former Soviet Union during Bush's presidency. The venerable beacons of American-style democracy, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia, are receiving no sizable increases.
Lorne W. Craner, who until recently was assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor, said the shifting priorities are a logical byproduct of the post-Sept. 11 world, in which fostering democracy in Muslim communities came to be seen as a means to combat terrorism.
"People in other regions for two or three years after 9/11 said, 'You're not giving us as much attention as we deserve,' and I think that was a fair critique and the reason was we were creating a whole new policy for the Middle East," Craner said. "A lot of people's time was taken up by the Middle East that, but for 9/11, would have gone to other areas. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so. Certainly I would say we needed to pay more attention to the Middle East."
The focus on Iraq, he added, will be critical to setting a role model for other regions as well. "If Iraq doesn't work," he said, "a lot of people are going to say, 'Is that what you mean by democracy?' "
But others took issue with the selective aid. "The president is not putting his money where his mouth is," said Tom Malinowski, Washington director of Human Rights Watch. While giving Bush credit for investing in democracy in the Middle East, he added, "There are just big country-by-country, region-by-region differences when it comes to the administration's commitment to democracy promotion."
"There are a number of countries that aren't getting much democracy aid," said Thomas Carothers, director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's project on democracy and the rule of law. Carothers pointed to mass arrests of protesters seeking restoration of democracy in Nepal this week. "There are places like that where we're losing because they're on the edge of the world and people aren't paying attention."
Among groups that will lose out is the Asia Foundation, which works to reform legal codes, foster civil society and promote women's rights in places such as Indonesia, where it is credited with helping the transition from decades of dictatorship. The Bush budget for the 2006 fiscal year cuts the foundation's grant from $13 million to $10 million. "Any cut at that level would be very difficult for our program," said Nancy Yuan, a foundation vice president.
Also facing cuts is the Eurasia Foundation, which has been told that the final installment of a $25 million grant to set up a U.S.-European-Russian democracy program in Russia may be delayed despite President Vladimir Putin's moves to clamp down on political opposition. "We can't give up," said Charles William Maynes, president of the Eurasia Foundation. "It would be disastrous if we do."
The International Republican Institute (IRI) and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), the main U.S. agencies that teach political activists how to conduct fair elections, devote about half of their budgets to Iraq and the Middle East, according Craner, who is now IRI president.
Measuring how much Washington spends on democracy promotion is difficult because the money is scattered among programs and much of it is embedded in grants by the U.S. Agency for International Development. But recent trends have been clear. USAID spending on democracy and governance programs alone shot up from $671 million in 2002 to $1.2 billion in 2004, but almost all of that increase was devoted to Iraq and Afghanistan. Without those two countries, the USAID democracy spending in 2004 was $685 million, virtually unchanged from two years earlier.
Bush broadened his focus beyond the Middle East in his second inaugural address when he issued a manifesto to promote democracy around the globe, declaring it U.S. policy "to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture."
The budget he submitted to Congress two weeks later, however, included no huge new investment in such institutions beyond the Muslim world.
The National Endowment for Democracy, which funds the IRI, the NDI and other programs, received $80 million, twice its budget of two years ago, but the entire $40 million increase went to Bush's Middle East democracy initiative, leaving everything else flat. Voice of America received an extra $10 million, but it was devoted to expanding programs in Persian, Dari, Urdu and Pashtu aimed at non-Arabic Muslim listeners. The only other broadcasts to get major funding increases were those aimed at Cuba, which went from $27 million to $37.9 million.
At the same time, funding for the Support for East European Democracy Act was sliced by an additional $14 million, to $382 million. The largest part of this program is aimed at Serbia, still in transition from the era of Slobodan Milosevic. And funding for the Freedom Support Act focusing on Russia and 11 other former Soviet republics was slashed by $78 million, to $482 million, down from $894 million in 2002.
"The U.S. government is not well organized right now to realize the administration's rhetoric on democracy," said Jennifer Windsor, executive director of Freedom House, an organization that promotes democracy abroad.
The cuts to the Freedom Support Act have drawn criticism from Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.); his panel this month adopted a statement urging the administration "to consider the harm its proposed cuts in funding assistance could have on U.S. interests in stability, democracy and market reform" in the region.
The funding reductions come at a time when such programs have enjoyed successes in Georgia and Ukraine, where U.S.-trained activists helped push out unpopular governments. To help consolidate the gains, Bush attached $60 million for Ukraine to his supplemental appropriation bill funding the war in Iraq, with money earmarked to promote judicial independence, youth participation in politics, legal protections for press freedom and preparations for parliamentary elections.
But even as Bush plans to host new Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko, the House cut the funding request nearly in half.
Rep. Jim Kolbe (news, bio, voting record) (R-Ariz.), chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations, said he focused on programs that will help Yushchenko in the short term and promised to revisit Ukraine in upcoming budget deliberations for fiscal 2006.
