A moral battleground, a civil discourse
By Charles C. HaynesMon Mar 20, 6:44 AM ET
Tragically, public schools have become front lines in the culture war over homosexuality - and the biggest losers are the kids caught in the crossfire of incendiary rhetoric and bitter lawsuits.
In school districts across the nation, escalating conflicts involving sexual orientation in the curriculum, student clubs, speech codes and other areas of school life are undermining the educational mission of our schools. Media stories in the past two months alone have spotlighted bitter fights over these issues in Utah, Pennsylvania, Kansas, California, Idaho and Florida. Any notion of the public interest is often lost in the clash of world views across seemingly unbridgeable distances.
When people are this far apart, every act by one side is seen as a hostile move by the other. A "Day of Silence" to protest treatment of gays and lesbians is now followed by a "Day of Truth" to promote conservative religious views of homosexuality. A T-shirt proclaiming "Straight Pride" is worn to counter one professing "Gay Pride." These differences are deep and difficult to negotiate.
Can we do better? If we care about education - and the future of the nation - we must. That's why the First Amendment Center asked Wayne Jacobsen of BridgeBuilders, an organization that helps communities find common ground on religious issues, to help me create a road map for winning the peace in the fight over sexual orientation in schools. The drafting committee also included representatives from the Christian Educators Association International and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, two groups with widely divergent views on homosexuality, but with a shared commitment to civil discourse.
It took eight months to hammer out a statement of principles we could all support. But finally, on March 9, we released "Public Schools and Sexual Orientation: A First Amendment framework for finding common ground." Two major educational organizations, the American Association of School Administrators and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, have endorsed the document. The guide does not prescribe a particular outcome, but rather proposes a process for reaching an agreement that all sides can support. All of the sponsoring groups have agreed to disseminate the guidelines widely and encourage schools to address these issues proactively.
Fairness is a two-way street
For the process to work, school officials must be fair, honest brokers of a dialogue that involves all stakeholders. That means, first and foremost, that school leaders must refrain from choosing sides in the culture-war debate over homosexuality. If schools are going to find agreement on policies and practices that bring the community together, it won't be by taking a side and coercing others to accept it.
Consider the case a few years ago of Thomas McLaughlin, a junior high school student in Pulaski County, Ark. Thomas complained that because he refused to keep quiet about being gay, school officials harassed and punished him - forcing him at one point to read aloud Bible verses and prayers. After a lawsuit was filed, the school district settled by paying damages and apologizing to the student.
On the other side of the spectrum, Betsy Hansen, a high school student in Ann Arbor, Mich., challenged her district in 2002 for censoring her religious views in opposition to homosexuality. During a "diversity week" program, school officials prevented Betsy from delivering a speech she was asked to give because they claimed her Roman Catholic views on homosexuality were "negative." Betsy also sued - and she won when a judge ruled that her free speech rights had been violated.
As the outcome of these cases makes clear, school officials can't impose one religious view of homosexuality, but neither can they censor the religious convictions of students.
First Amendment ground rules
To avoid divisive fights and lawsuits, educators and parents must agree on civic ground rules to ensure fairness for all sides. After all, public schools belong to everyone. However deeply we disagree about homosexuality, the vast majority of us want schools to uphold the rights of all students in a safe learning environment. It isn't possible for us to reach ideological or religious consensus, but it is possible - and necessary - to reach civic consensus on civil dialogue.
School districts divided about how to handle issues concerning sexual orientation should take a step back from the debate and find agreement on First Amendment principles. Most Americans can agree that freedom of religion and speech are inherent rights for all. Starting with an acknowledgement of inalienable rights immediately levels the playing field, helping to ensure that everyone has a right to speak - and everyone's claim of conscience is taken seriously.
More challenging, but still attainable, is an agreement that we all have a civic responsibility to guard the rights of others, including those with whom we disagree. And, finally, people must agree to debate one another without resorting to personal attacks, ridicule, false characterizations of opposing positions and similar tactics.
In the guide, we call this commitment to the principles of rights, responsibilities and respect "First Amendment ground rules." Using this framework, people with deep differences are able to come to the table ready to engage in constructive dialogue.
Finding common ground
With civic ground rules in place, school districts should consider creating a permanent "common ground task force" that fully represents the range of perspectives in the community. Given time and opportunity, people with opposing views learn to trust and respect one another. And that trust and respect can then translate into shared recommendations on safe schools, balanced curricula, appropriate student expression and other issues.
When they begin to listen to one another, most educators, parents and students discover that they want the same thing: public schools that are safe and free for all students. As we say in the guide: "A safe school is free of bullying and harassment. And a free school is safe for student speech even about issues that divide us." Once these shared goals are identified, people are ready to tackle other contentious issues such as gay student clubs and the treatment of sexual orientation in the curriculum.
Winning the peace isn't easy - it takes commitment and courage. But if people on all sides uphold the rights and responsibilities of the First Amendment, they can agree on policies and practices that serve the common good.
Charles C. Haynes is the co-author of Finding Common Ground: A Guide to Religious Liberty in Public Schoolsand senior scholar at the First Amendment Center in Arlington, Va.
Copyright © 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
Monday, March 20, 2006
Thursday, March 16, 2006
The White House statement on medicare (wrong)
Patients our top priority
By Mark McClellanThu Mar 16, 6:39 AM ET
The Medicare program is taking unprecedented steps to improve quality and to support Americans in getting the best care at the lowest cost. We are providing the most important new benefits in Medicare's history, including drug coverage and preventive care. We are providing consumers with vital information on the quality of care at almost all of the nation's hospitals and nursing homes. We are taking steps to pay more for better care, not just more services.
The Institute of Medicine found that quality of care is improving. Still, more progress remains our top priority. Medicare's Quality Improvement Organization program is an important element of this effort to get the right care for every person, every time. QIOs are making a positive difference in such areas as preventing surgical infections and reducing the use of restraints in nursing homes.
But we agree that the program can be even better, and we have already taken steps to get more bang for the buck. The QIOs have increased efforts to help health care providers measure and improve their performance.
And to help make sure beneficiaries know about their ability to file complaints and get them addressed promptly, we have increased our outreach efforts through our publications and our website. We are engaged in an ambitious outreach campaign, have improved the service on our 1-800-MEDICARE toll-free phone line, and have established an ombudsman's office to assist people with Medicare-related problems.
The Institute recommended building on these efforts by having specific organizations specialize in handling complaints, and we will take steps to implement this to the maximum extent possible under the law.
Many of the recommendations require legislative changes and funding that are not currently available to us. So we look forward to continuing to work with Congress, health professionals, and our valued partners and stakeholders to make further progress in improving care for Medicare beneficiaries and all Americans.
Together, we can get more benefits from what the Institute refers to as "a potentially valuable nationwide infrastructure dedicated to promoting quality health care."
Mark McClellan is administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Copyright © 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
By Mark McClellanThu Mar 16, 6:39 AM ET
The Medicare program is taking unprecedented steps to improve quality and to support Americans in getting the best care at the lowest cost. We are providing the most important new benefits in Medicare's history, including drug coverage and preventive care. We are providing consumers with vital information on the quality of care at almost all of the nation's hospitals and nursing homes. We are taking steps to pay more for better care, not just more services.
The Institute of Medicine found that quality of care is improving. Still, more progress remains our top priority. Medicare's Quality Improvement Organization program is an important element of this effort to get the right care for every person, every time. QIOs are making a positive difference in such areas as preventing surgical infections and reducing the use of restraints in nursing homes.
But we agree that the program can be even better, and we have already taken steps to get more bang for the buck. The QIOs have increased efforts to help health care providers measure and improve their performance.
And to help make sure beneficiaries know about their ability to file complaints and get them addressed promptly, we have increased our outreach efforts through our publications and our website. We are engaged in an ambitious outreach campaign, have improved the service on our 1-800-MEDICARE toll-free phone line, and have established an ombudsman's office to assist people with Medicare-related problems.
The Institute recommended building on these efforts by having specific organizations specialize in handling complaints, and we will take steps to implement this to the maximum extent possible under the law.
Many of the recommendations require legislative changes and funding that are not currently available to us. So we look forward to continuing to work with Congress, health professionals, and our valued partners and stakeholders to make further progress in improving care for Medicare beneficiaries and all Americans.
Together, we can get more benefits from what the Institute refers to as "a potentially valuable nationwide infrastructure dedicated to promoting quality health care."
Mark McClellan is administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Copyright © 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
USA Today statement on Medicare (more accurate)
Got a Medicare complaint? Don't count on relief
Thu Mar 16, 6:39 AM ET
About $300 million of your federal tax dollars go each year to something called "quality improvement organizations." These are private groups in every state that are supposed to investigate complaints from Medicare patients and work with health providers to improve care. Yet it's highly questionable whether you're getting your money's worth.
Say you think doctors misdiagnosed a relative's condition. Even if you know where to complain to, you might never learn what went wrong, or why. Archaic laws prevent the organizations from telling you much of anything, unless your physicians grant permission.
Consider the case of David Shipp of Louisville, whose wife died of colon cancer in 1999. After a four-year battle, a federal judge ordered Health Care Excel, the organization that investigated Shipp's complaint, to reveal that his wife had received substandard care. But that's all he was able to learn.
The complaint process is badly broken. The Institute of Medicine, the government's health advisory body, and Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Iowa Republican who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, are calling for a major overhaul in the 25-year-old program. While Medicare administrator Mark McClellan acknowledges shortcomings, his agency has been slow to fix them.
Among the deficiencies:
• Low awareness. McClellan's agency does a poor job of informing patients of their rights. As a result, the private groups review about 2,500 complaints a year. That's about one for every 17,000 Medicare recipients.
• Weak sanctions. The quality improvement groups are loath to suggest punishing doctors. Only five health providers have been recommended for sanctions since 2003. Not surprisingly, the organizations are dominated by physicians and health executives.
• Lack of results. Hospitals that participate with the groups aren't any more likely to demonstrate improvements in quality than hospitals that don't, a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found last June.
• No-bid contracts. Only six of the 53 contracts nationwide over the past three years were subject to competitive bidding.
• High living. Trustees of the groups have traveled to expensive resorts in Colorado Springs and Cape Cod for executive retreats, according to Grassley.
Quality Improvement Organizations do have potential to improve care by working directly with doctors and others, particularly in rural areas, to meet national standards.
To fix the system, Congress should allow the organizations to reveal to patients the results of investigations and to publicize performance records of health providers.
Permitting more patients to join the boards would send a message that patients are the client, not the health industry. And requiring competitive bids for contracts could also improve performance.
Americans spend more per person on health care than do people of any other developed country, including $294 billion this year on Medicare alone. What are we buying for all that money? It's time for serious answers, plus a guarantee that patients know that their complaints will be heard - and answered.
Copyright © 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
Thu Mar 16, 6:39 AM ET
About $300 million of your federal tax dollars go each year to something called "quality improvement organizations." These are private groups in every state that are supposed to investigate complaints from Medicare patients and work with health providers to improve care. Yet it's highly questionable whether you're getting your money's worth.
Say you think doctors misdiagnosed a relative's condition. Even if you know where to complain to, you might never learn what went wrong, or why. Archaic laws prevent the organizations from telling you much of anything, unless your physicians grant permission.
