Southern Fried Chicken (Jeanne Logan, 09/23/2008, Contra Costa Times)
1 cup all-purpose flour1 teaspoon sea salt
Ground black pepper, to taste
1 tablespoon garlic powder
1 tablespoon garlic salt
1 teaspoon dried thyme
1 tablespoon Lawry's seasoned salt
1 teaspoon paprika
1 cup panko (see note)
1 cup buttermilk
2 eggs
About 1 quart vegetable oil for frying
1 3-pound whole chicken, cut into pieces
1. On a large plate, mix flour with salt, pepper, garlic powder, garlic salt, thyme, Lawry's seasoned salt and paprika. Set aside.
2. Spread panko on a separate plate. Set aside. Mix buttermilk and eggs in a large bowl. Set aside.
3. Add ½-inch to ¾-inch vegetable oil to a large, seasoned, cast-iron skillet or an electric skillet. Heat to 365 degrees. Measure the temperature with a candy or deep-frying thermometer.
4. As the oil heats, line a baking sheet with waxed paper or parchment paper. Set aside. Dip chicken pieces in buttermilk-and-egg mixture. Coat in seasoned flour mixture, then coat in panko. Place the chicken pieces on the prepared baking sheet.
5. Once the oil reaches 365 degrees, transfer coated chicken pieces to hot oil. Cover and fry until golden brown, turning twice. Total cooking time: about 15 to 20 minutes. Remove cooked chicken from hot oil and drain on paper towels.
6. Use a skimmer to remove burned bits of chicken and breading from the hot oil.
Add the next batch of chicken and cook as described above. Alternatively, if the oil looks too dirty, discard it, wipe the skillet clean, add fresh oil and continue with the rest of the cooking directions. Serve hot.
President Bush Addresses United Nations General Assembly (George W. Bush, 9/23/08, United Nations Headquarters, New York, New York)
Mr. Secretary General, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen: I'm pleased to be here to address the General Assembly.Sixty-three years ago, representatives from around the world gathered in San Francisco to complete the founding of the Charter of the United Nations. They met in the shadow of a devastating war, with grave new dangers on the horizon. They agreed on a historic pledge: "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, and unite their strength to maintain international peace and security."
This noble pledge has endured trying hours in the United Nations' history, and it still guides our work today. Yet the ideals of the Charter are now facing a challenge as serious as any since the U.N.'s founding -- a global movement of violent extremists. By deliberately murdering the innocent to advance their aims, these extremists defy the fundamental principles of international order. They show contempt for all who respect life and value human dignity. They reject the words of the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, or any standard of conscience or morality. They imperil the values of justice and human rights that gave birth to the United Nations -- values that have fueled an unprecedented expansion of freedom across the world.
To uphold the words of the Charter in the face of this challenge, every nation in this chamber has responsibilities. As sovereign states, we have an obligation to govern responsibly, and solve problems before they spill across borders. We have an obligation to prevent our territory from being used as a sanctuary for terrorism and proliferation and human trafficking and organized crime. We have an obligation to respect the rights and respond to the needs of our people.
Multilateral organizations have responsibilities. For eight years, the nations in this assembly have worked together to confront the extremist threat. We witnessed successes and setbacks, and through it all a clear lesson has emerged: The United Nations and other multilateral organizations are needed more urgently than ever. To be successful, we must be focused and resolute and effective. Instead of only passing resolutions decrying terrorist attacks after they occur, we must cooperate more closely to keep terrorist attacks from happening in the first place. Instead of treating all forms of government as equally tolerable, we must actively challenge the conditions of tyranny and despair that allow terror and extremism to thrive. By acting together to meet the fundamental challenge of our time, we can lead toward a world that is more secure, and more prosperous, and more hopeful.
