Macaca
11-11 08:15 AM
Extreme Politics (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/books/review/Brinkley-t.html) By ALAN BRINKLEY | New York Times, November 11, 2007
Alan Brinkley is the Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University.
Few people would dispute that the politics of Washington are as polarized today as they have been in decades. The question Ronald Brownstein poses in this provocative book is whether what he calls “extreme partisanship” is simply a result of the tactics of recent party leaders, or whether it is an enduring product of a systemic change in the structure and behavior of the political world. Brownstein, formerly the chief political correspondent for The Los Angeles Times and now the political director of the Atlantic Media Company, gives considerable credence to both explanations. But the most important part of “The Second Civil War” — and the most debatable — is his claim that the current political climate is the logical, perhaps even inevitable, result of a structural change that stretched over a generation.
A half-century ago, Brownstein says, the two parties looked very different from how they appear today. The Democratic Party was a motley combination of the conservative white South; workers in the industrial North as well as African-Americans and other minorities; and cosmopolitan liberals in the major cities of the East and West Coasts. Republicans dominated the suburbs, the business world, the farm belt and traditional elites. But the constituencies of both parties were sufficiently diverse, both demographically and ideologically, to mute the differences between them. There were enough liberals in the Republican Party, and enough conservatives among the Democrats, to require continual negotiation and compromise and to permit either party to help shape policy and to be competitive in most elections. Brownstein calls this “the Age of Bargaining,” and while he concedes that this era helped prevent bold decisions (like confronting racial discrimination), he clearly prefers it to the fractious world that followed.
The turbulent politics of the 1960s and ’70s introduced newly ideological perspectives to the two major parties and inaugurated what Brownstein calls “the great sorting out” — a movement of politicians and voters into two ideological camps, one dominated by an intensified conservatism and the other by an aggressive liberalism. By the end of the 1970s, he argues, the Republican Party was no longer a broad coalition but a party dominated by its most conservative voices; the Democratic Party had become a more consistently liberal force, and had similarly banished many of its dissenting voices. Some scholars and critics of American politics in the 1950s had called for exactly such a change, insisting that clear ideological differences would give voters a real choice and thus a greater role in the democratic process. But to Brownstein, the “sorting out” was a catastrophe that led directly to the meanspirited, take-no-prisoners partisanship of today.
There is considerable truth in this story. But the transformation of American politics that he describes was the product of more extensive forces than he allows and has been, at least so far, less profound than he claims. Brownstein correctly cites the Democrats’ embrace of the civil rights movement as a catalyst for partisan change — moving the white South solidly into the Republican Party and shifting it farther to the right, while pushing the Democrats farther to the left. But he offers few other explanations for “the great sorting out” beyond the preferences and behavior of party leaders. A more persuasive explanation would have to include other large social changes: the enormous shift of population into the Sun Belt over the last several decades; the new immigration and the dramatic increase it created in ethnic minorities within the electorate; the escalation of economic inequality, beginning in the 1970s, which raised the expectations of the wealthy and the anxiety of lower-middle-class and working-class people (an anxiety conservatives used to gain support for lowering taxes and attacking government); the end of the cold war and the emergence of a much less stable international system; and perhaps most of all, the movement of much of the political center out of the party system altogether and into the largest single category of voters — independents. Voters may not have changed their ideology very much. Most evidence suggests that a majority of Americans remain relatively moderate and pragmatic. But many have lost interest, and confidence, in the political system and the government, leaving the most fervent party loyalists with greatly increased influence on the choice of candidates and policies.
Brownstein skillfully and convincingly recounts the process by which the conservative movement gained control of the Republican Party and its Congressional delegation. He is especially deft at identifying the institutional and procedural tools that the most conservative wing of the party used after 2000 both to vanquish Republican moderates and to limit the ability of the Democratic minority to participate meaningfully in the legislative process. He is less successful (and somewhat halfhearted) in making the case for a comparable ideological homogeneity among the Democrats, as becomes clear in the book’s opening passage. Brownstein appropriately cites the former House Republican leader Tom DeLay’s farewell speech in 2006 as a sign of his party’s recent strategy. DeLay ridiculed those who complained about “bitter, divisive partisan rancor.” Partisanship, he stated, “is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength.”