Consider the case of David Shipp of Louisville, whose wife died of colon cancer in 1999. After a four-year battle, a federal judge ordered Health Care Excel, the organization that investigated Shipp's complaint, to reveal that his wife had received substandard care. But that's all he was able to learn.
The complaint process is badly broken. The Institute of Medicine, the government's health advisory body, and Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Iowa Republican who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, are calling for a major overhaul in the 25-year-old program. While Medicare administrator Mark McClellan acknowledges shortcomings, his agency has been slow to fix them.
Among the deficiencies:
• Low awareness. McClellan's agency does a poor job of informing patients of their rights. As a result, the private groups review about 2,500 complaints a year. That's about one for every 17,000 Medicare recipients.
• Weak sanctions. The quality improvement groups are loath to suggest punishing doctors. Only five health providers have been recommended for sanctions since 2003. Not surprisingly, the organizations are dominated by physicians and health executives.
• Lack of results. Hospitals that participate with the groups aren't any more likely to demonstrate improvements in quality than hospitals that don't, a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found last June.
• No-bid contracts. Only six of the 53 contracts nationwide over the past three years were subject to competitive bidding.
• High living. Trustees of the groups have traveled to expensive resorts in Colorado Springs and Cape Cod for executive retreats, according to Grassley.
Quality Improvement Organizations do have potential to improve care by working directly with doctors and others, particularly in rural areas, to meet national standards.
To fix the system, Congress should allow the organizations to reveal to patients the results of investigations and to publicize performance records of health providers.
Permitting more patients to join the boards would send a message that patients are the client, not the health industry. And requiring competitive bids for contracts could also improve performance.
Americans spend more per person on health care than do people of any other developed country, including $294 billion this year on Medicare alone. What are we buying for all that money? It's time for serious answers, plus a guarantee that patients know that their complaints will be heard - and answered.
Copyright © 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Secrecy hides accountability
Secrecy hides accountability
Tue Mar 14, 6:56 AM ET
In the movies, government confidentiality is typically depicted by documents stamped "Top Secret." In real life, much of what's kept under wraps has little or nothing to do with national security or the war on terror.
Instead, it can involve muzzling critics, covering up corruption and incompetence, or simply mindless bureaucracy. Phone numbers, policy papers, contracting details, historical documents, whistle-blower allegations - they're all disappearing from public view. By one estimate, government papers are being classified at the rate of 125 a minute.
To those in power, keeping facts hidden makes life easier; the probability of oversight drops. But those who believe the sunshine of disclosure makes democracy stronger are denied the tools of accountability.
Examples abound:
Environmental secrecy Like virtually all top climate experts, NASA's James Hansen thinks global warming is an urgent problem.
But Hansen's view doesn't line up with the White House's wait-and-see position. Recently, NASA's public affairs officials leaned on him to curtail media contacts and speeches. His message is one they'd rather not hear discussed.
Fortunately for Hansen, his high profile insulated him from dismissal or other retribution. "We live in a free country and work for the taxpayer," he told The New York Times last month. "We should provide useful information, not propaganda." For scientists with a lower profile, though, speaking out against the party line can endanger their job security.
Another environmental secrecy debate has emerged over the collapse of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11. It's likely that federal officials downplayed the impact of toxic gases, a federal judge concluded recently as she allowed a lawsuit to proceed against former Environmental Protection Agency administrator Christine Whitman. Residents moved back into the lower Manhattan area after the EPA assured them there was no risk from pollutants such as asbestos dust.
Many of the federal advisory committees - established to provide unvarnished scientific and technical advice to government - meet in secret. Nearly two-thirds of the more than 7,000 meetings in 2004 were closed to the public. It's hard to see special interests at work when the doors are closed.
Contracting secrecy Each year, the government hands out about $300 billion in contracts. Yet there's no requirement that it collect and publish information on criminal, civil and administrative actions involving contractors. Industry lobbyists for the largest contractors have no trouble foiling efforts by shoestring-budget public interest groups to force the government to reveal those details.
What doesn't get published doesn't get reviewed. For instance, important details about reconstruction contracts in Iraq and the Gulf Coast never make it into public view.
Companies winning work despite having skeletons in their closets need not worry about exposure. The "administrative agreements" and waivers that government agencies routinely issue to contractors neatly cover those up: They're secret.
Secrecy for the sake of secrecy. This is the most perplexing and insidious of all the secrecy excesses. Recently, scholars researching history lessons involving the Korean and Vietnam wars noticed that documents once available had disappeared. Half-century-old intelligence analysis from the Korean War, for example, went from open files to closed ones.
A program to reclassify declassified documents at the National Archives began nearly seven years ago - the result of a backlash from intelligence officials who believed the declassifying had gone too far. But much of that program, involving as many as 55,000 pages, appears to involve documents of interest only to historians.
The irony of secrecy for the sake of secrecy is that it can make the nation less safe. Thomas Kean, the former New Jersey governor who co-chaired the 9/11 Commission, said lack of communication among government agencies, which ranged from senseless turf wars to legal impediments, hindered efforts to uncover the 9/11 plots.
As a symbolic gesture, the commission suggested, the government should start releasing the budgets of the nation's intelligence agencies. Terrorists aren't likely to care whether the number is $20 billion or $30 billion. But taxpayers deserve to find out whether their money is being well-spent.
Open government isn't about partisan politics or journalists' rights. It's about your right to know what your government is doing with your money. Especially when national security is not involved, secrecy should be the rare exception, not the rule.
Copyright © 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
Tue Mar 14, 6:56 AM ET
In the movies, government confidentiality is typically depicted by documents stamped "Top Secret." In real life, much of what's kept under wraps has little or nothing to do with national security or the war on terror.
Instead, it can involve muzzling critics, covering up corruption and incompetence, or simply mindless bureaucracy. Phone numbers, policy papers, contracting details, historical documents, whistle-blower allegations - they're all disappearing from public view. By one estimate, government papers are being classified at the rate of 125 a minute.
To those in power, keeping facts hidden makes life easier; the probability of oversight drops. But those who believe the sunshine of disclosure makes democracy stronger are denied the tools of accountability.
Examples abound:
Environmental secrecy Like virtually all top climate experts, NASA's James Hansen thinks global warming is an urgent problem.
But Hansen's view doesn't line up with the White House's wait-and-see position. Recently, NASA's public affairs officials leaned on him to curtail media contacts and speeches. His message is one they'd rather not hear discussed.
Fortunately for Hansen, his high profile insulated him from dismissal or other retribution. "We live in a free country and work for the taxpayer," he told The New York Times last month. "We should provide useful information, not propaganda." For scientists with a lower profile, though, speaking out against the party line can endanger their job security.
Another environmental secrecy debate has emerged over the collapse of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11. It's likely that federal officials downplayed the impact of toxic gases, a federal judge concluded recently as she allowed a lawsuit to proceed against former Environmental Protection Agency administrator Christine Whitman. Residents moved back into the lower Manhattan area after the EPA assured them there was no risk from pollutants such as asbestos dust.
Many of the federal advisory committees - established to provide unvarnished scientific and technical advice to government - meet in secret. Nearly two-thirds of the more than 7,000 meetings in 2004 were closed to the public. It's hard to see special interests at work when the doors are closed.
Contracting secrecy Each year, the government hands out about $300 billion in contracts. Yet there's no requirement that it collect and publish information on criminal, civil and administrative actions involving contractors. Industry lobbyists for the largest contractors have no trouble foiling efforts by shoestring-budget public interest groups to force the government to reveal those details.
What doesn't get published doesn't get reviewed. For instance, important details about reconstruction contracts in Iraq and the Gulf Coast never make it into public view.
Companies winning work despite having skeletons in their closets need not worry about exposure. The "administrative agreements" and waivers that government agencies routinely issue to contractors neatly cover those up: They're secret.
Secrecy for the sake of secrecy. This is the most perplexing and insidious of all the secrecy excesses. Recently, scholars researching history lessons involving the Korean and Vietnam wars noticed that documents once available had disappeared. Half-century-old intelligence analysis from the Korean War, for example, went from open files to closed ones.
A program to reclassify declassified documents at the National Archives began nearly seven years ago - the result of a backlash from intelligence officials who believed the declassifying had gone too far. But much of that program, involving as many as 55,000 pages, appears to involve documents of interest only to historians.
The irony of secrecy for the sake of secrecy is that it can make the nation less safe. Thomas Kean, the former New Jersey governor who co-chaired the 9/11 Commission, said lack of communication among government agencies, which ranged from senseless turf wars to legal impediments, hindered efforts to uncover the 9/11 plots.
As a symbolic gesture, the commission suggested, the government should start releasing the budgets of the nation's intelligence agencies. Terrorists aren't likely to care whether the number is $20 billion or $30 billion. But taxpayers deserve to find out whether their money is being well-spent.
Open government isn't about partisan politics or journalists' rights. It's about your right to know what your government is doing with your money. Especially when national security is not involved, secrecy should be the rare exception, not the rule.
Copyright © 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
The liberal baby bust
The liberal baby bust
By Phillip LongmanTue Mar 14, 6:56 AM ET
What's the difference between Seattle and Salt Lake City? There are many differences, of course, but here's one you might not know. In Seattle, there are nearly 45% more dogs than children. In Salt Lake City, there are nearly 19% more kids than dogs.
This curious fact might at first seem trivial, but it reflects a much broader and little-noticed demographic trend that has deep implications for the future of global culture and politics. It's not that people in a progressive city such as Seattle are so much fonder of dogs than are people in a conservative city such as Salt Lake City. It's that progressives are so much less likely to have children.
It's a pattern found throughout the world, and it augers a far more conservative future - one in which patriarchy and other traditional values make a comeback, if only by default. Childlessness and small families are increasingly the norm today among progressive secularists. As a consequence, an increasing share of all children born into the world are descended from a share of the population whose conservative values have led them to raise large families.
Today, fertility correlates strongly with a wide range of political, cultural and religious attitudes. In the USA, for example, 47% of people who attend church weekly say their ideal family size is three or more children. By contrast, 27% of those who seldom attend church want that many kids.
In Utah, where more than two-thirds of residents are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 92 children are born each year for every 1,000 women, the highest fertility rate in the nation. By contrast Vermont - the first to embrace gay unions - has the nation's lowest rate, producing 51 children per 1,000 women.
Similarly, in Europe today, the people least likely to have children are those most likely to hold progressive views of the world. For instance, do you distrust the army and other institutions and are you prone to demonstrate against them? Then, according to polling data assembled by demographers Ron Lesthaeghe and Johan Surkyn, you are less likely to be married and have kids or ever to get married and have kids. Do you find soft drugs, homosexuality and euthanasia acceptable? Do you seldom, if ever, attend church? Europeans who answer affirmatively to such questions are far more likely to live alone or be in childless, cohabiting unions than are those who answer negatively.
This correlation between secularism, individualism and low fertility portends a vast change in modern societies. In the USA, for example, nearly 20% of women born in the late 1950s are reaching the end of their reproductive lives without having children. The greatly expanded childless segment of contemporary society, whose members are drawn disproportionately from the feminist and countercultural movements of the 1960s and '70s, will leave no genetic legacy. Nor will their emotional or psychological influence on the next generation compare with that of people who did raise children.
Single-child factor
Meanwhile, single-child families are prone to extinction. A single child replaces one of his or her parents, but not both. Consequently, a segment of society in which single-child families are the norm will decline in population by at least 50% per generation and quite quickly disappear. In the USA, the 17.4% of baby boomer women who had one child account for a mere 9.2% of kids produced by their generation. But among children of the baby boom, nearly a quarter descend from the mere 10% of baby boomer women who had four or more kids.