"There's finite resources," Kolbe said. "There's never enough to do what you want to do, but I think we're making a good effort."
Apple Stock Target Price $60 per share,
Amazing news for Apple. This comes just after a stock split. Damn, I can remember when it was $13. I would be a rich man but nooooooooo!
Morgan Stanley boosts Apple stock to 'overweight'
03/18/2005 10:11 | Kristie Masuda
Morgan Stanley analyst Rebecca Runkle reported that a survey conducted involving over 400 consumers shows Apple sales may rise more than expected as a greater number of iPod users buy iMac computers. Runkle boosted her rating on the stock to "overweight" from "equal-weight" and set a $60 price target for Apple and raised the fiscal year earnings per share estimates to $1.31 on revenue of $16.9 billion. Apple shares closed on Thursday at $42.25.
Morgan Stanley boosts Apple stock to 'overweight'
03/18/2005 10:11 | Kristie Masuda
Morgan Stanley analyst Rebecca Runkle reported that a survey conducted involving over 400 consumers shows Apple sales may rise more than expected as a greater number of iPod users buy iMac computers. Runkle boosted her rating on the stock to "overweight" from "equal-weight" and set a $60 price target for Apple and raised the fiscal year earnings per share estimates to $1.31 on revenue of $16.9 billion. Apple shares closed on Thursday at $42.25.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Design Excellence: very basic black
very basic black
After several years of brilliant color, black is back with a vengeance. This year it's unadorned and painfully plain, displaying it's nuances primarily through texture: the shadings of slippery velvet, shiny vinyls and supple leathers; the ambiguity of heavy black rubber soled boots underscoring a long black lace skirt.
What has plunged many designers into darkness? Who turned off the lights? There are several answers--the first being pure practicality--its low maintenance yet hi-tech demeanor travels well. Black is the perfect background for all manner of accessories and makes the wearer feel wonderfully slim.
Black is not a color, it's an attitude. As a personal or fashion statement, black's message comes across loud and clear: I'm chic, I'm cool, I'm in control. It's the ultimate when-in-doubt, I never have to be worried clothing choice.
But is it technically a color? In terms of lighting it has been described as the negation of color; in pigment, it is said to contain all color. We do know that it is a strong psychological presence: powerful, dominant, pervasive, persuasive. Consumers buying habits and attitudes concerning black have altered drastically in the last decade. The""no--no's' of the past have gone away. Food is served on black plates, children are dressed in black and we are no longer obliged to wear black to funerals.
Occasionally we read that navy blue, brown or charcoal is replacing black, but this hasn't happened. Just as there are infinite shadings of red, green, blue, yellow, purple, etc., there is no generic, one-size-fits all, definitive black. Black can range from Raven to Phantom or Licorice to Caviar and just as the names imply, all very capable of creating a variety of moods, attitudes and ambiance.
Because the consumer continues to demand black, like the Ever-Ready battery commercial on television, "it just keeps going...and going...and going..."
After several years of brilliant color, black is back with a vengeance. This year it's unadorned and painfully plain, displaying it's nuances primarily through texture: the shadings of slippery velvet, shiny vinyls and supple leathers; the ambiguity of heavy black rubber soled boots underscoring a long black lace skirt.
What has plunged many designers into darkness? Who turned off the lights? There are several answers--the first being pure practicality--its low maintenance yet hi-tech demeanor travels well. Black is the perfect background for all manner of accessories and makes the wearer feel wonderfully slim.
Black is not a color, it's an attitude. As a personal or fashion statement, black's message comes across loud and clear: I'm chic, I'm cool, I'm in control. It's the ultimate when-in-doubt, I never have to be worried clothing choice.
But is it technically a color? In terms of lighting it has been described as the negation of color; in pigment, it is said to contain all color. We do know that it is a strong psychological presence: powerful, dominant, pervasive, persuasive. Consumers buying habits and attitudes concerning black have altered drastically in the last decade. The""no--no's' of the past have gone away. Food is served on black plates, children are dressed in black and we are no longer obliged to wear black to funerals.
Occasionally we read that navy blue, brown or charcoal is replacing black, but this hasn't happened. Just as there are infinite shadings of red, green, blue, yellow, purple, etc., there is no generic, one-size-fits all, definitive black. Black can range from Raven to Phantom or Licorice to Caviar and just as the names imply, all very capable of creating a variety of moods, attitudes and ambiance.
Because the consumer continues to demand black, like the Ever-Ready battery commercial on television, "it just keeps going...and going...and going..."
Free G-Mail @ Google.com
Remember, free Gmail is available randomly for every 1 in 20 visitors. I GOT MINE!
CLICK the title to go to google.com. Good luck!
Google stretches Gmail access
03/16/2005 07:38 | Kristie Masuda
Google began randomly offering Gmail accounts to one in twenty Google.com visitors this week. Previously, users could only create accounts Gmail accounts by invitation from Google or from an existing Gmail user.