But making the same argument about a similar dogmatism and zealotry among Democrats is a considerable stretch. To make this case, Brownstein cites not an elected official (let alone a Congressional leader), but the readers of the Daily Kos, a popular left-wing/libertarian Web site that promotes what Brownstein calls “a scorched-earth opposition to the G.O.P.” According to him, “DeLay and the Democratic Internet activists ... each sought to reconfigure their political party to the same specifications — as a warrior party that would commit to opposing the other side with every conceivable means at its disposal.” The Kos is a significant force, and some leading Democrats have attended its yearly conventions. But few party leaders share the most extreme views of Kos supporters, and even fewer embrace their “passionate partisanship.” Many Democrats might wish that their party leaders would emulate the aggressively partisan style of the Republican right. But it would be hard to argue that they have come even remotely close to the ideological purity of their conservative counterparts. More often, they have seemed cowed and timorous in the face of Republican discipline, and have over time themselves moved increasingly rightward; their recapture of Congress has so far appeared to have emboldened them only modestly.
There is no definitive answer to the question of whether the current level of polarization is the inevitable result of long-term systemic changes, or whether it is a transitory product of a particular political moment. But much of this so-called age of extreme partisanship has looked very much like Brownstein’s “Age of Bargaining.” Ronald Reagan, the great hero of the right and a much more effective spokesman for its views than President Bush, certainly oversaw a significant shift in the ideology and policy of the Republican Party. But through much of his presidency, both he and the Congressional Republicans displayed considerable pragmatism, engaged in negotiation with their opponents and accepted many compromises. Bill Clinton, bedeviled though he was by partisan fury, was a master of compromise and negotiation — and of co-opting and transforming the views of his adversaries. Only under George W. Bush — through a combination of his control of both houses of Congress, his own inflexibility and the post-9/11 climate — did extreme partisanship manage to dominate the agenda. Given the apparent failure of this project, it seems unlikely that a new president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be able to recreate the dispiriting political world of the last seven years.
Division of the U.S. Didn’t Occur Overnight (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/books/13kaku.html) By MICHIKO KAKUTANI | New York Times, November 13, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, The Penguin Press. $27.95
Alan Brinkley is the Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University.
Few people would dispute that the politics of Washington are as polarized today as they have been in decades. The question Ronald Brownstein poses in this provocative book is whether what he calls “extreme partisanship” is simply a result of the tactics of recent party leaders, or whether it is an enduring product of a systemic change in the structure and behavior of the political world. Brownstein, formerly the chief political correspondent for The Los Angeles Times and now the political director of the Atlantic Media Company, gives considerable credence to both explanations. But the most important part of “The Second Civil War” — and the most debatable — is his claim that the current political climate is the logical, perhaps even inevitable, result of a structural change that stretched over a generation.
A half-century ago, Brownstein says, the two parties looked very different from how they appear today. The Democratic Party was a motley combination of the conservative white South; workers in the industrial North as well as African-Americans and other minorities; and cosmopolitan liberals in the major cities of the East and West Coasts. Republicans dominated the suburbs, the business world, the farm belt and traditional elites. But the constituencies of both parties were sufficiently diverse, both demographically and ideologically, to mute the differences between them. There were enough liberals in the Republican Party, and enough conservatives among the Democrats, to require continual negotiation and compromise and to permit either party to help shape policy and to be competitive in most elections. Brownstein calls this “the Age of Bargaining,” and while he concedes that this era helped prevent bold decisions (like confronting racial discrimination), he clearly prefers it to the fractious world that followed.