In the decades ahead, the United Nations and other multilateral organizations must continually confront terror. This mission requires clarity of vision. We must see the terrorists for what they are: ruthless extremists who exploit the desperate, subvert the tenets of a great religion, and seek to impose their will on as many people as possible. Some suggest that these men would pose less of a threat if we'd only leave them alone. Yet their leaders make clear that no concession could ever satisfy their ambitions. Bringing the terrorists to justice does not create terrorism -- it's the best way to protect our people.
Multilateral organizations must respond by taking an unequivocal moral stand against terrorism. No cause can justify the deliberate taking of innocent human life -- and the international community is nearing universal agreement on this truth. The vast majority of nations in this assembly now agree that tactics like suicide bombing, hostage-taking and hijacking are never legitimate. The Security Council has passed resolutions declaring terror unlawful and requiring all nations to crack down on terrorist financing. And earlier this month, the Secretary General held a conference to highlight victims of terror, where he stated that terrorism can never be justified.
Other multilateral organizations have spoken clearly, as well. The G8 has declared that all terrorist acts are criminal and must be universally condemned. And the Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference recently spoke out against a suicide bombing, which he said runs counter to the teachings of Islam. The message behind these statements is resolutely clear: Like slavery and piracy, terrorism has no place in the modern world.
Around the globe, nations are turning these words into action. Members of the United Nations are sharing intelligence with one another, conducting joint operations, and freezing terrorist finances. While terrorists continue to carry out attacks like the terrible bombing in Islamabad last week, our joint actions have spared our citizens from many devastating blows.
With the brutal nature of the extremists increasingly clear, the coalition of nations confronting terror is growing stronger. Over the past seven years, Afghanistan and Iraq have been transformed from regimes that actively sponsor terror to democracies that fight terror. Libya has renounced its support for terror and its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Nations like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are actively pursuing the terrorists. A few nations -- regimes like Syria and Iran -- continue to sponsor terror. Yet their numbers are growing fewer, and they're growing more isolated from the world.
As the 21st century unfolds, some may be tempted to assume that the threat has receded. This would be comforting; it would be wrong. The terrorists believe time is on their side, so they made waiting out civilized nations part of their strategy. We must not allow them to succeed. The nations of this body must stand united in the fight against terror. We must continue working to deny the terrorists refuge anywhere in the world, including ungoverned spaces. We must remain vigilant against proliferation -- by fully implementing the terms of Security Council Resolution 1540, and enforcing sanctions against North Korea and Iran. We must not relent until our people are safe from this threat to civilization.
To uphold the Charter's promise of peace and security in the 21st century, we must also confront the ideology of the terrorists. At its core, the struggle against extremists is a battle of ideas. The terrorists envision a world in which religious freedom is denied, women are oppressed, and all dissent is crushed. The nations of this chamber must present a more hopeful alternative -- a vision where people can speak freely, and worship as they choose, and pursue their dreams in liberty.
Advancing the vision of freedom serves our highest ideals, as expressed in the U.N.'s Charter's commitment to "the dignity and worth of the human person." Advancing this vision also serves our security interests. History shows that when citizens have a voice in choosing their own leaders, they are less likely to search for meaning in radical ideologies. And when governments respect the rights of their people, they're more likely to respect the rights of their neighbors.
For all these reasons, the nations of this body must challenge tyranny as vigorously as we challenge terror. Some question whether people in certain parts of the world actually desire freedom. This self-serving condescension has been disproved before our eyes. From the voting booths of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Liberia, to the Orange Revolution in Ukraine and the Rose Revolution in Georgia, to the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon and the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, we have seen people consistently make the courageous decision to demand their liberty. For all the suggestions to the contrary, the truth is that whenever or wherever people are given the choice, they choose freedom.
Nations in these chambers have supported the efforts of dissidents and reformers and civil society advocates in newly free societies throughout the new United Nations Democracy Fund. And we appreciate those efforts. And as young democracies around the world continue to make brave stands for liberty, multilateral organizations like the United Nations must continue to stand with them.
