OP-ED COLUMNIST


‘What, Me Worry?’



By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN


Published: April 29, 2005



One
of America’s most important entrepreneurs recently gave a remarkable
speech at a summit meeting of our nation’s governors. Bill Gates minced
no words. “American high schools are obsolete,” he told the governors.
“By obsolete, I don’t just mean that our high schools are broken,
flawed and underfunded. … By obsolete, I mean that our high schools –
even when they are working exactly as designed – cannot teach our kids
what they need to know today.

“Training the work force of
tomorrow with the high schools of today is like trying to teach kids
about today’s computers on a 50-year-old mainframe. … Our high
schools were designed 50 years ago to meet the needs of another age.
Until we design them to meet the needs of the 21st century, we will
keep limiting – even ruining – the lives of millions of Americans every
year.”

Let me translate Mr. Gates’s words: “If we don’t fix
American education, I will not be able to hire your kids.” I consider
that, well, kind of important. Alas, the media squeezed a few mentions
of it between breaks in the Michael Jackson trial. But neither Tom
DeLay nor Bill Frist called a late-night session of Congress – or even
a daytime one – to discuss what Mr. Gates was saying. They were too
busy pandering to those Americans who don’t even believe in evolution.

And
the president stayed fixated on privatizing Social Security. It’s no
wonder that the second Bush term is shaping up as “The Great Waste of
Time.”

On foreign policy, President Bush has offered a big idea:
the expansion of freedom, particularly in the Arab-Muslim world, where
its absence was one of the forces propelling 9/11. That is a big, bold
and compelling idea – worthy of a presidency and America’s long-term
interests.

But on the home front, this team has no big idea –
certainly none that relates to the biggest challenge and opportunity
facing us today: the flattening of the global economic playing field in
a way that is allowing more people from more places to compete and
collaborate with your kids and mine than ever before.

“For the
first time in our history, we are going to face competition from
low-wage, high-human-capital communities, embedded within India, China
and Asia,” President Lawrence Summers of Harvard told me. In order to
thrive, “it will not be enough for us to just leave no child behind. We
also have to make sure that many more young Americans can get as far
ahead as their potential will take them. How we meet this challenge is
what will define our nation’s political economy for the next several
decades.”

Indeed, we can’t rely on importing the talent we need
anymore – not in a flat world where people can now innovate without
having to emigrate. In Silicon Valley today, “B to B” and “B to C”
stand for “back to Bangalore” and “back to China,” which is where a lot
of our foreign talent is moving.

Meeting this challenge
requires a set of big ideas. If you want to grasp some of what is
required, check out a smart new book by the strategists John Hagel III
and John Seely Brown entitled “The Only Sustainable Edge.” They argue
that comparative advantage today is moving faster than ever from
structural factors, like natural resources, to how quickly a country
builds its distinctive talents for innovation and entrepreneurship –
the only sustainable edge.

Economics is not like war. It can
always be win-win. “But some win more than others,” Mr. Hagel said, and
today it will be those countries that are best and fastest at building,
attracting and holding talent.

There is a real sense of urgency
in India and China about “catching up” in talent-building. America, by
contrast, has become rather complacent. “People go to Shanghai or
Bangalore and they look around and say, ‘They’re still way behind us,’
” Mr. Hagel said. “But it’s not just about current capabilities. It’s
about the relative pace and trajectories of capability-building.

“You
have to look at where Shanghai was just three years ago, see where it
is today and then extrapolate forward. Compare the pace and trajectory
of talent-building within their population and businesses and the pace
and trajectory here.”

India and China know they can’t just
depend on low wages, so they are racing us to the top, not the bottom.
Producing a comprehensive U.S. response – encompassing immigration,
intellectual property law and educational policy – to focus on
developing our talent in a flat world is a big idea worthy of a
presidency. But it would also require Mr. Bush to do something he has
never done: ask Americans to do something hard.

The catholic church should merge with Nambla, since they have the same
goals.  Boy fucking.  They both seem to want to fuck young
boys in the ass.  So why not merge the two?  After all, they
do waste alot of resources competing for people to join.

As normal, fuck republicans, christians that think they are right, and everyone else.

I am having a very bad day.

April 15, 2005


10 Ex-G.O.P. Lawmakers Attack Changes in Ethics Rules



By PHILIP SHENON and SHERYL STOLBERG


WASHINGTON,
April 14 – Ten former members of Congress, all Republicans, joined in a
letter to the House leadership on Thursday to say they believed that
revisions in House ethics rules this year were an “obvious action to
protect Majority Leader Tom DeLay” from investigation. They said the
changes needed to be reversed “to restore public confidence in the
People’s House.”

The letter, to be presented Friday to Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, is
signed by Mark Andrews, a former member of both the Senate and the
House from North Dakota, and nine other former House Republicans. While
it offers no conclusion about the merits of ethics controversies now
swirling around Mr. DeLay, it says “the consensus in our respective
districts” is that “the previous admonitions to Mr. DeLay for casting
discredit on the House were well-merited.”