The turbulent politics of the 1960s and ’70s introduced newly ideological perspectives to the two major parties and inaugurated what Brownstein calls “the great sorting out” — a movement of politicians and voters into two ideological camps, one dominated by an intensified conservatism and the other by an aggressive liberalism. By the end of the 1970s, he argues, the Republican Party was no longer a broad coalition but a party dominated by its most conservative voices; the Democratic Party had become a more consistently liberal force, and had similarly banished many of its dissenting voices. Some scholars and critics of American politics in the 1950s had called for exactly such a change, insisting that clear ideological differences would give voters a real choice and thus a greater role in the democratic process. But to Brownstein, the “sorting out” was a catastrophe that led directly to the meanspirited, take-no-prisoners partisanship of today.
There is considerable truth in this story. But the transformation of American politics that he describes was the product of more extensive forces than he allows and has been, at least so far, less profound than he claims. Brownstein correctly cites the Democrats’ embrace of the civil rights movement as a catalyst for partisan change — moving the white South solidly into the Republican Party and shifting it farther to the right, while pushing the Democrats farther to the left. But he offers few other explanations for “the great sorting out” beyond the preferences and behavior of party leaders. A more persuasive explanation would have to include other large social changes: the enormous shift of population into the Sun Belt over the last several decades; the new immigration and the dramatic increase it created in ethnic minorities within the electorate; the escalation of economic inequality, beginning in the 1970s, which raised the expectations of the wealthy and the anxiety of lower-middle-class and working-class people (an anxiety conservatives used to gain support for lowering taxes and attacking government); the end of the cold war and the emergence of a much less stable international system; and perhaps most of all, the movement of much of the political center out of the party system altogether and into the largest single category of voters — independents. Voters may not have changed their ideology very much. Most evidence suggests that a majority of Americans remain relatively moderate and pragmatic. But many have lost interest, and confidence, in the political system and the government, leaving the most fervent party loyalists with greatly increased influence on the choice of candidates and policies.
Brownstein skillfully and convincingly recounts the process by which the conservative movement gained control of the Republican Party and its Congressional delegation. He is especially deft at identifying the institutional and procedural tools that the most conservative wing of the party used after 2000 both to vanquish Republican moderates and to limit the ability of the Democratic minority to participate meaningfully in the legislative process. He is less successful (and somewhat halfhearted) in making the case for a comparable ideological homogeneity among the Democrats, as becomes clear in the book’s opening passage. Brownstein appropriately cites the former House Republican leader Tom DeLay’s farewell speech in 2006 as a sign of his party’s recent strategy. DeLay ridiculed those who complained about “bitter, divisive partisan rancor.” Partisanship, he stated, “is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength.”
But making the same argument about a similar dogmatism and zealotry among Democrats is a considerable stretch. To make this case, Brownstein cites not an elected official (let alone a Congressional leader), but the readers of the Daily Kos, a popular left-wing/libertarian Web site that promotes what Brownstein calls “a scorched-earth opposition to the G.O.P.” According to him, “DeLay and the Democratic Internet activists ... each sought to reconfigure their political party to the same specifications — as a warrior party that would commit to opposing the other side with every conceivable means at its disposal.” The Kos is a significant force, and some leading Democrats have attended its yearly conventions. But few party leaders share the most extreme views of Kos supporters, and even fewer embrace their “passionate partisanship.” Many Democrats might wish that their party leaders would emulate the aggressively partisan style of the Republican right. But it would be hard to argue that they have come even remotely close to the ideological purity of their conservative counterparts. More often, they have seemed cowed and timorous in the face of Republican discipline, and have over time themselves moved increasingly rightward; their recapture of Congress has so far appeared to have emboldened them only modestly.
There is no definitive answer to the question of whether the current level of polarization is the inevitable result of long-term systemic changes, or whether it is a transitory product of a particular political moment. But much of this so-called age of extreme partisanship has looked very much like Brownstein’s “Age of Bargaining.” Ronald Reagan, the great hero of the right and a much more effective spokesman for its views than President Bush, certainly oversaw a significant shift in the ideology and policy of the Republican Party. But through much of his presidency, both he and the Congressional Republicans displayed considerable pragmatism, engaged in negotiation with their opponents and accepted many compromises. Bill Clinton, bedeviled though he was by partisan fury, was a master of compromise and negotiation — and of co-opting and transforming the views of his adversaries. Only under George W. Bush — through a combination of his control of both houses of Congress, his own inflexibility and the post-9/11 climate — did extreme partisanship manage to dominate the agenda. Given the apparent failure of this project, it seems unlikely that a new president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be able to recreate the dispiriting political world of the last seven years.