In Afghanistan, a determined people are working to overcome decades of tyranny, and protect their newly-free society. They have strong support from all 26 nations of the NATO Alliance. I appreciate the United Nations' decision this week to renew the mandate for the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. The United Nations is also an active civilian presence in Afghanistan, where experts are doing important work helping to improve education, facilitate humanitarian aid, and protect human rights. We must continue to help the Afghan people defend their young democracy -- so the Taliban does not return to power, and Afghanistan is never again a safe haven for terror.
In Iraq, the fight has been difficult, yet daily life has improved dramatically over the past 20 months -- thanks to the courage of the Iraqi people, a determined coalition of nations, and a surge of American troops. The United Nations has provided the mandate for multinational forces in Iraq through this December. And the United Nations is carrying out an ambitious strategy to strengthen Iraq's democracy, including helping Iraqis prepare for their next round of free elections. Whatever disagreements our nations have had on Iraq, we should all welcome this progress toward stability and peace -- and we should stand united in helping Iraq's democracy succeed.
We must stand united in our support of other young democracies, from the people of Lebanon struggling to maintain their hard-won independence, to the people of the Palestinian Territories, who deserve a free and peaceful state of their own. We must stand united in our support of the people of Georgia. The United Nations Charter sets forth the "equal rights of nations large and small." Russia's invasion of Georgia was a violation of those words. Young democracies around the world are watching to see how we respond to this test. The United States has worked with allies in multilateral institutions like the European Union and NATO to uphold Georgia's territorial integrity and provide humanitarian relief. And our nations will continue to support Georgia's democracy.
In this chamber are representatives of Georgia and Ukraine and Lebanon and Afghanistan and Liberia and Iraq, and other brave young democracies. We admire your courage. We honor your sacrifices. We thank you for your inspiring example. We will continue to stand with all who stand for freedom. This noble goal is worthy of the United Nations, and it should have the support of every member in this assembly.
Extending the reach of political freedom is essential to prevailing in the great struggle of our time -- but it is not enough. Many in this chamber have answered the call to help their brothers and sisters in need by working to alleviate hopelessness. These efforts to improve the human condition honor the highest ideals of this institution. They also advance our security interests. The extremists find their most fertile recruiting grounds in societies trapped in chaos and despair -- places where people see no prospect of a better life. In the shadows of hopelessness, radicalism thrives. And eventually, that radicalism can boil over into violence and cross borders and take innocent lives across the world.
Overcoming hopelessness requires addressing its causes -- poverty, disease, and ignorance. Challenging these conditions is in the interest of every nation in this chamber. And democracies are particularly well-positioned to carry out this work. Because we have experience responding to the needs of our own people, we're natural partners in helping other nations respond to the needs of theirs. Together, we must commit our resources and efforts to advancing education and health and prosperity.
Over the years, many nations have made well-intentioned efforts to promote these goals. Yet the success of these efforts must be measured by more than intentions -- they must be measured by results. My nation has placed an insistence on results at the heart of our foreign assistance programs. We launched a new initiative called the Millennium Challenge Account, which directs our help to countries that demonstrate their ability to produce results by governing justly, and fighting corruption, and pursuing market-based economic policies, as well as investing in their people. Every country and institution that provides foreign assistance, including the United Nations, will be more effective by showing faith in the people of the developing world -- and insisting on performance in return for aid.
Experience also shows that to be effective, we must adopt a model of partnership, not paternalism. This approach is based on our conviction that people in the developing world have the capacity to improve their own lives -- and will rise to meet high expectations if we set them. America has sought to apply this model in our Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Every nation that receives American support through this initiative develops its own plan for fighting HIV/AIDS -- and measures the results. And so far, these results are inspiring: Five years ago, 50,000 people in sub-Sahara Africa were receiving treatment for HIV/AIDS. Today that number is nearly 1.7 million. We're taking a similar approach to fighting malaria, and so far, we've supported local efforts to protect more than 25 million Africans.