This dynamic helps explain the gradual drift of American culture toward religious fundamentalism and social conservatism. Among states that voted for President Bush in 2004, the average fertility rate is more than 11% higher than the rate of states for Sen. John Kerry.
It might also help to explain the popular resistance among rank-and-file Europeans to such crown jewels of secular liberalism as the European Union. It turns out that Europeans who are most likely to identify themselves as "world citizens" are also less likely to have children.
Rewriting history?
Why couldn't tomorrow's Americans and Europeans, even if they are disproportionately raised in patriarchal, religiously minded households, turn out to be another generation of '68? The key difference is that during the post-World War II era, nearly all segments of society married and had children. Some had more than others, but there was much more conformity in family size between the religious and the secular. Meanwhile, thanks mostly to improvements in social conditions, there is no longer much difference in survival rates for children born into large families and those who have few if any siblings.
Tomorrow's children, therefore, unlike members of the postwar baby boom generation, will be for the most part descendants of a comparatively narrow and culturally conservative segment of society. To be sure, some members of the rising generation may reject their parents' values, as often happens. But when they look for fellow secularists with whom to make common cause, they will find that most of their would-be fellow travelers were quite literally never born.
Many will celebrate these developments. Others will view them as the death of the Enlightenment. Either way, they will find themselves living through another great cycle of history.
Phillip Longman is a fellow at the New America Foundation and the author of The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity and What to Do About It. This essay is adapted from his cover story in the current issue of Foreign Policy magazine.
Copyright © 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
By Phillip LongmanTue Mar 14, 6:56 AM ET
What's the difference between Seattle and Salt Lake City? There are many differences, of course, but here's one you might not know. In Seattle, there are nearly 45% more dogs than children. In Salt Lake City, there are nearly 19% more kids than dogs.
This curious fact might at first seem trivial, but it reflects a much broader and little-noticed demographic trend that has deep implications for the future of global culture and politics. It's not that people in a progressive city such as Seattle are so much fonder of dogs than are people in a conservative city such as Salt Lake City. It's that progressives are so much less likely to have children.
It's a pattern found throughout the world, and it augers a far more conservative future - one in which patriarchy and other traditional values make a comeback, if only by default. Childlessness and small families are increasingly the norm today among progressive secularists. As a consequence, an increasing share of all children born into the world are descended from a share of the population whose conservative values have led them to raise large families.
Today, fertility correlates strongly with a wide range of political, cultural and religious attitudes. In the USA, for example, 47% of people who attend church weekly say their ideal family size is three or more children. By contrast, 27% of those who seldom attend church want that many kids.
In Utah, where more than two-thirds of residents are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 92 children are born each year for every 1,000 women, the highest fertility rate in the nation. By contrast Vermont - the first to embrace gay unions - has the nation's lowest rate, producing 51 children per 1,000 women.
Similarly, in Europe today, the people least likely to have children are those most likely to hold progressive views of the world. For instance, do you distrust the army and other institutions and are you prone to demonstrate against them? Then, according to polling data assembled by demographers Ron Lesthaeghe and Johan Surkyn, you are less likely to be married and have kids or ever to get married and have kids. Do you find soft drugs, homosexuality and euthanasia acceptable? Do you seldom, if ever, attend church? Europeans who answer affirmatively to such questions are far more likely to live alone or be in childless, cohabiting unions than are those who answer negatively.
This correlation between secularism, individualism and low fertility portends a vast change in modern societies. In the USA, for example, nearly 20% of women born in the late 1950s are reaching the end of their reproductive lives without having children. The greatly expanded childless segment of contemporary society, whose members are drawn disproportionately from the feminist and countercultural movements of the 1960s and '70s, will leave no genetic legacy. Nor will their emotional or psychological influence on the next generation compare with that of people who did raise children.
Single-child factor
Meanwhile, single-child families are prone to extinction. A single child replaces one of his or her parents, but not both. Consequently, a segment of society in which single-child families are the norm will decline in population by at least 50% per generation and quite quickly disappear. In the USA, the 17.4% of baby boomer women who had one child account for a mere 9.2% of kids produced by their generation. But among children of the baby boom, nearly a quarter descend from the mere 10% of baby boomer women who had four or more kids.
This dynamic helps explain the gradual drift of American culture toward religious fundamentalism and social conservatism. Among states that voted for President Bush in 2004, the average fertility rate is more than 11% higher than the rate of states for Sen. John Kerry.
It might also help to explain the popular resistance among rank-and-file Europeans to such crown jewels of secular liberalism as the European Union. It turns out that Europeans who are most likely to identify themselves as "world citizens" are also less likely to have children.
Rewriting history?
Why couldn't tomorrow's Americans and Europeans, even if they are disproportionately raised in patriarchal, religiously minded households, turn out to be another generation of '68? The key difference is that during the post-World War II era, nearly all segments of society married and had children. Some had more than others, but there was much more conformity in family size between the religious and the secular. Meanwhile, thanks mostly to improvements in social conditions, there is no longer much difference in survival rates for children born into large families and those who have few if any siblings.
Tomorrow's children, therefore, unlike members of the postwar baby boom generation, will be for the most part descendants of a comparatively narrow and culturally conservative segment of society. To be sure, some members of the rising generation may reject their parents' values, as often happens. But when they look for fellow secularists with whom to make common cause, they will find that most of their would-be fellow travelers were quite literally never born.
Many will celebrate these developments. Others will view them as the death of the Enlightenment. Either way, they will find themselves living through another great cycle of history.
Phillip Longman is a fellow at the New America Foundation and the author of The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity and What to Do About It. This essay is adapted from his cover story in the current issue of Foreign Policy magazine.
Copyright © 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
Friday, March 10, 2006
The president's tin ear & this from the Washington Times Bush ass kisser)
The president's tin ear
By Barry Casselma
Published March 10, 2006
The Washington Times
Once again, President Bush's popularity has gone down, this time to near its previous bottom. His friends and supporters are dismayed, especially since the economic and other news is not that bad. It is certainly not as bad as it has been, or as it might be.
The intensity and duration of this unpopularity is not unique. Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton aroused similar emotions. Only Nixon did not recover from this after his presidency (although his foreign policy skill has been vindicated).
What did Presidents Truman, Reagan and Clinton have in common? They were good communicators, and they had an ear for what the American public thought and felt (although they often went against what political pundits told them was what Americans thought and felt). The worst thing an American politician can have is a tin ear.
This is not about public policy. I have defended Mr. Bush's policies in the Middle East and his long-term vision, and I continue to do so. His attempts to reform Social Security and create health-savings accounts are on the right track.
Although I think his proposals so far are not enough, he is right to try to reform education and health care. I applaud his new efforts to reduce American dependency on foreign oil imports, and in insisting on drastic U.N. reform
What is not commendable is a pattern of personal unwillingness to engage and include the American public in building support for his own policies.
There are some obvious reasons for this. Mr. Bush, who is quite capable of being charming, likeable and effective to small, friendly audiences, apparently does not enjoy his role as communicator in chief to the nation, a role that is as much part of the job as commander in chief of the armed forces. This role is not specified in the Constitution, but it has been a necessary part of the job since the first president, George Washington.
Much of the national media opposes Mr. Bush, and makes no secret of it. Many of his loudest critics make no effort to evaluate what he says and does fairly. Those in the entertainment industry, who are often badly informed, have relentlessly made fun of him. Sometimes satire was deserved, and no one denies the inherent role of the media to be critical. But there has been a venom in the media/cultural left for Mr. Bush, who has apparently long mistrusted the media, and from his 2000 campaign on has kept it at arm's length. His first press secretary, Ari Fleischer, was skillful, but his assignment was not to be forthcoming. His current press secretary, Scott McLellan, is neither skillful nor forthcoming. It is a formula for a communication disaster.
The latest flap is over a deal to allow an Arab-owned company to manage six American ports. This is a large company which is already managing several world ports, and doing it well. They submitted the best bid. The fact that this company is owned by an Arab ally raises a question of political sensitivity to our allies and to the Arab world at large. But it is a tin ear that does not realize how this would be received by not only opponents and the media, but also by supporters and the public at large. This is the same political ear that nominated Harriet Myers for the supreme court and avoided going to New Orleans right after Hurricane Katrina.
This suggests that the kind of advice the president received during his first term is no longer reaching him in his second. Some explain that this is because Mr. Bush's penchant to replace outgoing cabinet and sub-cabinet officers, and his personal staff, with their juniors is a compulsive resistance to counsel from outside. (This should not be confused with the president's stubborn adherence to his foreign and domestic policy vision and ideas, which remain valid and laudable.)
This is about implementation, strategy and communication, which are the other half of the executive equation. As the first U.S. president with an M.B.A., Mr. Bush is inexcusably performing only half the job when he places loyalty and self-imposed isolation above good management.
Even more egregious is the president's timing for this executive muddle. The mid-term elections will soon enter their final campaign months, and the president risks hitherto safe margins of control of both houses of Congress. Where is Karl Rove? A contrarian political trend which began only a few months ago, giving the Republican Party unexpected opportunities in national races, e.g., in Maryland, New Jersey, Minnesota, Ohio, Washington and elsewhere, would evaporate if a tidal wave against the administration were to develop.
It's one thing to be loyal, and another matter to be loyal to those who do not appear to be really up to the job.
Barry Casselman writes about national politics for Preludium News Service.
Copyright © 2006 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
By Barry Casselma
Published March 10, 2006
The Washington Times
Once again, President Bush's popularity has gone down, this time to near its previous bottom. His friends and supporters are dismayed, especially since the economic and other news is not that bad. It is certainly not as bad as it has been, or as it might be.
The intensity and duration of this unpopularity is not unique. Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton aroused similar emotions. Only Nixon did not recover from this after his presidency (although his foreign policy skill has been vindicated).
What did Presidents Truman, Reagan and Clinton have in common? They were good communicators, and they had an ear for what the American public thought and felt (although they often went against what political pundits told them was what Americans thought and felt). The worst thing an American politician can have is a tin ear.
This is not about public policy. I have defended Mr. Bush's policies in the Middle East and his long-term vision, and I continue to do so. His attempts to reform Social Security and create health-savings accounts are on the right track.
Although I think his proposals so far are not enough, he is right to try to reform education and health care. I applaud his new efforts to reduce American dependency on foreign oil imports, and in insisting on drastic U.N. reform
What is not commendable is a pattern of personal unwillingness to engage and include the American public in building support for his own policies.
There are some obvious reasons for this. Mr. Bush, who is quite capable of being charming, likeable and effective to small, friendly audiences, apparently does not enjoy his role as communicator in chief to the nation, a role that is as much part of the job as commander in chief of the armed forces. This role is not specified in the Constitution, but it has been a necessary part of the job since the first president, George Washington.
Much of the national media opposes Mr. Bush, and makes no secret of it. Many of his loudest critics make no effort to evaluate what he says and does fairly. Those in the entertainment industry, who are often badly informed, have relentlessly made fun of him. Sometimes satire was deserved, and no one denies the inherent role of the media to be critical. But there has been a venom in the media/cultural left for Mr. Bush, who has apparently long mistrusted the media, and from his 2000 campaign on has kept it at arm's length. His first press secretary, Ari Fleischer, was skillful, but his assignment was not to be forthcoming. His current press secretary, Scott McLellan, is neither skillful nor forthcoming. It is a formula for a communication disaster.