Division of the U.S. Didn’t Occur Overnight (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/books/13kaku.html) By MICHIKO KAKUTANI | New York Times, November 13, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, The Penguin Press. $27.95
wallpaper Please specify your DBMS
VKP
08-15 11:38 AM
I work for company A in india which has a subsidary company "B" in US.
On "B"'s request i worked in US for company B from July 2006 to Nov 2006 (for which i have valid pay checks).
I went back to India and worked for A till June and i came to US again to work for Company B.
Now as soon as i entered US, i have applied for a premium H1 company transfer to Company C.
Now i got a query to submit my Pay checks which i do not have as i resigned Company B after coming to US.
Please suggest me whats the ideal way to answer this query...
This is really urgent and Please reply ASAP
On "B"'s request i worked in US for company B from July 2006 to Nov 2006 (for which i have valid pay checks).
I went back to India and worked for A till June and i came to US again to work for Company B.
Now as soon as i entered US, i have applied for a premium H1 company transfer to Company C.
Now i got a query to submit my Pay checks which i do not have as i resigned Company B after coming to US.
Please suggest me whats the ideal way to answer this query...
This is really urgent and Please reply ASAP
Blog Feeds
12-23 04:40 PM
The cover of today's New York Times tells the extraordinary story of Cuban-born artist Carmen Herrera who has worked as an artist for decades and is finally enjoying real success. She's one of the hottest artists in New York and her paintings regularly sell for $30,000+. Her work is on display at the Museum of Modern Art and her work is now touring in England. Ms. Herrera moved to Paris with her American husband for a few years after World War II and then moved to the US where she embarked on her long career. About five years ago, her...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/12/immigrant-of-the-day-carmen-herrera-artist.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/12/immigrant-of-the-day-carmen-herrera-artist.html)
2011 uses the ORACLE DBMS.
![dbms. [DBMS Example [289]](http://www.sci.csueastbay.edu/~billard/cs4660/img481.png "[DBMS Example [289]")
Blog Feeds
04-05 09:40 AM
A Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General report has been released which paints a very troubling picture of the 287(g) program which allows local and state law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration laws. The report doesn't mince words:We observed instances in which Immigration and Customs Enforcement and participating law enforcement agencies were not operating in compliance with the terms of the agreements. We also noted several areas in which Immigration and Customs Enforcement had not instituted controls to promote effective program operations and address related risks. Immigration and Customs Enforcement needs to (1) establish appropriate performance measures and...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/04/dhs-report-slams-287g-program.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/04/dhs-report-slams-287g-program.html)
more...
imh216
06-25 06:44 PM
I am US citizen since March 2009. Husband just received an interview notice for August 11 after having filed all required documents and application for I-485 adjustmnent of status. Along with other documents, we submitted a xerox copy of his I-94 which he overstayed. Unfortunately, he lost the original. My concern is, the interview notice states he is to bring the original I-94, which he no longer has. He can prove however the date of his last entry to the US, as he still has a stamp in his passport with admission date, a sticker on his passport cover for baggage and I can probably dig up his boarding pass. Again - we also made a xerox copy of both sides of I-94 when we still had it. What do I do? Should I get a duplicate? Or is the xerox enough for the interview? I would hate his application to be denied because of this. Please let me know if you had a similar experience or any advice on what I should do.
smsthss
07-18 12:25 PM
anybody on this !!
more...
vishwak
09-09 03:58 PM
By this, we can understand that dates are not going to Retro......good for us.
2010 DBMS components and how they
fromnaija
01-13 02:34 PM
Because you already filed I-485 before she turned 21, your daughter is protected by CSPA and she will get her GC as long as your case is approved even if she turned 30 before your AOS is approved (I sincerely hope you are approved before she turns 30 as she must remain unmarried until she gets GC).