Multilateral organizations have made bold commitments of their own to fight disease. The G8 has pledged to match America's efforts on malaria and HIV/AIDS. Through the Global Fund, many countries are working to fight HIV/AIDS, malaria, and TB. Lives in the developing world depend on these programs, and all who have made pledges to fight disease have an obligation to follow through on their commitments.
One of the most powerful engines of development and prosperity is trade and investment, which create new opportunities for entrepreneurs, and help people rise out of poverty, and reinforce fundamental values like transparency and rule of law. For all these reasons, many in these chambers have conducted free trade agreements at bilateral and regional levels. The most effective step of all would be an agreement that tears down trade barriers at the global level. The recent impasse in the Doha Round is disappointing, but that does not have to be the final word. I urge every nation to seize this opportunity to lift up economies around the world -- and reach a successful Doha agreement as soon as possible.
Beyond Doha, our nations must renew our commitment to open economies, and stand firm against economic isolationism. These objectives are being tested by turbulence in the global financial markets. Our economies are more closely connected than ever before, and I know that many of you here are watching how the United States government will address the problems in our financial system.
In recent weeks, we have taken bold steps to prevent a severe disruption of the American economy, which would have a devastating effect on other economies around the world. We've promoted stability in the markets by preventing the disorderly failure of major companies. The Federal Reserve has injected urgently-needed liquidity into the system. And last week, I announced a decisive action by the federal government to address the root cause of much of the instability in our financial markets -- by purchasing illiquid assets that are weighing down balance sheets and restricting the flow of credit. I can assure you that my administration and our Congress are working together to quickly pass legislation approving this strategy. And I'm confident we will act in the urgent time frame required.
The objectives I've laid out for multilateral institutions -- confronting terror, opposing tyranny, and promoting effective development -- are difficult, but they are necessary tasks. To have maximum impact, multilateral institutions must take on challenging missions. And like all of us in this chamber, they must work toward measurable goals, be accountable for their actions, and hold true to their word.
In the 21st century, the world needs a confident and effective United Nations. This unique institution should build on its successes and improve its performance. Where there is inefficiency and corruption, it must be corrected. Where there are bloated bureaucracies, they must be streamlined. Where members fail to uphold their obligations, there must be strong action. For example, there should be an immediate review of the Human Rights Council, which has routinely protected violators of human rights. There should be a stronger effort to help the people of Burma live free of the repression they have suffered for too long. And all nations, especially members of the Security Council, must act decisively to ensure that the government of Sudan upholds its commitment to address the violence in Darfur.
The United Nations is an organization of extraordinary potential. As the United Nations rebuilds its headquarters, it must also open the door to a new age of transparency, accountability, and seriousness of purpose.
With determination and clear purpose, the United Nations can be a powerful force for good as we head into the 21st century. It can affirm the great promise of its founding.
In the final days of the San Francisco Conference, the delegates negotiating the U.N. Charter received a visit from President Harry Truman. He acknowledged the enormous challenges they faced, and said success was only possible because of what he called an "unshakable unity of determination." Today the world is engaged in another period of great challenge. And by continuing to work together, that unshakable unity of determination will be ours. Together, we confront and defeat the evil of terrorism. Together, we can secure the Almighty's gift of liberty and justice to millions who have not known it. And together, we can build a world that is freer, safer, and better for the generations who follow.
Thank you.
We yield to no one in our disregard for cars, but does it really make sense to complain to Americans, who love them, and Detroiters in particular, that your opponent has too many of them?
Maverick ought to borrow Phil Gramm's line about guns: I have more than I need but less than I want.
Biden garbles Depression history (Ben Smith, 9/23/08, Politico)
"When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed," Biden told Couric. "He said, 'Look, here's what happened.'"