The latest flap is over a deal to allow an Arab-owned company to manage six American ports. This is a large company which is already managing several world ports, and doing it well. They submitted the best bid. The fact that this company is owned by an Arab ally raises a question of political sensitivity to our allies and to the Arab world at large. But it is a tin ear that does not realize how this would be received by not only opponents and the media, but also by supporters and the public at large. This is the same political ear that nominated Harriet Myers for the supreme court and avoided going to New Orleans right after Hurricane Katrina.
This suggests that the kind of advice the president received during his first term is no longer reaching him in his second. Some explain that this is because Mr. Bush's penchant to replace outgoing cabinet and sub-cabinet officers, and his personal staff, with their juniors is a compulsive resistance to counsel from outside. (This should not be confused with the president's stubborn adherence to his foreign and domestic policy vision and ideas, which remain valid and laudable.)
This is about implementation, strategy and communication, which are the other half of the executive equation. As the first U.S. president with an M.B.A., Mr. Bush is inexcusably performing only half the job when he places loyalty and self-imposed isolation above good management.
Even more egregious is the president's timing for this executive muddle. The mid-term elections will soon enter their final campaign months, and the president risks hitherto safe margins of control of both houses of Congress. Where is Karl Rove? A contrarian political trend which began only a few months ago, giving the Republican Party unexpected opportunities in national races, e.g., in Maryland, New Jersey, Minnesota, Ohio, Washington and elsewhere, would evaporate if a tidal wave against the administration were to develop.
It's one thing to be loyal, and another matter to be loyal to those who do not appear to be really up to the job.
Barry Casselman writes about national politics for Preludium News Service.
Copyright © 2006 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
How they are all out-Bushing Bush
How they are all out-Bushing Bush
The Financial Times
>By Edward Luce
>Published: March 10 2006 19:34 | Last updated: March 10 2006 19:34
>>
President George W. Bush’s stinging defeat over his approval of Dubai Port World’s taking control of container operations at five American ports marks a new low in his fortunes. That a majority of Republicans ignored the White House’s pleas to show reason on what ought to have been a routine transaction speaks volumes about how much of a liability Mr Bush has become. Doubtless, Republicans will be looking for new ways to signal distance from Mr Bush between now and mid-term elections in November.
That is the good news for Mr Bush. The bad news is that many have concluded that he has already joined the likes of Lyndon B. Johnson and Calvin Coolidge as a long-distance waddler – condemned to being a lame duck well beyond November for the almost three years that remain of his term. Given Mr Bush’s low approval ratings – 34 per cent was the worst of the recent crop – it is tempting to agree. But it would not necessarily be correct. There is a more unsettling way of interpreting the events of the last few weeks. While congressmen from both parties were bidding to see who could most loudly condemn Mr Bush’s approval of the Dubai PW deal, they were quietly following his lead on a question of genuine significance to American freedom.
Last week, the Senate intelligence committee gave the administration a free pass to continue wiretapping an unspecified number of Americans without having secured a warrant beforehand. In exchange for calling off the threat of legislation to regulate a practice that many lawyers say is illegal, a group of senators would get monthly briefings from the White House about its surveillance activities.
Lame duck or otherwise, on this momentous question Congress decided not to clip Mr Bush’s wings. To recap: Mr Bush is unable to push through a simple transfer of ownership from one foreign company to another of a tiny fraction of America’s container terminal operations. But his security agents have congressional permission to continue interpreting a key aspect of America’s eavesdropping laws pretty much any way they choose. How to reconcile these two developments? The answer is public opinion.
One clear lesson from the Dubai PW controversy is that Democrats and Republicans alike chose to follow rather than to shape public opinion. According to the polls, up to
>three-quarters of Americans opposed an Arab company operating US terminals. This number did not fall when they were informed that the Gulf-based company would have no say over security and screening operations in America’s ports.
Public opinion is also hawkish on illegal immigration – another issue on which Mr Bush finds himself on the wrong side of the fence. America has an estimated 11m illegal immigrants. In December the House of Representatives ignored Mr Bush’s request to set up a guest worker programme that would bring many of the illegals into the open when it passed a bill that focused on enforcement, such as building new detention centres and providing unmanned aerial vehicles to patrol America’s borders.
As with the Dubai PW vote in the House appropriations committee last week, in which only two of the 64 congressmen dissented, many Democrats supported the immigration bill. The issue is now before the Senate, which tends to be less prone to populism than the lower house. But even were the Senate to water down the bill, it is clear leaders of both parties lack the confidence to challenge the mood of xenophobia that exists outside Washington. Instead they are fuelling it.
In some respects the Democrats are now as guilty of stoking fears on national security as the Republicans. Their logic is impeccable. A majority of Americans believe there will be another large terrorist attack on American soil. Such is the depth of anxiety that one-fifth or more of Americans believe they will personally be victims of a future terrorist attack. This number has not budged in the last four and a half years.
Mr Bush has consistently received a much higher public trust rating on the war on terror than the Democrats. Without this – and without the constant manipulation of yellow and orange terror alert warnings at key moments in the political narrative – Mr Bush would almost certainly have lost the presidential race to John Kerry in 2004.
Mr Bush’s numbers are now in freefall, with some polls showing a majority no longer trusts him on this pivotal issue. In other words, the Democrats have found an effective way of neutralising their most persistent electoral liability: they are out-Bushing Mr Bush.
It is easy to see why key Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, have adopted this strategy. It is easy also to see why their Republican counterparts are following suit. As Peter King, the Republican representative for New York, said last week: “We are not going to allow the Democrats get to the right of us on this issue.” This left Mr Bush holding the candle for the left, as it were. It is to be hoped that this was a uniquely unusual moment. But we should not bank on it. The Democrats are hungry for victory.
>
The writer is the FT’s Washington commentator
>
The Financial Times
>By Edward Luce
>Published: March 10 2006 19:34 | Last updated: March 10 2006 19:34
>>
President George W. Bush’s stinging defeat over his approval of Dubai Port World’s taking control of container operations at five American ports marks a new low in his fortunes. That a majority of Republicans ignored the White House’s pleas to show reason on what ought to have been a routine transaction speaks volumes about how much of a liability Mr Bush has become. Doubtless, Republicans will be looking for new ways to signal distance from Mr Bush between now and mid-term elections in November.
That is the good news for Mr Bush. The bad news is that many have concluded that he has already joined the likes of Lyndon B. Johnson and Calvin Coolidge as a long-distance waddler – condemned to being a lame duck well beyond November for the almost three years that remain of his term. Given Mr Bush’s low approval ratings – 34 per cent was the worst of the recent crop – it is tempting to agree. But it would not necessarily be correct. There is a more unsettling way of interpreting the events of the last few weeks. While congressmen from both parties were bidding to see who could most loudly condemn Mr Bush’s approval of the Dubai PW deal, they were quietly following his lead on a question of genuine significance to American freedom.
Last week, the Senate intelligence committee gave the administration a free pass to continue wiretapping an unspecified number of Americans without having secured a warrant beforehand. In exchange for calling off the threat of legislation to regulate a practice that many lawyers say is illegal, a group of senators would get monthly briefings from the White House about its surveillance activities.
Lame duck or otherwise, on this momentous question Congress decided not to clip Mr Bush’s wings. To recap: Mr Bush is unable to push through a simple transfer of ownership from one foreign company to another of a tiny fraction of America’s container terminal operations. But his security agents have congressional permission to continue interpreting a key aspect of America’s eavesdropping laws pretty much any way they choose. How to reconcile these two developments? The answer is public opinion.
One clear lesson from the Dubai PW controversy is that Democrats and Republicans alike chose to follow rather than to shape public opinion. According to the polls, up to
>three-quarters of Americans opposed an Arab company operating US terminals. This number did not fall when they were informed that the Gulf-based company would have no say over security and screening operations in America’s ports.
Public opinion is also hawkish on illegal immigration – another issue on which Mr Bush finds himself on the wrong side of the fence. America has an estimated 11m illegal immigrants. In December the House of Representatives ignored Mr Bush’s request to set up a guest worker programme that would bring many of the illegals into the open when it passed a bill that focused on enforcement, such as building new detention centres and providing unmanned aerial vehicles to patrol America’s borders.
As with the Dubai PW vote in the House appropriations committee last week, in which only two of the 64 congressmen dissented, many Democrats supported the immigration bill. The issue is now before the Senate, which tends to be less prone to populism than the lower house. But even were the Senate to water down the bill, it is clear leaders of both parties lack the confidence to challenge the mood of xenophobia that exists outside Washington. Instead they are fuelling it.
In some respects the Democrats are now as guilty of stoking fears on national security as the Republicans. Their logic is impeccable. A majority of Americans believe there will be another large terrorist attack on American soil. Such is the depth of anxiety that one-fifth or more of Americans believe they will personally be victims of a future terrorist attack. This number has not budged in the last four and a half years.
Mr Bush has consistently received a much higher public trust rating on the war on terror than the Democrats. Without this – and without the constant manipulation of yellow and orange terror alert warnings at key moments in the political narrative – Mr Bush would almost certainly have lost the presidential race to John Kerry in 2004.
Mr Bush’s numbers are now in freefall, with some polls showing a majority no longer trusts him on this pivotal issue. In other words, the Democrats have found an effective way of neutralising their most persistent electoral liability: they are out-Bushing Mr Bush.
It is easy to see why key Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, have adopted this strategy. It is easy also to see why their Republican counterparts are following suit. As Peter King, the Republican representative for New York, said last week: “We are not going to allow the Democrats get to the right of us on this issue.” This left Mr Bush holding the candle for the left, as it were. It is to be hoped that this was a uniquely unusual moment. But we should not bank on it. The Democrats are hungry for victory.
>
The writer is the FT’s Washington commentator
>
The President and the Scientists
The President and the Scientists
The New Yorker
Issue of 2006-03-13
Posted 2006-03-06
This week in the magazine, Michael Specter writes about the uneasy relationship between science and government in the Bush Administration. Here, Specter discusses the article.
THE NEW YORKER: In your article this week, you write about the Bush Administration’s hostility to science. Broadly speaking, what does that mean?
MICHAEL SPECTER: I’m not sure I would use the word “hostility.” The Administration simply doesn’t seem to rely on the advice of scientists on a wide range of issues: climate change, pollution, and biomedical research, for example. Previous Administrations have taken science as an area that is above the political fray—this one does not seem to operate that way.
The opposition to science seems to have a number of strains, many religious. You write about how the Administration is vehemently opposed to “any drug, vaccine, or initiative that could be interpreted as lessening the risks associated with premarital sex.” Do policymakers have some other rationale, or is this more of a straightforward agenda?
Well, the Bush Administration is squarely on the record in favor of abstinence as the main approach to issues such as H.I.V. and abortion. Few groups, by the way, oppose abstinence as an approach, and many see it as an excellent first line of defense. Unfortunately, however, it doesn’t always work, and, when it does, it rarely works for long. Nonetheless, the Administration—and many of its allies among conservatives and the religious right—places far more emphasis on abstinence than on teaching children other methods of birth control and protection against sexually transmitted diseases.