The letter may be another blow to Mr. DeLay, who is under
investigation by a grand jury in his home state, Texas, and is facing
growing calls from fellow Republicans to answer accusations involving
his financial ties to lobbyists and his management of his political and
campaign committees.

A spokesman, Dan Allen, said Mr. DeLay would withhold comment on the
letter until it had been received in the House. Spokesmen for Mr.
Hastert did not immediately return phone calls for comment.

The 10 onetime lawmakers who signed the letter, all of whom left
Congress before the late 1980’s, described themselves as former members
“who served under impeccably honest leaders.”

“We offer no judgment on Mr. DeLay’s actions in the obtaining of
funds and favors from lobbyists and foreign agencies, other than to
note that they are the subject of continuing disclosure and discussion
well outside the Beltway and in the heart of areas of strong respect
for traditional Republican values of honesty and accountability,” they
said. “We write not as a Revolt of the Elders but in the sincere hope
that you will act to restore public confidence in the People’s House.”

“We felt grave concern,” the letter added, “when the Republican
leadership changed the ethics rules several weeks ago to require a
bipartisan majority vote to even investigate a charge of ethical
misconduct. We saw it as an obvious action to protect Majority Leader
Tom DeLay.”

A copy of the letter, which called on House leaders “to reinstate
the old rules,” was provided to The New York Times by the Public
Campaign Action Fund, a private group that monitors campaign
fund-raising and has long been critical of Mr. DeLay.

Mr. DeLay was admonished three times by the House ethics committee
last year, in part for appearing to link his support for legislation to
political donations. The committee is now effectively shut down,
because Democrats object to the rules changes, which make it more
difficult to open an investigation. The changes allow an accusation to
be dismissed if the panel, which is equally divided between Democrats
and Republicans, deadlocks along party lines. In the past, the
investigation proceeded if the committee deadlocked.

On Thursday afternoon, Mr. DeLay defended the new rules in a tense
and exceptionally formal exchange on the House floor with
Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the Democratic whip. Mr.
Hoyer complained that the new rules would “preclude the investigator
from gathering the facts.” Mr. DeLay, on the other hand, maintained
that Mr. Hastert had developed the changes with an eye toward shielding
lawmakers from unfair allegations.

Apart from Mr. Andrews, those who signed the letter were John H.
Buchanan of Alabama, M. Caldwell Butler of Virginia, Paul Findley of
Illinois, Bud Hillis of Indiana, James Johnson of Colorado, Richard W.
Mallary of Vermont, Wiley Mayne of Iowa, Pete McCloskey of California
and G. William Whitehurst of Virginia.

Several were described during their Congressional careers as
moderates; the letter was drafted by Mr. McCloskey, who was often
described as a Republican maverick and who supported Senator John Kerry
last year over President Bush.

In a telephone interview, Mr. McCloskey said he had felt compelled
to prepare the letter because of his concern that “if the Republicans
circle their wagons around DeLay like they circled their wagons around
Richard Nixon, it may have the same result.”

The letter was not the only development Thursday with possible
implications for the majority leader. Representative George Miller,
Democrat of California, asked the House Resources Committee to examine
the work of Jack Abramoff, a longtime lobbyist friend of Mr. DeLay, in
representing the government of the Northern Mariana Islands, an
American commonwealth in the Pacific.

In 1995, Mr. Abramoff, with Mr. DeLay’s help, persuaded the House to
defeat a bill that would have stripped the Marianas of their exemption
from federal minimum wage and immigration laws. From 1996 to 1998, Mr.
Miller said, more than 85 members of Congress and Congressional aides,
including Mr. DeLay, traveled to the Marianas; Mr. Miller and others
have cited news reports suggesting that lobbyists may have paid for the
trips, a possible violation of House rules.
<————————————————————————————–>

Tom Delay, I would like to say thanks for proving that Conservatives are full of shit.

Reagan sucked as a president.  Both G.H.W. Bush and his
ape-like son are bad leaders also.  I would also like to take a
moment to thank my posters.  I don’t block people from posting
becuase I believe in freedom for all, and I am not a closed minded 17
year old bigot hypocrite.

If these organizations claim to love marriage so much why don’t they
just outlaw divorce?  Or would that put a damper on getting
married for 2 years and then getting a divorce so they can find “true
love” 6 times?

So fuck off if you don’t like what I have to say.  This is
America, and you need to recognize that its freedom for all, not
freedom for some who follow a certain thought pattern.  Eat my
nutty turds out of the toilet.  Suck my asshole until it gives you
some warm soft serve ice cream.  I don’t care what you
think. 

Don’t censor my TV and radio, be better parents, assholes.  If you
don’t like your kid listening to something or watching a certain show,
don’t ruin it for everyone, step up, grow the fuck up and stand up to
your child and smack the child around and tell them they are not
allowed to listen to or watch that program anymore rather than trying
to ban it.