INTERVIEW WITH HARUN YAHYA: 'All Terrorists Are Darwinists': Adnan Oktar (aka Harun Yahya) is one of Turkey's major proponents of creationism and he believes Darwin's theory of evolution is the Devil's work. In a SPIEGEL ONLINE interview, he explains how he plans to defeat Darwinism. (Der Spiegel, 9/23/08)
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Last year, the Council of Europe even asked its member states not to teach creationism along with the theory of evolution in schools. Do you consider this a defeat?Oktar: Darwinism is under official protection throughout the world. No other ideology in history, no other idea, has ever been kept under such strict official protection. To make any kind of statement criticizing Darwinism causes an official reaction. However, the invalidity of Darwinism and the actuality of creation are scientific facts. Anyone reading or looking over my "Atlas of Creation" arrives at this opinion. Darwinism lies about many issues and deceives humanity. They have deceived the whole of humanity for 150 years.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: How much were you influenced by Christian movements, the so-called intelligent design movements in Europe and the United States?
Oktar: I find the concept of intelligent design rather dishonest. One should openly stand up for the existence of Allah, should sincerely stand up for religion, for Islam. Or, if one is a Christian, one should honestly stand up for Christianity. This is a theory which claims that things have somehow been created, but it is unknown who created them. I find this rather dishonest, actually. The followers of intelligent design should openly and clearly declare the existence of Allah as the Creator.
Palin press may boycott UN conference (KENNETH P. VOGEL, 9/23/08, Politico)
Journalists, displeased with Sarah Palin’s efforts to restrict their access to her, are threatening not to cover her events surrounding the United Nations conference here unless they're allowed more access.
Obama's debate skills rated uneven going into 1st round (John M. Broder, 9/23/08, The New York Times)
Sen. Barack Obama has shown himself at times to be a great orator. His debating skills, however, have been uneven.Some of his chief strengths — his facility with words, his wry detachment, his reasoning skills, his youthful cool — have not always served him well and might pose significant vulnerabilities in the presidential debates that begin Friday, according to political analysts.
Obama has a tendency to over-intellectualize and to lecture, befitting his training as a lawyer and law professor. He exudes disdain for the quips and sound bites that some deride as trivializing political debates but that have become a central part of scoring them. He tends to the earnest and humorless when audiences seem to crave passion and personality. He frequently rises above the mire of political combat when the battle calls for engagement.
With his advantage in height and age if he were even a mildly competent debater his campaign would have had him on stage with their wizened, dwarvish, physically-hampered opponent at every opportunity.
World Phenom: President Obama rocks the U.N. (Robert Ferrigno, 9/23/08, National Review)
Silence in the great hall. A few nervous titters from the aides that David Axelrod, his campaign strategist, had sprinkled throughout the room, but their attempt to jumpstart another round of applause fell flat. Note to self: Diplomats are harder to roll than journalists. He glanced over at the U.S. ambassador, Barbra Streisand, who gave him a thumbs up.“But seriously,” said President Obama, his grin faltering. He cleared his throat. Wet his lips. The crowd shifted in their seats. “Well . . . um . . . as you know . . . people will try to scare you, warn you about me, because . . . I’ve got a Harvard law degree and a funny name, and uh, as you can see, I . . . I don’t look like any other president on the money.” He looked at the African diplomats in the front row. “The U.S. money — not your money, of course.”
The ambassador from the Congo looked quizzically at the ambassador from Zaire.
“So . . . so I guess what I’m saying is . . . don’t be afraid of me,” said President Obama.
The Russian ambassador threw his head back, roaring with laughter.
President Obama blinked, then realized what had happened. There must be a time-delay on the translation the Russian ambassador was hearing. He had just gotten the president’s introductory joke. The president beamed at the ambassador, who laughed even harder.
The Georgian ambassador, clearly overcome with the president’s message of hope, was weeping into his hands.