What are some of the other branches of science that are suffering? For instance, you write about stem-cell research in your article.
Stem-cell research is considered by many to be the most exciting area of biomedical research. But, because it relies on human embryos, President Bush decided in 2001 that public funding for the work would be limited to those lines of cells that already existed. There are other difficult issues in the current Administration, though. The scientific recommendations of the Environmental Protection Agency have often been ignored by this Administration, and sometimes decisions on environmental policy have been heavily influenced by former, or even current, allies of industry. Climate change is another area, and so, in many ways, is nasa. President Bush has said he wants to send people to Mars. But critics say that such a program would simply take money away from more useful research.
How much of this is a response to lobbying forces, such as fundamentalist Christian pressure?
It’s not so easy to disentangle the Administration and the Christian right. The President is an evangelical Christian and so are many people in his Administration. On many issues, though, industrial lobbyists hold sway. It must also be added that stem-cell research poses moral dilemmas that many Americans find hard to resolve—so to say that it’s blindly immoral to even question stem-cell research is, in my opinion, not fair.
What are the issues of federal funding in stem-cell research? Are they so prohibitive that they have essentially hamstrung a generation of scientists?
Well, the government does not fund research that involves stem cells, because you have to destroy an embryo to carry it out. Many people feel that destroying an embryo is akin to killing a living person—and the Bush Administration has drawn a moral line at that. Such research—all major biomedical research these days—is complex, and expensive. If you are at a university and you want to do embryonic stem-cell work, you could do so only with private funds; nothing from the government can pay for the work. This can get tricky even for rich institutions like Harvard, since equipment in labs can be very expensive and groups routinely share equipment. When stem-cell research is involved, the equipment needs to be accounted for in a different way and often bought with segregated funds.
Your article also touches on a number of personnel and staffing issues—scientists who have quit in protest over the Administration’s decisions, advisory boards that have been dismantled or remain unstaffed as a result of new vetting procedures. Does the Bush Administration require that its scientists agree with its political goals? How do past Administrations compare in this regard?
No Administration is eager to hire people who are virulently opposed to its goals. Yet, in the past, there has usually been a general feeling that scientists are above—or at least on the sidelines of—politics, and that they should be given jobs based purely on their ability to carry them out. That is a little utopian, and, of course, it doesn’t always work that way. But this Administration, more than any in memory, seems very aggressive about making certain that its scientific advisors support its ideas. And, if they don’t, their advice is often ignored.
Many of the scientists and public-health officials in your article talk about science as being apolitical. But is it? Ethics and science go hand in hand, and scientists are faced with moral questions all the time. Is there such a thing as a disinterested scientist, in this sense?
It’s naïve to assume that science is apart from, rather than a part of, society. Still, there is such a thing as a man or a woman pursuing an idea solely for the intellectual fruit it might bear, and trying to work it out without regard to who votes for whom or what the ethical implications might be. (This, by the way, is not necessarily a good thing. We do need scientists to think about the possible implications of their work—which these days can touch on the most fundamental issues in life.)
Are we losing ground in science as a nation? Are other countries doing better science, and doing more of it? Are there economic as well as medical costs?
We are still immensely powerful, successful, and full of talent. Yet the sense that we are invincible as a nation of scientists is starting to fade. If the investments that China, South Korea, India, and the European Union make in research and education continue to grow at such a rapid rate, then it is hard to see how the result can be anything but a loss of prominence, innovation, and prestige.
How do you think America will compare with India and China ten years from now?
It depends. We still have the largest and most sophisticated institutions and lots of smart people. We just need to keep open the lines of education and the ability to pursue intellectual solutions to basic problems.
There have been some recent victories for science—most notably, the defeat of intelligent-design instruction in Dover, Pennsylvania. Are there signs that there may be a backlash against anti-science sentiment, and a resurgence of science?
Except for Dover, which was driven by an unusually thorough, cogent, and powerful federal-court decision, I can’t say that I see many signs of a resurgence of support for science.
What about global warming? What does the science tell us, and how is this Administration responding to it? How is the American population responding to it?
Global warming is coming—or is already here, depending on your interpretation of the data. The government has responded by worrying about its economic place in the world rather than about the physical future of the world. It’s complicated, because we need not just to burn fewer fossil fuels, but to be sure China and India do the same. Still, America needs to lead, and it has stopped doing that. We need to develop alternative sources of energy, and that is well within the intellectual and technical abilities of this country. Still, most Americans will worry about global warming seriously only when it affects their wallets in a demonstrable way, or when their health, or that of their children, becomes measurably worse. We are not exactly known for our foresight on these issues.
What are the costs of an anti-science Administration like this one, in both the short term and the long term? Is it possible that we’re witnessing the beginning of a major shift away from Enlightenment thinking, or is that too alarmist a reading of the effect of one Administration’s policies?
That’s a little alarmist, I hope. We are in an age when almost anything is technically possible in science. We can break humans down to the smallest component parts. We can mix parts and grow new ones (or soon will). We can manipulate nature and, soon enough, we will even be able to choose the genetic components of our children. None of this is easy to take, and a reaction is understandable. The job of the Administration, and of educators, is to convince people that these powerful new tools can help immensely and not just cause harm. In the short term, that is not happening and we are probably losing some good young people who might otherwise enter science. But a few years from now—maybe 2008, to take a random date—the situation could improve markedly.
The New Yorker
Issue of 2006-03-13
Posted 2006-03-06
This week in the magazine, Michael Specter writes about the uneasy relationship between science and government in the Bush Administration. Here, Specter discusses the article.
THE NEW YORKER: In your article this week, you write about the Bush Administration’s hostility to science. Broadly speaking, what does that mean?
MICHAEL SPECTER: I’m not sure I would use the word “hostility.” The Administration simply doesn’t seem to rely on the advice of scientists on a wide range of issues: climate change, pollution, and biomedical research, for example. Previous Administrations have taken science as an area that is above the political fray—this one does not seem to operate that way.
The opposition to science seems to have a number of strains, many religious. You write about how the Administration is vehemently opposed to “any drug, vaccine, or initiative that could be interpreted as lessening the risks associated with premarital sex.” Do policymakers have some other rationale, or is this more of a straightforward agenda?
Well, the Bush Administration is squarely on the record in favor of abstinence as the main approach to issues such as H.I.V. and abortion. Few groups, by the way, oppose abstinence as an approach, and many see it as an excellent first line of defense. Unfortunately, however, it doesn’t always work, and, when it does, it rarely works for long. Nonetheless, the Administration—and many of its allies among conservatives and the religious right—places far more emphasis on abstinence than on teaching children other methods of birth control and protection against sexually transmitted diseases.
What are some of the other branches of science that are suffering? For instance, you write about stem-cell research in your article.
Stem-cell research is considered by many to be the most exciting area of biomedical research. But, because it relies on human embryos, President Bush decided in 2001 that public funding for the work would be limited to those lines of cells that already existed. There are other difficult issues in the current Administration, though. The scientific recommendations of the Environmental Protection Agency have often been ignored by this Administration, and sometimes decisions on environmental policy have been heavily influenced by former, or even current, allies of industry. Climate change is another area, and so, in many ways, is nasa. President Bush has said he wants to send people to Mars. But critics say that such a program would simply take money away from more useful research.
How much of this is a response to lobbying forces, such as fundamentalist Christian pressure?
It’s not so easy to disentangle the Administration and the Christian right. The President is an evangelical Christian and so are many people in his Administration. On many issues, though, industrial lobbyists hold sway. It must also be added that stem-cell research poses moral dilemmas that many Americans find hard to resolve—so to say that it’s blindly immoral to even question stem-cell research is, in my opinion, not fair.
What are the issues of federal funding in stem-cell research? Are they so prohibitive that they have essentially hamstrung a generation of scientists?
Well, the government does not fund research that involves stem cells, because you have to destroy an embryo to carry it out. Many people feel that destroying an embryo is akin to killing a living person—and the Bush Administration has drawn a moral line at that. Such research—all major biomedical research these days—is complex, and expensive. If you are at a university and you want to do embryonic stem-cell work, you could do so only with private funds; nothing from the government can pay for the work. This can get tricky even for rich institutions like Harvard, since equipment in labs can be very expensive and groups routinely share equipment. When stem-cell research is involved, the equipment needs to be accounted for in a different way and often bought with segregated funds.
Your article also touches on a number of personnel and staffing issues—scientists who have quit in protest over the Administration’s decisions, advisory boards that have been dismantled or remain unstaffed as a result of new vetting procedures. Does the Bush Administration require that its scientists agree with its political goals? How do past Administrations compare in this regard?
No Administration is eager to hire people who are virulently opposed to its goals. Yet, in the past, there has usually been a general feeling that scientists are above—or at least on the sidelines of—politics, and that they should be given jobs based purely on their ability to carry them out. That is a little utopian, and, of course, it doesn’t always work that way. But this Administration, more than any in memory, seems very aggressive about making certain that its scientific advisors support its ideas. And, if they don’t, their advice is often ignored.
Many of the scientists and public-health officials in your article talk about science as being apolitical. But is it? Ethics and science go hand in hand, and scientists are faced with moral questions all the time. Is there such a thing as a disinterested scientist, in this sense?
It’s naïve to assume that science is apart from, rather than a part of, society. Still, there is such a thing as a man or a woman pursuing an idea solely for the intellectual fruit it might bear, and trying to work it out without regard to who votes for whom or what the ethical implications might be. (This, by the way, is not necessarily a good thing. We do need scientists to think about the possible implications of their work—which these days can touch on the most fundamental issues in life.)
Are we losing ground in science as a nation? Are other countries doing better science, and doing more of it? Are there economic as well as medical costs?
We are still immensely powerful, successful, and full of talent. Yet the sense that we are invincible as a nation of scientists is starting to fade. If the investments that China, South Korea, India, and the European Union make in research and education continue to grow at such a rapid rate, then it is hard to see how the result can be anything but a loss of prominence, innovation, and prestige.
How do you think America will compare with India and China ten years from now?
It depends. We still have the largest and most sophisticated institutions and lots of smart people. We just need to keep open the lines of education and the ability to pursue intellectual solutions to basic problems.
There have been some recent victories for science—most notably, the defeat of intelligent-design instruction in Dover, Pennsylvania. Are there signs that there may be a backlash against anti-science sentiment, and a resurgence of science?
Except for Dover, which was driven by an unusually thorough, cogent, and powerful federal-court decision, I can’t say that I see many signs of a resurgence of support for science.
What about global warming? What does the science tell us, and how is this Administration responding to it? How is the American population responding to it?
Global warming is coming—or is already here, depending on your interpretation of the data. The government has responded by worrying about its economic place in the world rather than about the physical future of the world. It’s complicated, because we need not just to burn fewer fossil fuels, but to be sure China and India do the same. Still, America needs to lead, and it has stopped doing that. We need to develop alternative sources of energy, and that is well within the intellectual and technical abilities of this country. Still, most Americans will worry about global warming seriously only when it affects their wallets in a demonstrable way, or when their health, or that of their children, becomes measurably worse. We are not exactly known for our foresight on these issues.
What are the costs of an anti-science Administration like this one, in both the short term and the long term? Is it possible that we’re witnessing the beginning of a major shift away from Enlightenment thinking, or is that too alarmist a reading of the effect of one Administration’s policies?