By the way, my son is in the same boat as he turned 21 in 2008 too.
By the way, my son is in the same boat as he turned 21 in 2008 too.
more...
mariusp
03-14 07:36 PM
It's that time of the year, so here we go again:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,143475-pg,1/article.html
The bill would prohibit companies from hiring H-1B workers, then outsourcing them to other companies, he said. H-1B opponents have complained that outsourcing companies are among the top users of H-1B visas.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,143475-pg,1/article.html
The bill would prohibit companies from hiring H-1B workers, then outsourcing them to other companies, he said. H-1B opponents have complained that outsourcing companies are among the top users of H-1B visas.
hair [DBMS Example [289]
redddiv
06-14 03:55 PM
try www.gowda.com
good experience for me.
good experience for me.
more...
newbie2020
06-23 10:45 AM
Check the status using the H1B receipt number usually EACXXXXXX or WACXXXXXX
If something has changed, The status gets changed.....kinda weird.
If something has changed, The status gets changed.....kinda weird.
hot Figure 4: DBMS Structure
.gif "then the DBMS does not")
cheesy_x
08-20 07:45 PM
involving
-Graphic Design (photoshop)
-Web Development (Html, Javascript,Flash)
-will do flash headers/banners
-Simple sites incorporating any of the above (5 pages base)
*I do not charge by the hour, but charge a base fee (negotiable) for services rendered.
***Billing through paypal availiable
-Graphic Design (photoshop)
-Web Development (Html, Javascript,Flash)
-will do flash headers/banners
-Simple sites incorporating any of the above (5 pages base)
*I do not charge by the hour, but charge a base fee (negotiable) for services rendered.
***Billing through paypal availiable
more...
house Oracle DBMS server between
Blog Feeds
06-04 01:30 AM
If you're going to fudge the truth, you would think she would pick something tough to refute. From the Arizona Republic: Gov. Jan Brewer said in a recent interview that her father died fighting Nazi Germany. In fact, the death of Wilford Drinkwine came 10 years after World War II had ended. During the war, Drinkwine worked as a civilian supervisor for a naval munitions depot in Hawthorne, Nev. He died of lung disease in 1955 in California.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/06/brewer-caught-in-lie-over-her-persecution-over-sb1070.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/06/brewer-caught-in-lie-over-her-persecution-over-sb1070.html)
tattoo 한국IDC는 quot;국내 DBMS시장은
ranand00
09-28 09:50 AM
Hi
I have applied for cos from h1 to h4.
it is still pending. Am I eligible to renew my drivers license in PA based on pending cos to h4 receipt notice.
Any links or ideas are highly appreciated.
Thanks
anand
I have applied for cos from h1 to h4.
it is still pending. Am I eligible to renew my drivers license in PA based on pending cos to h4 receipt notice.
Any links or ideas are highly appreciated.
Thanks
anand
more...
pictures is based on DBMS X. Before
Sadatj
04-16 03:07 AM
I am applying for H4 visa after my recent marriage with an H1B visa holder in USA. I am currently filling out the online DS160 form but stuck at the following stage: "travel information"
In the purpose of trip to USA question: the given options are business, travel or student visas, so i selected the option: "other". On selecting this, the form loads a list of further options in order to SPECIFY: the H4 option (dependent of H1B holder) is not given in this list. The nearest applicable option is "temporary employee H1, H2". When I choose this one, then at a much later stage in the application, in the section titled "temporary work visa information" the form starts to ask information on my supposed employer etc, which is clearly UN-applicable in my case, as I am NOT applying for an H1 or H2 visa. Kindly help me out, on how to proceed with DS160 in such a situation. Waiting for reply with anticipatory thanks. Sadatj.