The End of a Lie (Ronald Radosh, 9/22/08, FrontPageMagazine.com)
[I]t seemed that Michael and Robert Meeropol had finally accepted the truth that their father was a Soviet agent. By Friday September 19th, however, they paused and returned again to the old bromides. In a statement released to their supporters - and soon to be on their website www.rfc.org - Robert Meeropol presented his and Michael Meeropol’s latest thinking.First, Robert Meeropol writes that since the 1980’s he has “maintained that it is possible that my father engaged in non-atomic espionage,” but not in any activity that resulted in his obtaining or passing any A-bomb secret to the Soviets. On the face of it, this first assertion is demonstrably false. Harry Gold, the courier who took data from Julius’s brother-in-law David Greenglass at Los Alamos, went to visit him precisely to get whatever information pertaining to atomic data he could get. As it turns out and has been widely known already for decades, the crude sketch he offered confirmed to the Soviets the accuracy of the more sophisticated data they got from their other high level atomic spies, particularly Ted Hall and Klaus Fuchs. Moreover, as the late scientist Phillip Morrison told me decades ago (Morrison held the actual patent for the A-bomb in his name), Greenglass’s data was valuable because it showed the KGB that Fuchs was giving them accurate material and that it was “good corroboration.” Greenglass’ material was not on the level of that passed by others. No one has claimed it was. Clearly, had it been (and Julius Rosenberg had no way of knowing its value) Rosenberg would have passed it on, hoping that he had given the Soviets the most valuable data. As to whether Rosenberg passed on more material of an atomic nature, we will have to wait until later this winter when a new book by Harvey Klehr, John Haynes and Alexander Vasseliev is published by Yale University Press.
Second, Robert Meeropol minimizes the extent of the damage done by the “military information” he acknowledges that his father passed to the Soviets. Had he discussed the details in his press release, his readers would immediately find that it was a laundry list of top secret and dangerous military information, that in fact did much damage to the United States. The Meeropols have never dealt with the information revealed by Steven Usdin in his very important book, Engineering Communism (2005). Usdin shows that the Rosenberg network, especially his agents Joel Barr and Alfred Sarant, passed on the 12,000 page blueprints for the Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star, airborne radars for nighttime navigation and bombing, and other new radar technology. “Rosenberg’s band of amateur spies,” Usdin writes, “turned over detailed information on a wide range of technologies and weapon systems that hastened the Red Army’s march to Berlin, jump-started its postwar development of nuclear weapons and delivery systems, and later helped Communist troops in North Korea fight the American military to a standoff.” The Meeropols’ acknowledgment that Julius Rosenberg had passed on military information is conceded by them only to make it appear that what he gave was insignificant and nowhere harmful to the United States; much as Sobell tries to do the same thing by calling the material “junk.”
Third, Robert Meeropol emphasizes the Government’s now proven overreaching in their prosecution of his mother, Ethel Rosenberg. As I reported in my analysis of the Grand Jury testimony, Ruth Greenglass clearly lied under oath when she testified that reports handed over by David Greenglass had been typed by Ethel Rosenberg and then passed on to the Soviets. In her GJ testimony, Ruth said that she had received the material and wrote it up in longhand herself. At the trial, she testified that Ethel typed it. A secret Venona decrypt dated January 8, 1945, however, notes receipt of this material and the KGB says that it was “hand-written.”
This does not mean, however, that Ethel Rosenberg was innocent and framed. Indeed, in a conspiracy indictment, the unchallenged testimony that Ethel had suggested that Ruth be recruited and urged Ruth to enlist her husband, was far and enough to include her as a defendant. But the prosecution was undoubtedly worried that a jury might not find that substantive enough as a direct act to merit a finding of guilt, not to speak of a death sentence. So the government used the fake typing incident as its trump card to get a conviction by the jury. The prosecution desperately needed Ethel indicted in order to use her as a lever to hold over Julius’ head in order to break him and get him to talk about his network. Had he done so, Ethel would have not received a death sentence; she may never have been put on trial. As militant Stalinists, however, the cause came first, and they would not bend
So here, Robert Meeropol is partially correct. The Government had Ruth Greenglass manufacture a typing incident that never happened in order to gain a conviction. They did so because they knew she was guilty (Venona could not be introduced as evidence since the Soviets would be given notice the US had broken its code) and were willing to use unethical conduct to get a conviction. But Meeropol is wrong that these sordid tactics (which I suspect came from Roy Cohn) are proof of his mother’s innocence.