That’s a little alarmist, I hope. We are in an age when almost anything is technically possible in science. We can break humans down to the smallest component parts. We can mix parts and grow new ones (or soon will). We can manipulate nature and, soon enough, we will even be able to choose the genetic components of our children. None of this is easy to take, and a reaction is understandable. The job of the Administration, and of educators, is to convince people that these powerful new tools can help immensely and not just cause harm. In the short term, that is not happening and we are probably losing some good young people who might otherwise enter science. But a few years from now—maybe 2008, to take a random date—the situation could improve markedly.
Black clergy's silence hurts gays
Black clergy's silence hurts gays
Commentary by Yolanda Young
Fri Mar 10, 7:00 AM ET
The Republican Party continues to use the issue of gay marriage as an inroad to garner the support of black ministers - and black voters.
President Bush's offering to Herbert Lusk, an African-American minister opposed to homosexuality, of appointment to the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS is only the latest maneuver.
While a few black ministers have called for greater acceptance of gays and lesbians - such as the Rev. Al Sharpton, who was recently a speaker at the Black Church Summit organized by gay advocates - most reject both of these extremes, choosing instead to remain silent on this issue.
Consider a joint statement issued last year by four Baptist denomination leaders, representing close to 15 million members, offering positions on everything from the war in Iraq to support of a national living wage. But one issue that is arguably the most divisive within religious organizations went unaddressed: same-sex marriage.
In an attempt at unity, the Rev. William Shaw, who heads the 7 million-member National Baptist Convention USA, has shown a lukewarm tolerance for gay marriage, which he says is not the sole determinant on moral issues. Even so, he doesn't go far enough.
The church's tepid stance lends more credence to marginal groups bent on using the gay marriage issue to establish the Republican Party as the moral party:
• Bishop Harry Jackson Jr. travels the country enlisting signatures for his "Black Contract With America on Moral Values," which stresses that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.
• African-American pastors making up the group Not On My Watch rallied in Arlington, Texas, in support of a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman.
• The Rev. William Owens heads the Coalition of African-American Pastors in Memphis, aimed at thwarting efforts to allow gays to marry.
With proposals to ban same-sex marriage on the ballots in at least six states - Alabama, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Idaho and Wisconsin - turning the black homosexual into the latest political boogeyman will undoubtedly prove valuable to the Republican Party, perhaps proving the tipping point in close midterm elections this November.
There is an oft-quoted scripture in Revelation 3:16: "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." This might well be the fate of the silent religious majority and the Democratic Party, unless black clergy are willing to deliver a message of acceptance as impassioned as that of their conservative counterparts.
Yolanda Young is author of On Our Way To Beautiful.
Copyright © 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc
Commentary by Yolanda Young
Fri Mar 10, 7:00 AM ET
The Republican Party continues to use the issue of gay marriage as an inroad to garner the support of black ministers - and black voters.
President Bush's offering to Herbert Lusk, an African-American minister opposed to homosexuality, of appointment to the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS is only the latest maneuver.
While a few black ministers have called for greater acceptance of gays and lesbians - such as the Rev. Al Sharpton, who was recently a speaker at the Black Church Summit organized by gay advocates - most reject both of these extremes, choosing instead to remain silent on this issue.
Consider a joint statement issued last year by four Baptist denomination leaders, representing close to 15 million members, offering positions on everything from the war in Iraq to support of a national living wage. But one issue that is arguably the most divisive within religious organizations went unaddressed: same-sex marriage.
In an attempt at unity, the Rev. William Shaw, who heads the 7 million-member National Baptist Convention USA, has shown a lukewarm tolerance for gay marriage, which he says is not the sole determinant on moral issues. Even so, he doesn't go far enough.
The church's tepid stance lends more credence to marginal groups bent on using the gay marriage issue to establish the Republican Party as the moral party:
• Bishop Harry Jackson Jr. travels the country enlisting signatures for his "Black Contract With America on Moral Values," which stresses that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.
• African-American pastors making up the group Not On My Watch rallied in Arlington, Texas, in support of a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman.
• The Rev. William Owens heads the Coalition of African-American Pastors in Memphis, aimed at thwarting efforts to allow gays to marry.
With proposals to ban same-sex marriage on the ballots in at least six states - Alabama, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Idaho and Wisconsin - turning the black homosexual into the latest political boogeyman will undoubtedly prove valuable to the Republican Party, perhaps proving the tipping point in close midterm elections this November.
There is an oft-quoted scripture in Revelation 3:16: "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." This might well be the fate of the silent religious majority and the Democratic Party, unless black clergy are willing to deliver a message of acceptance as impassioned as that of their conservative counterparts.
Yolanda Young is author of On Our Way To Beautiful.
Copyright © 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Ma Bell revives; watch her with a very wary eye
Ma Bell revives; watch her with a very wary eye
Tue Mar 7, 6:47 AM ET
Recent years have not been good to the businesses formerly known as phone companies. They got off to a slower start than cable in rolling out broadband service. And they lost core customers who signed up with Internet telephony services, or opted to go wireless.
But, not to worry, this is an industry with a plan: Bring back Ma Bell - the AT&T monopoly that once ruled the wired world, throttling competition.
While other industries have decided to race forward to keep pace with innovation, this one sees a bright future in turning back the clock. Maybe there is even a black, rotary-dial telephone in our future.
Sunday's announced merger between AT&T and BellSouth would reunite five of the eight companies created when an antitrust suit splintered the phone monopoly in 1984, igniting a communications revolution. (AT&T had already been merged with three of its offspring: Pacific Telesis, Ameritech and Southwestern Bell.)
Given the current, accommodating state of antitrust policy and the arrival of cable as a competitor in broadband and telephony, this deal might well be approved by federal regulators. It might even create economies of scale that would make the combination more efficient than the sum of its parts.
But it also should raise red flags for Congress and federal regulators. For all the talk of robust competition between cable and telephone, the reality has been less impressive. The most intense competition and the fastest roll-outs of new services have been largely limited to affluent areas.
Reassembling the old Bell system would hardly provide companies with greater incentives to do what they are not doing already. If anything, it would give this new behemoth greater market strength with which to dictate prices and services.
What's more, the merger raises questions about the future of the Internet and digital entertainment. Even before Sunday, AT&T was vocal in its determination to impose limits on the Internet. The company envisions charging high-flying Internet companies such as Google and Yahoo for the privilege of flowing quickly through its high-speed pipes. It argues that because it invested in new lines, it deserves a greater piece of the action.
This merger might well increase its power to bring about such an unfortunate reality. With its massive customer base and ability to offer telephone, wireless telephone, broadband and video, it could bring enormous pressure to bear on Internet companies to pay its ransom, regardless of what its cable competitors do.
For that reason, lawmakers and members of the Federal Communications Commission should take a long, hard look at where the Internet is headed and what might be done to prevent a handful of companies from gaining a chokehold over an evolving medium that is one of history's great innovations.
Such an outcome would not only punish innovative companies, but in its most extreme form it would also make decisions for consumers on where they shop online, how they conduct their searches and which social networking sites they should use.
More broadly, Washington policymakers might want to examine the state of competition almost 10 years after the passage of a massive telecommunications law that partially deregulated the industry. If a company such as AT&T is able to erect tollbooths on the Internet, and if competition on price and service in many parts of the country remains anemic, then the law and subsequent court rulings further deregulating the industry are not having their desired effect.
Telephone and cable companies were freed of their regulatory shackles on the premise they would compete aggressively with each other. Progress on that front has been, at best, mixed.
Now the public is being asked to believe that putting the Bell system back together is going to stimulate competition and help consumers. It's hard to believe there is much progress to be made by going backward.
Copyright © 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
Tue Mar 7, 6:47 AM ET
Recent years have not been good to the businesses formerly known as phone companies. They got off to a slower start than cable in rolling out broadband service. And they lost core customers who signed up with Internet telephony services, or opted to go wireless.
But, not to worry, this is an industry with a plan: Bring back Ma Bell - the AT&T monopoly that once ruled the wired world, throttling competition.
While other industries have decided to race forward to keep pace with innovation, this one sees a bright future in turning back the clock. Maybe there is even a black, rotary-dial telephone in our future.
Sunday's announced merger between AT&T and BellSouth would reunite five of the eight companies created when an antitrust suit splintered the phone monopoly in 1984, igniting a communications revolution. (AT&T had already been merged with three of its offspring: Pacific Telesis, Ameritech and Southwestern Bell.)
Given the current, accommodating state of antitrust policy and the arrival of cable as a competitor in broadband and telephony, this deal might well be approved by federal regulators. It might even create economies of scale that would make the combination more efficient than the sum of its parts.
But it also should raise red flags for Congress and federal regulators. For all the talk of robust competition between cable and telephone, the reality has been less impressive. The most intense competition and the fastest roll-outs of new services have been largely limited to affluent areas.
Reassembling the old Bell system would hardly provide companies with greater incentives to do what they are not doing already. If anything, it would give this new behemoth greater market strength with which to dictate prices and services.
What's more, the merger raises questions about the future of the Internet and digital entertainment. Even before Sunday, AT&T was vocal in its determination to impose limits on the Internet. The company envisions charging high-flying Internet companies such as Google and Yahoo for the privilege of flowing quickly through its high-speed pipes. It argues that because it invested in new lines, it deserves a greater piece of the action.
This merger might well increase its power to bring about such an unfortunate reality. With its massive customer base and ability to offer telephone, wireless telephone, broadband and video, it could bring enormous pressure to bear on Internet companies to pay its ransom, regardless of what its cable competitors do.
For that reason, lawmakers and members of the Federal Communications Commission should take a long, hard look at where the Internet is headed and what might be done to prevent a handful of companies from gaining a chokehold over an evolving medium that is one of history's great innovations.
Such an outcome would not only punish innovative companies, but in its most extreme form it would also make decisions for consumers on where they shop online, how they conduct their searches and which social networking sites they should use.
More broadly, Washington policymakers might want to examine the state of competition almost 10 years after the passage of a massive telecommunications law that partially deregulated the industry. If a company such as AT&T is able to erect tollbooths on the Internet, and if competition on price and service in many parts of the country remains anemic, then the law and subsequent court rulings further deregulating the industry are not having their desired effect.
Telephone and cable companies were freed of their regulatory shackles on the premise they would compete aggressively with each other. Progress on that front has been, at best, mixed.
Now the public is being asked to believe that putting the Bell system back together is going to stimulate competition and help consumers. It's hard to believe there is much progress to be made by going backward.
Copyright © 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
King George tramps thru India on an unsteady foot
Protests, nuclear talks for Bush's first India visit
1 hour, 22 minutes ago
Communist and Islamic groups were planning mass protests around India on Thursday as U.S. President George W. Bush begins formal talks on his first visit to the world's largest democracy.
Bush arrived on Wednesday after a surprise visit to Afghanistan, where thousands of U.S. troops are still engaged in hunting down the architects of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.
The centerpoint of his visit to New Delhi is talks over a nuclear cooperation deal. Bush will meet Prime Minister Manmohan Singh after a ceremonial reception at the presidential palace.
While the three-day visit is welcomed by many in India as a sign of growing recognition that Asia's third-largest economy is emerging as a regional power, it has angered Islamic and communist groups who oppose U.S. policies such as the invasion of Iraq.
On Wednesday, tens of thousands of anti-Bush demonstrators took to the streets, burning an effigy of the U.S. leader and chanting slogans such as "Go back, Bush" and "Bush is a killer."