"We just started offering Gmail accounts to a randomly selected sample on Google," Google's director of consumer Web products Marissa Mayer said. "It's a natural step to leverage the wider user base of Google.com to grow Gmail. Based on the success of this one-in-20 scope, we'll be ramping it up over the next couple of weeks."
CLICK the title to go to google.com. Good luck!
Google stretches Gmail access
03/16/2005 07:38 | Kristie Masuda
Google began randomly offering Gmail accounts to one in twenty Google.com visitors this week. Previously, users could only create accounts Gmail accounts by invitation from Google or from an existing Gmail user.
"We just started offering Gmail accounts to a randomly selected sample on Google," Google's director of consumer Web products Marissa Mayer said. "It's a natural step to leverage the wider user base of Google.com to grow Gmail. Based on the success of this one-in-20 scope, we'll be ramping it up over the next couple of weeks."
Letter From Kerry On Protecting The Artic Refuge
Dear raycolex,
Yesterday, we saw a relentless Republican attack on one of our most treasured natural wonders sneak through the Senate on a 51 to 49 vote. But, we also saw more than 260,000 Americans act in less than 24 hours to add their names to our Citizens' Roll Call in favor of protecting the Arctic Refuge.
It was the first time ever that I or anyone else could stand on the Senate floor and announce that, in a day's time, a quarter of a million Americans had gone online to express their passionate support for a given course of action.
That awesome display of grassroots power rattled our opponents. They even railed against my e-mail message on the Senate floor and entered its text into the Senate record. So, think of it this way. The Republican leaders of the Senate have 51 reasons to celebrate today, but you and I have 260,000 reasons to do the same.
If we keep working together - committed pro-environment Senators and a powerful grassroots movement all pulling in the same direction - we can still stop the plan for drilling in the Arctic from making it the rest of the way through Congress. And we can win the larger battle over two very different visions of America's energy future.
George W. Bush and the Washington Republicans have a plan to sell off our public lands to powerful special interests. As a result of their ruthless drive to undermine America's most beautiful natural treasures, the oil rigs are closer to the Arctic Refuge than they have ever been. But, the Bush administration's own scientists and economists admit that the Republicans' plan will not make us less dependent on foreign oil and will not lower prices at the pump. We have to put America's energy future in the hands of Americans - by inventing our way to real energy independence and having energy sources that create jobs and lower prices.
With your help, we will continue to wholeheartedly resist their special interest-funded partisan agenda. And, if we act with the same energy and determination as we have on this critical Arctic Refuge vote, sooner than later, our power and commitment will carry the day. I know you will be with me every step of the way and I thank you for the passion and energy that you bring to our work together.
Sincerely,
John Kerry
P.S. I told you that more than a quarter of a million people signed our Citizens' Roll Call in the first 24 hours after we launched it. Actually the news is even more impressive. As of this moment, there are over 400,000 signers to our Roll Call, including tens of thousands who signed after the vote to express their determination to keep fighting. Let's keep working.
Yesterday, we saw a relentless Republican attack on one of our most treasured natural wonders sneak through the Senate on a 51 to 49 vote. But, we also saw more than 260,000 Americans act in less than 24 hours to add their names to our Citizens' Roll Call in favor of protecting the Arctic Refuge.
It was the first time ever that I or anyone else could stand on the Senate floor and announce that, in a day's time, a quarter of a million Americans had gone online to express their passionate support for a given course of action.
That awesome display of grassroots power rattled our opponents. They even railed against my e-mail message on the Senate floor and entered its text into the Senate record. So, think of it this way. The Republican leaders of the Senate have 51 reasons to celebrate today, but you and I have 260,000 reasons to do the same.
If we keep working together - committed pro-environment Senators and a powerful grassroots movement all pulling in the same direction - we can still stop the plan for drilling in the Arctic from making it the rest of the way through Congress. And we can win the larger battle over two very different visions of America's energy future.
George W. Bush and the Washington Republicans have a plan to sell off our public lands to powerful special interests. As a result of their ruthless drive to undermine America's most beautiful natural treasures, the oil rigs are closer to the Arctic Refuge than they have ever been. But, the Bush administration's own scientists and economists admit that the Republicans' plan will not make us less dependent on foreign oil and will not lower prices at the pump. We have to put America's energy future in the hands of Americans - by inventing our way to real energy independence and having energy sources that create jobs and lower prices.
With your help, we will continue to wholeheartedly resist their special interest-funded partisan agenda. And, if we act with the same energy and determination as we have on this critical Arctic Refuge vote, sooner than later, our power and commitment will carry the day. I know you will be with me every step of the way and I thank you for the passion and energy that you bring to our work together.
Sincerely,
John Kerry
P.S. I told you that more than a quarter of a million people signed our Citizens' Roll Call in the first 24 hours after we launched it. Actually the news is even more impressive. As of this moment, there are over 400,000 signers to our Roll Call, including tens of thousands who signed after the vote to express their determination to keep fighting. Let's keep working.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