Finally, in his final section, Meeropol seeks to use these new findings for his old political agenda. As he writes in bold, “the U.S. Government abused its power in truly dangerous ways that are still very relevant today.” These include, the charge that the U.S. Government “created and fueled anti-communist hysteria.”
Let us look at the implications of this first charge which is the old canard that the Rosenbergs were political dissenters, put on trial and executed because of an anti-Communist witch-hunt, “making them the focus of the public’s Cold War-era fear and anger.” These claims make little sense, since the Rosenbergs were arrested and put on trial because they were real Soviet spies, not because they were Communists. And as students of the trial know all too well, they denied - and so did their supporters - that they were Communists at all. Indeed, to call them that was immediately met by the charge of Red-baiting. As the introduction to the second edition of their death house letters, The Testament of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg (1953 and 1954) puts it, “A confession of guilt was meant to give validity to the big lie: that all who struggled for a better life were Communists, and all Communists spies and enemies of the country which gave them birth.”
So they did not confess, since in fact had they done so, it would have established that there was an actual Communist threat, and that some Communists were motivated by ideology alone to become willing and active spies, and indeed were enemies of their own country. Ironically, the book was published by the firm of Cameron and Kahn, which we know thanks to the memoir of the former KGB General, Oleg Kalugin, was itself financed by the KGB.
Corruption Perceptions Index 2008
Another reminder that if you were designing the optimal country you'd make it an island that's a Protestant former British Colony.
McCain’s viability owes a lot to Reagan (MATTHEW DALLEK, 9/23/08, Politico)
McCain is capitalizing on the strength of a conservative coalition that Reagan stitched together during the tumultuous aftermath of Watergate and Vietnam. McCain is competitive despite Bush’s weak public standing because Reagan’s conservative supporters in the 1970s won a debate about government growth, taxes and spending that continues to resonate with a large segment of the electorate. [...]Then there’s McCain’s selection of the socially conservative Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. Palin has energized “values” voters and has shown that social issues once championed by Reagan can still mobilize segments of the conservative electorate, much to McCain’s benefit.
During the 1970s, the anti-Equal Rights Amendment leader Phyllis Schlafly joined evangelical Christian, right-to-life, and Christian school organizations in campaigning to protect and promote “traditional family values.” “The ERA issue introduced large numbers of Christian women to politics and tapped into their fears” that their values were under attack by secular liberalism, Schlafly biographer Donald T. Critchlow has argued.
Palin’s appeal to Schlafly’s heirs is due to her self-styled “hockey mom” identity and her hard-edged socially conservative beliefs and policies. [...]
The McCain-Palin ticket is also successfully updating Reagan’s hard-line anti-communist stance and unswerving brand of fervent patriotism — positions that Reagan refined during the late 1970s. While the threats facing America have changed since Reagan’s day, McCain’s national security ideas and rhetoric resemble Reagan’s: McCain has pledged to seek “victory” in Iraq, dismantle the Iranian nuclear threat and follow Osama bin Laden “to the gates of hell.”
Like Reagan, McCain speaks in terms of good and evil. In showcasing his own brand of celebratory nationalism at the Republican convention and in trumpeting his “Country First” campaign slogan, McCain has appealed with some success to working-class Reagan Democrats, who admired Reagan’s unstinting love of country, pugilistic sound bites and promise to increase defense spending.
Abortion rate is down, but report cites racial disparity : The decline has been far more dramatic for whites than for blacks and Latinas. (Mary Engel, 9/23/08, Los Angeles Times)
African American women had high rates of unintended pregnancy, 70% compared with 49% across all racial and ethnic groups. About half of unintended pregnancies in the U.S. end in abortion, the report said.Latinas had higher pregnancy rates and higher birthrates than whites.
Abortion rates are falling for blacks and Latinas but far less than for whites. [...]
[D]ay Gardner, founder and president of the National Black Pro-Life Union in Washington, disagreed. She blamed the high rates on the number of inner-city clinics that performed abortions.
"It doesn't have as much to do with poverty as that the abortion facilities are there, ingrained in the neighborhoods," she said. "We as a community don't talk about this. . . . This is a silent killer among us."
The report also found that abortion rates for teenagers dropped from 33% in 1974 to 17% in 2004.
U.S. census survey finds more of California's immigrants are joining the mainstream.: The number of Spanish-speaking immigrants who are fluent in English is also increasing, survey says (Teresa Watanabe and Francisco Vara-Orta, 9/23/08, Los Angeles Times)
California's immigrants are more assimilated, with greater proportions reporting last year that they became U.S. citizens and the majority of Spanish speakers now saying they speak English very well, a sharp rise from 2000, according to U.S. census data released today.Data from the bureau's 2007 American Community Survey showed that California continued to diversify, with whites declining to 42.5% and Latinos, Asians and blacks increasing to 54.4% of the state's population. The foreign-born population inched upward and now make up more than one-fourth of residents in the state and one-third in Los Angeles County.
But bucking perceptions that high levels of immigration are jeopardizing national cohesion, the data showed that today's immigrants, like those before them, are embracing an American identity.
Alliance into the 21st century (John McCain, September 23, 2008, The Australian)
A century ago, Roosevelt understood the sources and purpose of American power. He championed reform and protection of the environment; he spoke out against tyranny; and he demanded that America stay true to the principles it espoused, at home and abroad. Roosevelt helped the American people to understand that we are a Pacific nation.I believe that we must return to these same qualities if we are to continue earning the trust and friendship from Australia that have been so critical to America's role in the world since 1908.
In Asia this means engagement must begin with our allies. Our alliance with Australia sets the standard. Our ally Japan has proved a strong and reliable partner to the US and Australia. South Korea is taking on new global responsibilities. We can reinvigorate our traditional alliances with Thailand and The Philippines and build on newly strengthened partnerships with Singapore and India. And we should recognise our shared values and common purpose with New Zealand.
Firm commitments to our allies will set the stage for an American engagement of China that builds on the many areas of common interest we share with Beijing and encourages candour and progress in those areas where China has not fulfilled its responsibilities as a global power.
We have seen both aspects of China's rise vividly demonstrated during the Olympics. Americans and Australians have been impressed with Beijing's glittering landscape and warmed by the hospitality and graciousness of the Chinese people. But in Beijing our journalists have also seen up close how human dignity suffers when basic rights such as freedom of speech and religious worship are denied. Our shared challenge is to convince the Chinese leadership that their nation's remarkable success rests ultimately on whether they can translate economic development into a more open and tolerant political process at home, and a more responsible foreign policy abroad.
American leadership is also necessary on trade. For six decades, Democratic and Republican presidents have consistently stood for free trade, but in this presidential election the Democratic candidate has broken with that tradition. I believe that free trade agreements, such as those we have entered into with Australia and Singapore and have negotiated with South Korea, are critical building blocks for an open and inclusive economic order in the Asia-Pacific region. They create billions of dollars' worth of new exports and set a higher standard for trade liberalisation that ultimately helps all the nations in the region.
America has never won respect or created jobs by hiding behind protectionist walls and I will continue making the case for free trade, regardless of political expediency. [...]
Australians have looked to the US for leadership on climate change and it is time for us to answer that call. I support a market-based cap-and-trade system aimed at reducing carbon emissions, and I will work with Australia and other nations to establish a global framework that encourages China and India to join us in becoming part of the solution to man-made climate change.