About 100,000 Muslim men gathered in the heart of the Indian capital shouting anti-Bush slogans, as hundreds of policemen in riot gear kept watch.
In the eastern city of Kolkata, a leftist stronghold, about 25,000 communist supporters converged on the city center for a public meeting organized by the Committee Against Bush Visit.
"Under President Bush, the U.S. continues to occupy Iraq and oppress its people. It threatens Syria and has targeted Iran on the issue of its nuclear program," the committee said in a statement.
NUCLEAR PACT
The nuclear pact, under which India would get access to U.S. technology in return for opening its civilian facilities to inspection and separating them from military plants, has run into opposition in Washington because India has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
There are also differences over the details.
However, both sides have tried to play down expectations even as they continue to discuss the number of reactors India will declare as civilian.
"It's a difficult issue," Bush told reporters in Afghanistan. "It's a difficult issue for the Indian government, it's a difficult issue for the American government.
"So we'll continue to dialogue and work. Hopefully, we can reach an agreement. If not, we'll continue to work on it until we do.
"Our relationship with India is broader than our discussions about energy. Ours is a strategic relationship."
India's extensive atomic weapons program to counter neighboring Pakistan and China's nuclear arms is a further concern for some members of the U.S. Congress, who have cast doubt on the viability of any deal between Singh and Bush.
During his visit to Afghanistan, Bush met President Hamid Karzai and his U.S.-backed government that took power after the Taliban regime was overthrown for refusing to hand over al Qaeda leaders after the September 11 attacks.
"It's in our nation's interest that Afghanistan develop into a democracy. It is in the interests of the United States of America for there to be examples around the world of what is possible," he said at the U.S. embassy in Kabul.
Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.
1 hour, 22 minutes ago
Communist and Islamic groups were planning mass protests around India on Thursday as U.S. President George W. Bush begins formal talks on his first visit to the world's largest democracy.
Bush arrived on Wednesday after a surprise visit to Afghanistan, where thousands of U.S. troops are still engaged in hunting down the architects of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.
The centerpoint of his visit to New Delhi is talks over a nuclear cooperation deal. Bush will meet Prime Minister Manmohan Singh after a ceremonial reception at the presidential palace.
While the three-day visit is welcomed by many in India as a sign of growing recognition that Asia's third-largest economy is emerging as a regional power, it has angered Islamic and communist groups who oppose U.S. policies such as the invasion of Iraq.
On Wednesday, tens of thousands of anti-Bush demonstrators took to the streets, burning an effigy of the U.S. leader and chanting slogans such as "Go back, Bush" and "Bush is a killer."
About 100,000 Muslim men gathered in the heart of the Indian capital shouting anti-Bush slogans, as hundreds of policemen in riot gear kept watch.
In the eastern city of Kolkata, a leftist stronghold, about 25,000 communist supporters converged on the city center for a public meeting organized by the Committee Against Bush Visit.
"Under President Bush, the U.S. continues to occupy Iraq and oppress its people. It threatens Syria and has targeted Iran on the issue of its nuclear program," the committee said in a statement.
NUCLEAR PACT
The nuclear pact, under which India would get access to U.S. technology in return for opening its civilian facilities to inspection and separating them from military plants, has run into opposition in Washington because India has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
There are also differences over the details.
However, both sides have tried to play down expectations even as they continue to discuss the number of reactors India will declare as civilian.
"It's a difficult issue," Bush told reporters in Afghanistan. "It's a difficult issue for the Indian government, it's a difficult issue for the American government.
"So we'll continue to dialogue and work. Hopefully, we can reach an agreement. If not, we'll continue to work on it until we do.
"Our relationship with India is broader than our discussions about energy. Ours is a strategic relationship."
India's extensive atomic weapons program to counter neighboring Pakistan and China's nuclear arms is a further concern for some members of the U.S. Congress, who have cast doubt on the viability of any deal between Singh and Bush.
During his visit to Afghanistan, Bush met President Hamid Karzai and his U.S.-backed government that took power after the Taliban regime was overthrown for refusing to hand over al Qaeda leaders after the September 11 attacks.
"It's in our nation's interest that Afghanistan develop into a democracy. It is in the interests of the United States of America for there to be examples around the world of what is possible," he said at the U.S. embassy in Kabul.
Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.
Delay, Let Him Sweat
DeLay fights for his political life in Texas
By John Whitesides, Political CorrespondentWed Mar 1, 12:35 PM ET
He has been indicted, rebuked and dethroned from his Republican leadership perch, but Tom DeLay's fight for re-election to Congress could be the biggest challenge in a long political career.
DeLay, nicknamed "the Hammer" for the blunt way he wielded power during 22 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, has been swamped by ethics allegations that have made him a prime Democratic target in November's elections and a national symbol for charges of Republican corruption.
Once one of Washington's most powerful politicians, DeLay is scrambling to fight a Texas legal indictment and hold off challengers from both parties in his House race in the suburbs of Houston.
"You never know how well an election will go for an indicted person," DeLay acknowledged in an interview with Reuters after a recent breakfast with Houston-area realtors.
"Getting beat up by the national media and the Houston Chronicle has taken its toll," DeLay said, referring to the local newspaper. "It's polarized my district, you either love me or hate me. Thank God there are still more that love me."
The combative former House Republican leader will begin to learn how many folks at home still love him on Tuesday, when he faces three challengers in a Republican primary.
If he survives, he will square off in November against former Democratic congressman Nick Lampson in one of the country's most high-profile, expensive and no doubt bitter races.
"DeLay is in trouble. The primary is no sure thing and the general election is even more dangerous," said Richard Murray, a political analyst at the University of Houston.
"Much of this is totally beyond his control," he said. "If he gets convicted in Texas or indicted in Washington, it would be the end for DeLay."
REDISTRICTING CHALLENGE
DeLay, indicted in Texas last year on campaign finance charges, resigned from his leadership post in January. He has been rebuked by the House ethics committee and linked to a corruption scandal involving disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former DeLay aides. He has not been charged in the Abramoff probe.
DeLay has denied wrongdoing in both cases and says the allegations are politically motivated. His rivals say DeLay's pugnacious style is simply catching up to him.
"This is the epicenter of a national debate on how we conduct the public's business. He believes in a hardball, win at any cost version of slash-and-burn politics that I think is wrong," Tom Campbell, a former DeLay supporter and now his top primary challenger, told Reuters.
Lampson calls DeLay a "bully" and said voters in the district have tired of his style.
"He has left us a legacy of debt, corruption and neglect, and he can't run from it," Lampson said. "I think it's something he has helped usher into our Congress that people would like to see changed."
DeLay compounded his troubles when he engineered a Texas redistricting plan that in 2004 helped take six House seats from Democrats, including Lampson, by making their districts more Republican.
To help his Republican neighbors, DeLay added Democrats to his district, including a patch of Lampson's old turf. DeLay's district, including some of the country's fastest-growing suburbs south of Houston, has been flooded by new residents with little allegiance to him.
DeLay's redistricting plan has been challenged in the courts, and the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on Wednesday.
Polls show DeLay's support has dropped since the indictment and Abramoff publicity, with a USA Today/Gallup poll in December showing him losing to an unnamed Democratic opponent and scoring a favorability rating of just 37 percent.
"I'm bothered by all the investigations and scandals," said Veniece Griffin, a Missouri City Republican who plans to vote for Campbell. "DeLay has had 20 years, and he's not representing me."
DeLay is taking the challenge seriously, hitting the campaign trail hard to tout his ability to win money for the district and reminding audiences of his long service.
At the realtors' breakfast gathering, he recalled his days a pest exterminator in the area. "I crawled under a lot of your houses and through a lot of your attics," DeLay said.
Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.
By John Whitesides, Political CorrespondentWed Mar 1, 12:35 PM ET
He has been indicted, rebuked and dethroned from his Republican leadership perch, but Tom DeLay's fight for re-election to Congress could be the biggest challenge in a long political career.
DeLay, nicknamed "the Hammer" for the blunt way he wielded power during 22 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, has been swamped by ethics allegations that have made him a prime Democratic target in November's elections and a national symbol for charges of Republican corruption.
Once one of Washington's most powerful politicians, DeLay is scrambling to fight a Texas legal indictment and hold off challengers from both parties in his House race in the suburbs of Houston.
"You never know how well an election will go for an indicted person," DeLay acknowledged in an interview with Reuters after a recent breakfast with Houston-area realtors.
"Getting beat up by the national media and the Houston Chronicle has taken its toll," DeLay said, referring to the local newspaper. "It's polarized my district, you either love me or hate me. Thank God there are still more that love me."
The combative former House Republican leader will begin to learn how many folks at home still love him on Tuesday, when he faces three challengers in a Republican primary.
If he survives, he will square off in November against former Democratic congressman Nick Lampson in one of the country's most high-profile, expensive and no doubt bitter races.
"DeLay is in trouble. The primary is no sure thing and the general election is even more dangerous," said Richard Murray, a political analyst at the University of Houston.
"Much of this is totally beyond his control," he said. "If he gets convicted in Texas or indicted in Washington, it would be the end for DeLay."
REDISTRICTING CHALLENGE
DeLay, indicted in Texas last year on campaign finance charges, resigned from his leadership post in January. He has been rebuked by the House ethics committee and linked to a corruption scandal involving disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former DeLay aides. He has not been charged in the Abramoff probe.
DeLay has denied wrongdoing in both cases and says the allegations are politically motivated. His rivals say DeLay's pugnacious style is simply catching up to him.
"This is the epicenter of a national debate on how we conduct the public's business. He believes in a hardball, win at any cost version of slash-and-burn politics that I think is wrong," Tom Campbell, a former DeLay supporter and now his top primary challenger, told Reuters.
Lampson calls DeLay a "bully" and said voters in the district have tired of his style.
"He has left us a legacy of debt, corruption and neglect, and he can't run from it," Lampson said. "I think it's something he has helped usher into our Congress that people would like to see changed."
DeLay compounded his troubles when he engineered a Texas redistricting plan that in 2004 helped take six House seats from Democrats, including Lampson, by making their districts more Republican.
To help his Republican neighbors, DeLay added Democrats to his district, including a patch of Lampson's old turf. DeLay's district, including some of the country's fastest-growing suburbs south of Houston, has been flooded by new residents with little allegiance to him.
DeLay's redistricting plan has been challenged in the courts, and the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on Wednesday.
Polls show DeLay's support has dropped since the indictment and Abramoff publicity, with a USA Today/Gallup poll in December showing him losing to an unnamed Democratic opponent and scoring a favorability rating of just 37 percent.
"I'm bothered by all the investigations and scandals," said Veniece Griffin, a Missouri City Republican who plans to vote for Campbell. "DeLay has had 20 years, and he's not representing me."
DeLay is taking the challenge seriously, hitting the campaign trail hard to tout his ability to win money for the district and reminding audiences of his long service.
At the realtors' breakfast gathering, he recalled his days a pest exterminator in the area. "I crawled under a lot of your houses and through a lot of your attics," DeLay said.
Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.
As nuclear terrain shifts, U.S. finds uncertain footing
As nuclear terrain shifts, U.S. finds uncertain footing
Wed Mar 1, 7:17 AM ET
Imagine having lived in a house with a pretty good security system for decades - then realizing that it's outdated and ineffective. The old system still works, sort of, with a jumble of unsatisfactory, uncoordinated patches, but it's no longer reliable. Meanwhile, the neighborhood is deteriorating dangerously.
That, essentially, is the nuclear weapons picture President Bush faces as he arrives in India Wednesday, then goes on to Pakistan. A map of South Asia and the Middle East reveals a de facto nuclear arms race underway in various guises. Bush's trip and the delicate nuclear diplomacy he plans with India underscore how few "fixes" the USA and allies have; how some of them could make the problem worse; and the urgent need for more comprehensive thinking.
Three countries in the region - India, Pakistan and Israel - already have nuclear weapons. Even though everyone knows they have them, they are not "declared" nuclear powers. That means they did not sign the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which commits countries not to develop nuclear weapons and allows them, in return, to get help with civilian nuclear programs. The three are not, in other words, part of the official nuclear "club" (Britain, China, France, Russia and the USA).
And then there is Iran. It has signed the treaty but is now using its civilian program as a cover for developing nuclear weapons.
At one level, allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons and formally admitting India, Pakistan and Israel into the nuclear club might seem reasonable. Why not? It would essentially be an Asian-Middle Eastern version of safety through Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). That theory kept the lid on the Cold War between the USA and the Soviet Union: If one country launched a nuclear attack on the other, it was assured its own annihilation. In fact, bitter rivals India and Pakistan argue that MAD has kept them from nuclear war over the disputed territory of Kashmir.
But all things are not equal, because Islamic terrorism stalks the world. For that reason, the most important 21st century question about nukes is this: How can you keep them out of the hands of nations ruled by madmen for whom MAD may prove a scant deterrent, or terrorists who are not targeted as easily as nations? Through that lens, each country stacks up in a new hierarchy of danger.
At the top, Pakistan could edge out Iran. For safety reasons, its nuclear weapons are not assembled and require layers of experts to put them together, but the weapons are under the ultimate control of the army and intelligence forces, many of which have links to al-Qaeda. Though President Pervez Musharraf is a U.S. ally in the war on terror, his country is seething with Muslim fundamentalism. He has survived at least two assassination attempts. His death could bring Islamic extremists to power. A Pakistani nuclear scientist, A.Q. Khan, has already provided nuclear technology to Iran and other countries.
Iran sponsors terrorists and could give them nuclear weapons, or use the weapons to threaten other countries. Its new president is a religious fanatic who says Israel should be wiped off the map. One deterrent: If terrorists used nukes and Iran's sponsorship was discovered, that might invite nuclear retaliation from Israel or even the United States.
India, like Israel, is on a low "danger level" footing. It is the world's largest democracy. Its 150 million Muslims, in a Hindu-dominated population of more than 1 billion, haven't shown al-Qaeda leanings.
Given that hierarchy, a nuclear deal Bush is trying to finalize with India would seem a good proposal. Bush wants to help India with its civilian nuclear program, even though India hasn't signed the non-proliferation treaty. But India - which would have to separate its military and civilian nuclear programs, putting the civilian program under strict inspections - is balking at some provisions.
Bush shouldn't back off. That could further undermine the shaky security system that has worked until now - the non-proliferation treaty. The treaty has persuaded many nations to terminate nuclear programs and dissuaded others from seeking them.
More broadly, there is no easy, obvious answer to the non-proliferation treaty's increasing failure.
Since coming to office, Bush has adamantly - and unwisely - resisted joining attempts to update it. But perhaps that will change. In his second term, the president has retreated from the go-it-alone foreign policy that was discredited by Iraq and other failures. So far, he has wisely relied on multilateral diplomacy to defuse the Iran threat.
Whether it will succeed, however, is another question. Bush's trip highlights just how little control the major powers still have over nuclear proliferation, and how important it is not to act rashly in a world that appears to be going newly MAD.
Copyright © 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
Wed Mar 1, 7:17 AM ET
Imagine having lived in a house with a pretty good security system for decades - then realizing that it's outdated and ineffective. The old system still works, sort of, with a jumble of unsatisfactory, uncoordinated patches, but it's no longer reliable. Meanwhile, the neighborhood is deteriorating dangerously.
That, essentially, is the nuclear weapons picture President Bush faces as he arrives in India Wednesday, then goes on to Pakistan. A map of South Asia and the Middle East reveals a de facto nuclear arms race underway in various guises. Bush's trip and the delicate nuclear diplomacy he plans with India underscore how few "fixes" the USA and allies have; how some of them could make the problem worse; and the urgent need for more comprehensive thinking.
Three countries in the region - India, Pakistan and Israel - already have nuclear weapons. Even though everyone knows they have them, they are not "declared" nuclear powers. That means they did not sign the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which commits countries not to develop nuclear weapons and allows them, in return, to get help with civilian nuclear programs. The three are not, in other words, part of the official nuclear "club" (Britain, China, France, Russia and the USA).
And then there is Iran. It has signed the treaty but is now using its civilian program as a cover for developing nuclear weapons.
At one level, allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons and formally admitting India, Pakistan and Israel into the nuclear club might seem reasonable. Why not? It would essentially be an Asian-Middle Eastern version of safety through Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). That theory kept the lid on the Cold War between the USA and the Soviet Union: If one country launched a nuclear attack on the other, it was assured its own annihilation. In fact, bitter rivals India and Pakistan argue that MAD has kept them from nuclear war over the disputed territory of Kashmir.
But all things are not equal, because Islamic terrorism stalks the world. For that reason, the most important 21st century question about nukes is this: How can you keep them out of the hands of nations ruled by madmen for whom MAD may prove a scant deterrent, or terrorists who are not targeted as easily as nations? Through that lens, each country stacks up in a new hierarchy of danger.
At the top, Pakistan could edge out Iran. For safety reasons, its nuclear weapons are not assembled and require layers of experts to put them together, but the weapons are under the ultimate control of the army and intelligence forces, many of which have links to al-Qaeda. Though President Pervez Musharraf is a U.S. ally in the war on terror, his country is seething with Muslim fundamentalism. He has survived at least two assassination attempts. His death could bring Islamic extremists to power. A Pakistani nuclear scientist, A.Q. Khan, has already provided nuclear technology to Iran and other countries.
Iran sponsors terrorists and could give them nuclear weapons, or use the weapons to threaten other countries. Its new president is a religious fanatic who says Israel should be wiped off the map. One deterrent: If terrorists used nukes and Iran's sponsorship was discovered, that might invite nuclear retaliation from Israel or even the United States.
India, like Israel, is on a low "danger level" footing. It is the world's largest democracy. Its 150 million Muslims, in a Hindu-dominated population of more than 1 billion, haven't shown al-Qaeda leanings.
Given that hierarchy, a nuclear deal Bush is trying to finalize with India would seem a good proposal. Bush wants to help India with its civilian nuclear program, even though India hasn't signed the non-proliferation treaty. But India - which would have to separate its military and civilian nuclear programs, putting the civilian program under strict inspections - is balking at some provisions.
Bush shouldn't back off. That could further undermine the shaky security system that has worked until now - the non-proliferation treaty. The treaty has persuaded many nations to terminate nuclear programs and dissuaded others from seeking them.
More broadly, there is no easy, obvious answer to the non-proliferation treaty's increasing failure.
Since coming to office, Bush has adamantly - and unwisely - resisted joining attempts to update it. But perhaps that will change. In his second term, the president has retreated from the go-it-alone foreign policy that was discredited by Iraq and other failures. So far, he has wisely relied on multilateral diplomacy to defuse the Iran threat.
Whether it will succeed, however, is another question. Bush's trip highlights just how little control the major powers still have over nuclear proliferation, and how important it is not to act rashly in a world that appears to be going newly MAD.
Copyright © 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
Black eye for the Red Cross
Black eye for the Red Cross
Wed Mar 1, 7:17 AM ET
Americans dug deep after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. They donated a record $3.27 billion - $31 for every household in the USA - to charities for hurricane relief.
But giving generously doesn't translate into doing good unless charitable institutions do their part. That's where the American Red Cross, which received about two-thirds of the contributions, stumbled.
Last month, congressional critics said the Red Cross fell short after Katrina as it tried to coordinate shelters, get aid to remote locations and cooperate with grassroots organizations that could have done the job but didn't have the money.
On Monday, internal Red Cross documents and e-mails released by Sen. Charles Grassley (news, bio, voting record), R-Iowa, began to reveal why:
A culture that muzzles internal critics.
An unwieldy, divided board of directors.
Infighting between local chapters and the national office.
An excessive focus on image over achievement, with a $500,000 project to recruit celebrities and turn its then-CEO, who has since quit, into the "face" of the institution. (The Red Cross has been through three CEOs in five years and just named an interim leader.)
All of this is the public's business because of the special status of the Red Cross. Chartered by Congress in 1905, the institution is the only non-profit designated by the federal government to respond to disasters. It gets about $40 million a year in direct government grants, and donations are subsidized through tax deductions.
When an icon slips, as the Red Cross has, it can shake public confidence in all charitable organizations.
No one argues that the Red Cross failed entirely after Katrina. The organization points out that it provided nearly 1,200 shelters across the nation and fielded 225,000 volunteers. The Red Cross says it is working to improve governance and its delivery of service.
Still, with more stable management and without the internal battles, it would likely be able to do far more. Congress, which sets the size and structure of the Red Cross board, might begin by trimming its size by 80%, from the current dysfunctional 50 to 10. Vigorous oversight should follow.
In these perilous times, institutions, even iconic ones, must earn the right to the funds they get. And no charity should be able to squander the public's trust or its donations.
Copyright © 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
Wed Mar 1, 7:17 AM ET
Americans dug deep after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. They donated a record $3.27 billion - $31 for every household in the USA - to charities for hurricane relief.
But giving generously doesn't translate into doing good unless charitable institutions do their part. That's where the American Red Cross, which received about two-thirds of the contributions, stumbled.
Last month, congressional critics said the Red Cross fell short after Katrina as it tried to coordinate shelters, get aid to remote locations and cooperate with grassroots organizations that could have done the job but didn't have the money.
On Monday, internal Red Cross documents and e-mails released by Sen. Charles Grassley (news, bio, voting record), R-Iowa, began to reveal why:
A culture that muzzles internal critics.
An unwieldy, divided board of directors.
Infighting between local chapters and the national office.
An excessive focus on image over achievement, with a $500,000 project to recruit celebrities and turn its then-CEO, who has since quit, into the "face" of the institution. (The Red Cross has been through three CEOs in five years and just named an interim leader.)
All of this is the public's business because of the special status of the Red Cross. Chartered by Congress in 1905, the institution is the only non-profit designated by the federal government to respond to disasters. It gets about $40 million a year in direct government grants, and donations are subsidized through tax deductions.
When an icon slips, as the Red Cross has, it can shake public confidence in all charitable organizations.
No one argues that the Red Cross failed entirely after Katrina. The organization points out that it provided nearly 1,200 shelters across the nation and fielded 225,000 volunteers. The Red Cross says it is working to improve governance and its delivery of service.
Still, with more stable management and without the internal battles, it would likely be able to do far more. Congress, which sets the size and structure of the Red Cross board, might begin by trimming its size by 80%, from the current dysfunctional 50 to 10. Vigorous oversight should follow.
In these perilous times, institutions, even iconic ones, must earn the right to the funds they get. And no charity should be able to squander the public's trust or its donations.
Copyright © 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