In the purpose of trip to USA question: the given options are business, travel or student visas, so i selected the option: "other". On selecting this, the form loads a list of further options in order to SPECIFY: the H4 option (dependent of H1B holder) is not given in this list. The nearest applicable option is "temporary employee H1, H2". When I choose this one, then at a much later stage in the application, in the section titled "temporary work visa information" the form starts to ask information on my supposed employer etc, which is clearly UN-applicable in my case, as I am NOT applying for an H1 or H2 visa. Kindly help me out, on how to proceed with DS160 in such a situation. Waiting for reply with anticipatory thanks. Sadatj.
dresses then the DBMS does not
wH!B2k~%24(KGrHqMOKi8E)IIIdT8DBMS,rqS1j!~~_12.JPG "via this auction")
microbe
February 17th, 2004, 11:25 PM
this was a snapshot, but i think it turned out well. i reduced quality for posting.
more...
makeup SODA2 follows the DBMS
d_ankoor
01-20 01:11 AM
My future employer "A" has filed an appeal I290B for denied I140 ("Inability to pay") which is pending at USCIS, however now my current employer "B" wants to file I140 for me. Both of this are on different labor approvals and different job descriptions. Can my current employer "B" file I140 without my future employer "A" withdrawing the I290B appeal? Will filing of I140 by my current employer "B" affect the denial of any of these applications?
Many Thanks,
AnkoorD
Many Thanks,
AnkoorD
girlfriend multi-DBMS for integrating
![dbms. [그림-1] DBMS의 발전 동향](http://www.hanb.co.kr/network/image/dbms_fig1.gif "[그림-1] DBMS의 발전 동향")
madhurib
01-26 10:54 PM
please reply!!!!
hairstyles Kanecki Prolog DBMS 400i
GC2COME
02-16 04:44 PM
Hi all,
My ETA case in online status shows "DATA REVIEW" for the past 5 months, my PD Aug 04/RIR/EB2 is with Dallas BPEC.Initially the status was closed, and then opened. After 5 months of reopening it still says 'Data review' .Is there some thing wrong or should I talk to my lawyer.
Some of my friends who applied that time have their status 'in process' or even 'certified' .Any experience like this or will that go to certified from here directly or to "in process" first. How long it can be in each of these statuses.
Any ideas appreciated please!
Thanks,
gc2com
My ETA case in online status shows "DATA REVIEW" for the past 5 months, my PD Aug 04/RIR/EB2 is with Dallas BPEC.Initially the status was closed, and then opened. After 5 months of reopening it still says 'Data review' .Is there some thing wrong or should I talk to my lawyer.
Some of my friends who applied that time have their status 'in process' or even 'certified' .Any experience like this or will that go to certified from here directly or to "in process" first. How long it can be in each of these statuses.
Any ideas appreciated please!
Thanks,
gc2com
xxxander007
09-06 11:36 PM
I posted this in the Non-immigrant visa section, but I'd also like to get a professional opinion. Sorry for the double post.
I have a rather simple question to ask. I came to the US on a J2 visa with my wife who entered a Ph.D. program. Last year I was accepted into the same program, starting this fall. I didn't change my J2 to J1 because I was waiting for a TAship job offer that would grant me a fee waiver.
Now we're back in the States and there is an on-campus job opportunity that would grant me a fee waiver. I am considering either a) staying on J2 but getting a work permit or b) changing my status to J1.
What I'd like to know is, can I sign a contract with an on-campus employer and start working while my J1 change is being processed? It doesn't really matter much if this means that my paychecks will be delayed; like I said, I would welcome the opportunity to get the fee waiver.
Thanks.
I have a rather simple question to ask. I came to the US on a J2 visa with my wife who entered a Ph.D. program. Last year I was accepted into the same program, starting this fall. I didn't change my J2 to J1 because I was waiting for a TAship job offer that would grant me a fee waiver.
Now we're back in the States and there is an on-campus job opportunity that would grant me a fee waiver. I am considering either a) staying on J2 but getting a work permit or b) changing my status to J1.
What I'd like to know is, can I sign a contract with an on-campus employer and start working while my J1 change is being processed? It doesn't really matter much if this means that my paychecks will be delayed; like I said, I would welcome the opportunity to get the fee waiver.
Thanks.
simple1
05-14 06:40 PM
http://awesome.goodmagazine.com/transparency/web/0905/trans0509whoiscomingtoamerica.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment