Monday, February 23, 2015


News Clips For The Day


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dems-the-democratic-party-has-lost-its-way/

Dems: "The Democratic party has lost its way"
AP  February 21, 2015

WASHINGTON -- Democrats are struggling to answer a simple question - "What's a Democrat?" - and must do a better job of explaining their core values to voters, according to a task force formed after the party's dismal showing in the 2014 election.

The Democratic National Committee on Saturday released the interim findings of a review intended to examine problems in the midterm election. The report said Democrats lack a "cohesive narrative" and recommended that the party find ways to help it explain bedrock values such as fairness, equality and opportunity.

"I am here to tell you the Democratic party has lost its way," said Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, a member of the task force. He said the problems are not with the "party's core beliefs" but go to "our inability to convey our principles to the American people in a precise, concise and passionate way."

The work of a 10-person task force comes after Democrats were clobbered in November, surrendering control of the Senate to Republicans and allowing the GOP to pad its majority in the House. Republicans captured governor's offices in Massachusetts, Maryland and Illinois - all safe Democratic states in presidential elections - and strengthened its grip on state legislatures.

The losses have led to soul-searching among Democrats as they try to translate success in presidential elections under Barack Obama into midterm elections dominated by congressional campaigns. Many party leaders contend that Democrats should have run more aggressively on Obama's record last year and drawn sharp distinctions with Republicans.

"Whenever we let the other guys talk the way they talk about our president, about our leadership, about our values, we're going to lose," said Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy told the DNC on Thursday. He said too many Democrats tried to be "Republicans lite."

Bill Clinton says he's surprised by Democrats' midterm losses

The losses have led to soul-searching among Democrats as they try to translate success in presidential elections under Barack Obama into midterm elections dominated by congressional campaigns. Many party leaders contend that Democrats should have run more aggressively on Obama's record last year and drawn sharp distinctions with Republicans.

"Whenever we let the other guys talk the way they talk about our president, about our leadership, about our values, we're going to lose," said Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy told the DNC on Thursday. He said too many Democrats tried to be "Republicans lite."

It calls for more financial support and training for state parties in a return to the principles behind the "50-state strategy" promoted by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who led the DNC from 2005 to 2009. That approach aimed to compete in state and local elections throughout the country, even in states dominated by Republicans.

It calls for more financial support and training for state parties in a return to the principles behind the "50-state strategy" promoted by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who led the DNC from 2005 to 2009. That approach aimed to compete in state and local elections throughout the country, even in states dominated by Republicans. The Supreme Court in 2013 removed from federal law an effective tool for fighting voting discrimination under the act and Democrats have tried to restore those protections.

Outlining the report, the DNC's leader, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, wiped away tears as she recounted her battle against breast cancer, calling it one of the reasons she is a Democrat. She noted the party's passage of the health care overhaul under Obama.

The initial findings were based on hundreds of meetings with party leaders and members of Congress and included a survey completed by 10,000 Democratic activists, Wasserman Schultz said. A final report will come out in May.

The review offers parallels to a post-mortem by Republicans after the 2012 presidential election. That study urged the GOP to focus more on year-round, on-the-ground political organizing in states and recommended that Republicans embrace a comprehensive immigration overhaul, which has faced resistance by GOP members of Congress.

A Republican Party spokesman, Michael Short, contended that Democrats have yet to come to terms with their trouncing and that "their divisive message doesn't resonate and their liberal policies don't work." Going into 2016, Democrats are a party "teetering on the edge of complete irrelevancy," Short said.

The task force emphasized rebuilding the party's bench as Republicans aggressively recruit candidates for state and local office.

In one section of the report, the DNC panel notes that since 2008, Democrats have lost 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats, 910 state legislative seats, 30 state legislative chambers and 11 governors' offices.

"Look, I'll give the Republicans credit. They spent a lot of time and money working on this for years and it paid off for them," Wasserman Schultz said in an interview. "We've certainly recognized that we have some catching up to do."




“The Democratic National Committee on Saturday released the interim findings of a review intended to examine problems in the midterm election. The report said Democrats lack a "cohesive narrative" and recommended that the party find ways to help it explain bedrock values such as fairness, equality and opportunity. "I am here to tell you the Democratic party has lost its way," said Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, a member of the task force. He said the problems are not with the "party's core beliefs" but go to "our inability to convey our principles to the American people in a precise, concise and passionate way.".... The losses have led to soul-searching among Democrats as they try to translate success in presidential elections under Barack Obama into midterm elections dominated by congressional campaigns. Many party leaders contend that Democrats should have run more aggressively on Obama's record last year and drawn sharp distinctions with Republicans. "Whenever we let the other guys talk the way they talk about our president, about our leadership, about our values, we're going to lose," said Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy told the DNC on Thursday. He said too many Democrats tried to be "Republicans lite.".... The losses have led to soul-searching among Democrats as they try to translate success in presidential elections under Barack Obama into midterm elections dominated by congressional campaigns. Many party leaders contend that Democrats should have run more aggressively on Obama's record last year and drawn sharp distinctions with Republicans. Whenever we let the other guys talk the way they talk about our president, about our leadership, about our values, we're going to lose," said Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy told the DNC on Thursday. He said too many Democrats tried to be "Republicans lite.".... It calls for more financial support and training for state parties in a return to the principles behind the "50-state strategy" promoted by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who led the DNC from 2005 to 2009. That approach aimed to compete in state and local elections throughout the country, even in states dominated by Republicans..... It calls for more financial support and training for state parties in a return to the principles behind the "50-state strategy" promoted by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who led the DNC from 2005 to 2009. That approach aimed to compete in state and local elections throughout the country, even in states dominated by Republicans..... The task force emphasized rebuilding the party's bench as Republicans aggressively recruit candidates for state and local office.”

See the following information from my local Duval County Democratic Senior Caucus website:
For Chief Financial Officer
“A Lesson from American History

On August 23rd, 1971 future Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell sent a confidential memo to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce calling for a complete corporate takeover of our political, legal, and educational systems. Later termed the “Powell Memo”, this extraordinarily influential document has served as a blueprint and call-to-arms for corporate America over the last forty years. Powell warned that the incredible gains that We the People had won during the social and environmental movements of the 1960's threatened corporate interests, and he argued that “business must learn the lesson . . . that political power is necessary; that such power must be assiduously cultivated; and that when necessary, it must be used aggressively and with determination.” Corporate officials learned Powell’s lesson.  As a plan of action, Powell proposed that elite business leaders wage a coordinated, long-term campaign to dominate the political, judicial, electoral and even educational sectors, declaring that “there should not be the slightest hesitation to press vigorously in all political arenas for support of the enterprise system. Nor should there be reluctance to penalize politically those who oppose it.” Help us build the movement against corporate rule by supporting Liberty Tree today! Powell's Memo proved highly effective - the Chamber adopted his recommendations in 1973 and in short order additional corporate interest groups formed such as the Business Roundtable (1972), the Heritage Foundation (1973), the American Legislative Exchange Council or ALEC (1973), and many others. Over the intervening decades they put Powell's Memo into practice and today our federal and state governments are indeed controlled by a corporate and financial elite determined to push their self-serving agenda as far as possible. Unless we continue to take action against the emerging corporate state and its devastating attacks on public education, environmental protection and working people, and our electoral process itself, the deterioration of our democracy will continue unabated.”  

This powerful and stirring statement brings some questions to my mind. I have written the following email to the website: “What meetings, discussion groups, voter registration activities, and general encouragement of potential candidates to run for every single open seat on City Council, School Board, etc. go on in Jackonville? I would like to be more involved locally as I was when I was in college.

I publish a daily news blog on the Net at lucywarner2013.blogspot.com. I can write a decent sentence, do research, work on mailings, make telephone calls, and go door to door. I don't drive at night anymore, but I could accompany someone else while canvassing. Hope to hear from you. I think the Dems have been lacking in energy on the local level, at least here in Florida, and that affects how many voters will turn out to the polls. There are also too many people who "don't have a picture ID" who have given up rather than moving heaven and earth to get a picture ID. In 2008 when Obama was first on the ticket look how many liberal voters showed up. They are there all the time, but they have to be stirred up and stimulated more often. Your office is not open all the time, and no activities were published on your website since last fall when Charlie Christ was running for Governor.

There also is a need for disseminating information on what dastardly things the Republicans are up to on an ongoing basis. There is a great push to raise money by various parts of the DNC and its branches, but I don't see much communication on candidates and bills in the State & Federal legislature, specific issue "position papers," voting rights, neighborhood/police relationship, neighborhood improvements of all kinds from the grassroots level, improved mentoring/tutoring of kids who are having trouble in school or who have joined gangs. Those things may not seem like political party work, but they shape those parts of the population who are not wealthy and don't have access to a privileged lifestyle. Books, for instance, are expensive and many poor people don't have more than a few to read. I think an energized, involved and enthusiastic group of people who support liberal viewpoints will emerge with these activities, and they will elect more Democrats. We mustn't roll over and play dead with this far right momentum which is emerging across the country. We will lose our egalitarian government if we do.

We are at a crisis point in this country with a number of really radical right wing groups making changes in state legislatures and local school boards that destroy (1)our educational system, (2) our financial and social safety net, (3) our freedom to go to whatever religious group we want to and also to none at all if we don't have strong beliefs. Religion is fine, but it should not dictate what is taught in our public schools or what we can safely say or think. That just isn't democracy. See the following news article on yesterday's CBS website: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dems-the-democratic-party-has-lost-its-way/,
Dems: "The Democratic party has lost its way", AP, February 21, 2015.”





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-says-pro-russia-rebels-still-on-attack-delays-heavy-weapons-pullback/

Ukraine: "Not possible to talk about a pullback"
AP February 23, 2015

Photograph – Members of the Ukrainian armed forces are seen near Artemivsk, eastern Ukraine, Feb. 23, 2015.  REUTERS

 -- Ukraine delayed a promised pullback of heavy weapons from the front line Monday in eastern Ukraine, blaming continuing attacks from separatist rebels.

Under a peace agreement reached Feb. 12, both sides are to withdraw their heavy weapons 16 to 44 miles back to create a buffer zone. Ukrainian officials said Sunday they were planning to start.

However, military spokesman Lt. Col. Anatoliy Stelmakh told reporters the moves will not begin until rebel attacks entirely stop, in line with a cease-fire that was supposed to begin Feb. 15.

Stelmakh said there were two rebel artillery attacks overnight and although this is significantly fewer than in previous days, "as long as firing on Ukrainian military positions continues, it's not possible to talk about a pullback."

Col. Valentyn Fedichev, deputy commander of the military operation against the rebels, said there had been 27 attacks against Ukrainian forces over the past 24 hours, which he said was lower than in recent days. He also indicated that no pullback was imminent.

"If the enemies continue to use their own heavy weapons, it is clear that Ukraine will continue to counteract these operations," he said.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's observer mission in Ukraine is supposed to be monitoring the weapons withdrawal. Its spokesman, Michael Bocuirkiw, told the AP on Monday the monitors had seen heavy weapons movements by both sides but could not tell whether weapons were being pulled back or just being redeployed.

An Associated Press reporter on Monday saw Ukrainian forces moving back from around the town of Debaltseve, from rebel forces captured last week after a fierce weekslong siege.

Both Stelmakh and Fedichev said rebels are still trying to overrun a Ukrainian government position in the village of Shyrokyne, on the outskirts of the strategic port city of Mariupol.

Rebels began moving toward Mariupol last August, raising concerns they were seeking to seize the city in order to establish a land corridor between mainland Russia and the Russia-annexed Crimean peninsula.

Russia has denied arming the rebels, a denial scoffed at by Western nations and NATO, who point to satellite pictures of Russian weapons in Ukraine.




“Ukraine delayed a promised pullback of heavy weapons from the front line Monday in eastern Ukraine, blaming continuing attacks from separatist rebels. Under a peace agreement reached Feb. 12, both sides are to withdraw their heavy weapons 16 to 44 miles back to create a buffer zone. Ukrainian officials said Sunday they were planning to start. However, military spokesman Lt. Col. Anatoliy Stelmakh told reporters the moves will not begin until rebel attacks entirely stop, in line with a cease-fire that was supposed to begin Feb. 15..... Col. Valentyn Fedichev, deputy commander of the military operation against the rebels, said there had been 27 attacks against Ukrainian forces over the past 24 hours, which he said was lower than in recent days. .... The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's observer mission in Ukraine is supposed to be monitoring the weapons withdrawal. Its spokesman, Michael Bocuirkiw, told the AP on Monday the monitors had seen heavy weapons movements by both sides but could not tell whether weapons were being pulled back or just being redeployed.... Both Stelmakh and Fedichev said rebels are still trying to overrun a Ukrainian government position in the village of Shyrokyne, on the outskirts of the strategic port city of Mariupol.”

Last time Ukraine complied with the removal of arms from a battle area, Russia moved in and took the position over immediately. I can see why Ukraine doesn't move its armaments as they agreed to do. Ukraine has to do its best to hold Mariupol due to its strategic location forming a land corridor between Crimea and Russia. That's all the Russians would need to send in massive numbers of tanks and troops to overwhelm the Ukrainian defenses. (Of course, Russia says it has not been helping the Ukrainians Sure, they haven't!






http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/19/politics/terror-threat-homeland-security/index.html

DHS intelligence report warns of domestic right-wing terror threat
By Evan Perez and Wes Bruer, CNN
Fri February 20, 2015

Photograph – Officers inspect a car outside Los Angeles International Airport in 2013 after three TSA employees were shot.
EXPAND IMAGE

Washington (CNN)They're carrying out sporadic terror attacks on police, have threatened attacks on government buildings and reject government authority.

A new intelligence assessment, circulated by the Department of Homeland Security this month and reviewed by CNN, focuses on the domestic terror threat from right-wing sovereign citizen extremists and comes as the Obama administration holds a White House conference to focus efforts to fight violent extremism.

Some federal and local law enforcement groups view the domestic terror threat from sovereign citizen groups as equal to -- and in some cases greater than -- the threat from foreign Islamic terror groups, such as ISIS, that garner more public attention.

The Homeland Security report, produced in coordination with the FBI, counts 24 violent sovereign citizen-related attacks across the U.S. Since 2010.

ISIS burned up to 40 people alive in Iraq, official says

The government says these are extremists who believe that they can ignore laws and that their individual rights are under attack in routine daily instances such as a traffic stop or being required to obey a court order.

They've lashed out against authority in incidents such as one in 2012, in which a father and son were accused of engaging in a shootout with police in Louisiana, in a confrontation that began with an officer pulling them over for a traffic violation. Two officers were killed and several others wounded in the confrontation. The men were sovereign citizen extremists who claimed police had no authority over them.

Among the findings from the Homeland Security intelligence assessment: "(Sovereign citizen) violence during 2015 will occur most frequently during routine law enforcement encounters at a suspect's home, during enforcement stops and at government offices."

DHS has documented examples of violence by sovereign citizen extremists since 2010. They range from incidents that occurred in the home and at traffic stops to attacks on government buildings.

The report adds that "law enforcement officers will remain the primary target of (sovereign citizen) violence over the next year due to their role in physically enforcing laws and regulations."

The White House has fended off criticism in recent days for its reluctance to say the words "Islamist extremism," even as the conference this week almost entirely focused on helping imams and community groups to counteract the lure of groups like ISIS.

Absent from the White House conference is any focus on the domestic terror threat posed by sovereign citizens, militias and other anti-government terrorists that have carried out multiple attacks in recent years.

An administration official says the White House is focused on the threat from all terrorists, including from sovereign citizen and other domestic groups.

"I don't think it's fair to say the (White House) conference didn't address this at all," the official said, adding that President Barack Obama addressed the need to combat "violent ideologies" of all types.

An official at the Justice Department, which is leading the administration's counter-radicalization effort, says many of the tactics aimed at thwarting radical Islamic recruitment of young people can also be used to fight anti-government extremist groups.
While groups like ISIS and al Qaeda garner the most attention, for many local cops, the danger is closer to home.

A survey last year of state and local law enforcement officers listed sovereign citizen terrorists, ahead of foreign Islamists, and domestic militia groups as the top domestic terror threat.

The survey was part of a study produced by the University of Maryland's National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism.

In 2013, a man who held anti-government views carried out a shooting attack on three Transportation Security Administration employees at Los Angeles International Airport, killing one TSA officer. Last year, a couple killed two police officers and a bystander at a Las Vegas Walmart store.

Mark Potok, senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center, said that by some estimates, there are as many as 300,000 people involved in some way with sovereign citizen extremism. Perhaps 100,000 people form a core of the movement, he said.

The federal government's focus on the domestic groups waxes and wanes, Potok said, in part because the threat from foreign groups like al Qaeda and its affiliates.

Potok says sovereign citizen groups have attracted support because of poor economic conditions. Some groups travel the country pitching their ideology as a way to help homeowners escape foreclosure or get out of debt, by simply ignoring the courts and bankruptcy law.

The Homeland Security report's focus on right-wing terrorists is a subject that garnered political controversy for the Obama administration in the past. In 2009, a Homeland Security report on possible recruitment of military veterans by right-wing militia groups prompted an outcry from veterans groups.

The report was produced by staff members during the Bush administration but wasn't published until then Homeland Security Janet Napolitano had taken office. Napolitano criticized her own agency for the report.




“A new intelligence assessment, circulated by the Department of Homeland Security this month and reviewed by CNN, focuses on the domestic terror threat from right-wing sovereign citizen extremists and comes as the Obama administration holds a White House conference to focus efforts to fight violent extremism. Some federal and local law enforcement groups view the domestic terror threat from sovereign citizen groups as equal to -- and in some cases greater than -- the threat from foreign Islamic terror groups, such as ISIS, that garner more public attention..... produced in coordination with the FBI, counts 24 violent sovereign citizen-related attacks across the U.S. Since 2010.... The government says these are extremists who believe that they can ignore laws and that their individual rights are under attack in routine daily instances such as a traffic stop or being required to obey a court order. They've lashed out against authority in incidents such as one in 2012, in which a father and son were accused of engaging in a shootout with police in Louisiana, in a confrontation that began with an officer pulling them over for a traffic violation.... The men were sovereign citizen extremists who claimed police had no authority over them. Among the findings from the Homeland Security intelligence assessment: "(Sovereign citizen) violence during 2015 will occur most frequently during routine law enforcement encounters at a suspect's home, during enforcement stops and at government offices.".... focus on the domestic groups waxes and wanes, Potok said, in part because the threat from foreign groups like al Qaeda and its affiliates. Potok says sovereign citizen groups have attracted support because of poor economic conditions. Some groups travel the country pitching their ideology as a way to help homeowners escape foreclosure or get out of debt, by simply ignoring the courts and bankruptcy law.”

I looked up these sovereign citizens before. They pick a small area and move their families into the neighborhood, then vote reasonable people out at the local levels. They have been establishing little islands of radical right wing thought across the country. They are insidious, and have been violent frequently. They are what my brother-in-law calls “outlaws,” though he was referring to “hippies” in the 1970's. They actually want NO GOVERNMENT at all. Yes, they are very dangerous, and if they vote at all they vote conservative. Another word for them is “anarchists.” The Republican party is very cynically drawing in a multitude of unethical groups such as socially radical religious groups called Dominionists, White Supremacists, and Militias. All of these groups are actively trying to “take over the US government,” so that ought to be illegal. It isn't ordinary religious doctrine such as the Virgin Birth or Jesus' rising from the dead – it's political doctrine.

What is so annoying is that some “conservatives” in the Tea Party, etc., have raised a mighty noise unto the press over this Obama/Bush administrations' “attack” on veterans. She didn't, after all, say that all veterans are dangerous radicals, but that some of the membership of radical groups have proven to be veterans. The simple fact is that both the military and the police forces include a higher percentage of radical right wing people and people with violent tendencies in general than does the ordinary peaceful neighborhood in American. See the following Wikipedia article and the 2009 CBS article on the subject of dangerous radical groups which appear below.

From the 2009 article I have clipped the following: “In supporting its assertions about veterans, the DHS assessment cited an F.B.I. report written under the Bush administration which said “some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups.” In that July 2008 report, titled “White Supremacist Recruitment of Military Personnel since 9/11,” the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division found said that “military experience is found throughout the white supremacist extremist movement as the result of recruitment campaigns by extremist groups and self-recruitment by veterans sympathetic to white supremacist causes.” One of the commenters on this CBS article of 2009 really nailed the situation: “Johnny61:Secretary Napolitano’s mistake was talking honestly about the very real threat posed by right-wing extremists. She made a simple sociological observation that few educated people would quarrel with. It was on a par with Obam’s comment about poor people reaching for bibles and guns when they feel threatened. These kind of intellectual truisms are easily handled by educated people but they are probably best left in the Ivy Halls; working class folks take them personally and get very miffed, especially if they are in the midst of a great tea bag farce perpetrated by FOX.”



Dominion Theology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Dominionism" redirects here. For the advocacy of dominion status in the British Empire and Commonwealth, see Dominion. For advocacy of the rights and interests of humans in relation to environmentalism and/or animal rights, see Anthropocentrism.

Dominion Theology or Dominionism is the idea that Christians should work toward either a nation governed by Christians or one governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law. At least under this name, it exists primarily among non-mainstream Protestants in the United States. It is a form of theocracy and is related to theonomy, though it does not necessarily advocate Mosaic law as the basis of government. Prominent adherents of Dominion Theology are otherwise theologically diverse, including the Calvinist Christian Reconstructionism and the Charismatic/Pentecostal Kingdom Now theology and New Apostolic Reformation.

Some elements within the mainstream Christian right have been influenced by Dominion Theology authors. Indeed, some writers have applied the term "Dominionism" more broadly to the mainstream Christian right, implicitly arguing that that movement is founded upon a theology that requires Christians to govern over non-Christians. Mainstream conservatives do not call themselves "Dominionists," and the usage has sparked considerable controversy.

The term "Dominion Theology" is derived from the King James Bible's rendering of Genesis 1:28, the passage in which God grants humanity "dominion" over the Earth.

And God blessed [ Adam and Eve ], and God said unto them, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

In the late 1980s, several prominent evangelical authors used the phrase Dominion Theology (and other terms such as dominionism) to label a loose grouping of theological movements that made direct appeals to this passage in Genesis.[1] Christians typically interpret this passage as meaning that God gave humankind responsibility over theEarth, but the distinctive aspect of Dominion Theology is that it is interpreted as a mandate for Christian stewardship in civil affairs, no less than in other human matters.


http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/extremist-report-draws-criticism-prompts-apology/?_r=0

Extremist Report Draws Criticism; Prompts Apology
By GINGER THOMPSON
APRIL 16, 2009 3:03

President Obama’s support for Mexico’s drug war looked like it might be upstaged this morning by a growing wave of outrage over a recently released intelligence assessment by the Department of Homeland Security that many conservative groups blasted as a political attack against them. And despite an apology issued to military veterans by its new secretary, Janet Napolitano, it remained unclear whether she had quelled a brewing political storm.

The April 7 assessment warned that the faltering economy and the election of the country’s first African-American president could fuel support for right-wing extremist organizations. And it said that proposals for new restrictions on firearms could lead some groups to begin stockpiling weapons and ammunition.

But the comments that stirred the most outrage referred to war veterans. The assessment cautioned that returning veterans who faced trouble reintegrating into their communities could “lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.”

The blogosphere was abuzz on Wednesday with reaction to the memo. Republican legislators issued a flurry of angry statements. And in a blitz of appearances from Mexico City on this morning’s news shows, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano issued an apology to veterans who read the assessment as an accusation.

“An apology is owed,” Ms. Napolitano said. “We greatly respect our veterans. We have a number of veterans in our department.”

Homeland Security issues several such threat assessments a year to advise state and local law enforcement agencies about trends or issues considered potential threats. And they have identified threats on both ends of the political spectrum. In a February report, for example, the agency cited trends that suggested left-wing groups were “maturing and expanding their cyberattack capabilities with the aim of attacking targets in the United States.”

Ms. Napolitano said that the assessment was not meant as a, “blanket accusation.” She said that she had seen the report before it was distributed, and that as a former United States attorney at the time Timothy McVeigh bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City, the information in the assessment, “struck a nerve with her.”

“All this was meant to do was to give law enforcement what we call, ‘situational awareness,’ ” Ms. Napolitano said in an interview on Fox News. She said the assessment was meant to inform authorities about, “some of the things that go on. Some of the things that have happened in the past and could recur that people just need to be aware of.”

Whether Ms. Napolitano’s apology and explanations on several television shows this morning will appease critics remains unknown.

Representative John Boehner, the Republican minority leader, said, “To characterize men and women returning home after defending our country as potential terrorists is offensive and unacceptable.”

And in a letter to Ms. Napolitano, David Rehbein, the commander of the American Legion, wrote, “To continue to use McVeigh as an example of the stereotypical disgruntled military veteran is as unfair as using Osama bin Laden as the sole example of Islam.” Ms. Napolitano indicated that she would meet with Mr. Rehbein upon her return to Washington.

In supporting its assertions about veterans, the DHS assessment cited an F.B.I. report written under the Bush administration which said “some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups.”

In that July 2008 report, titled “White Supremacist Recruitment of Military Personnel since 9/11,” the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division found said that “military experience is found throughout the white supremacist extremist movement as the result of recruitment campaigns by extremist groups and self-recruitment by veterans sympathetic to white supremacist causes.”

It added that a “review of FBI white supremacist extremist cases from October 2001 to May 2008 identified 203 individuals with confirmed or claimed military service active in the extremist movement at some time during the reporting period.”


COMMENTS –

Comments are no longer being accepted.

HLC April 17, 2009 · 2:09 pm
I’m not sure whether some of the folks posting here simply have their heads in the sand and have never heard of the scores of hate groups in the U.S., the vast majority of them right-wing, or whether they’re just flat-out lying here. In any case, here’s an interesting map of hate groups:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp
Click on any state and you’ll get a list of hate groups in that state. California, for example has 84, including a Ku Klux Klan group in Santa Ana. Isn’t that where Augie 25 went to his tea party?

Jerry Nichols April 17, 2009 · 4:47 pm
As I looked at the signs of the Tea Party Folks I thought the Homeland Security Report underestimated these radicals. With less than a 100 days in office they blame Obama for the mess he is trying to get us out of, and call for him to be killed, water boarded, and Texas says they may secede from the Union.
If anything HLS has sugar coated the threat!

factfinder14 April 17, 2009 · 4:59 pm
Hitler wasa “returning veteran.” So was Mussolini. Face it: persons with fascist tendencies are attracted to militarism and, hence, to the military. “Militarism” is one of the seven warning signs of fascism, so to speak. Certainly, the majority of those who enlist in the military are not proto-fascists, but many proto-fascist males do enlist, or at least try to.
No apology necessary, Janet.

Cherryl Lewis April 17, 2009 · 6:29 pm
I’m a conservative and I’m more afraid of the religious fanatics who “call themselves conservatives” than I am afraid of liberals. Janet Napolitano shouldn’t have to apologize for speaking the truth. When veterans return from war or duty overseas and do not have a safety net while trying to re-integrate into society, they most definitely are at risk for fanatical, sub-culture behaviors. Heavens! Timothy McVeigh was a conservative, gun totin’, bible-thumping veteran. Help!
Being a bible-thumping conservative is definitely fanatical left-wing behavior. Christianity, ur doin’ it wrong!

barb April 17, 2009 · 7:07 pm
Don’tcha know Homegrown terrorists are ok, it’s them furriners you have to watch out for. The victims are just as dead either way but the gun totin’ militias wraps it all nicely in a US flag.

Naybob April 17, 2009 · 11:44 pm
This report was ordered by the BUSH White House. Why does Bush hate rhe troops?

Johnny61 April 18, 2009 · 12:31 am
Secretary Napolitano’s mistake was talking honestly about the very real threat posed by right-wing extremists. She made a simple sociological observation that few educated people would quarrel with. It was on a par with Obam’s comment about poor people reaching for bibles and guns when they feel threatened. These kind of intellectual truisms are easily handled by educated people but they are probably best left in the Ivy Halls; working class folks take them personally and get very miffed, especially if they are in the midst of a great tea bag farce perpetrated by FOX.





http://www.npr.org/blogs/ed/2015/02/20/386120632/q-a-with-lani-guinier-redefining-the-merit-in-meritocracy

Q&A With Lani Guinier: Redefining The 'Merit' In Meritocracy
Anya Kamenetz
Lead Blogger, Education
FEBRUARY 20, 2015

As a high school student, Lani Guinier wrote a letter to the College Board over a math question on the SAT that she found problematic.

When she got to Harvard's Radcliffe College, her roommate announced that she was worried about something: With her perfect SAT score she'd have trouble finding someone to marry.

"Her bragging ... and my nagging," were two sparks of a lifelong interest in what Guinier calls "the testocracy." Now a professor at Harvard Law School, she has written a book,The Tyranny of the Meritocracy, that calls for a rethinking of who gains admission to schools like Harvard.

You talk in the book about the correlations between SAT scores and family incomes. But some people argue that the SAT is more meritocratic than the networks of influence that it replaced.

Most of the students admitted to competitive colleges are not poor or working class. There may be a few but it's very few.

Part of the reason that upper middle and upper class students are more likely to get admitted is because they're more likely to do well on the SAT.

So why not focus on preparing poor or working-class students better so they can do well on these tests?

There's a sense of skepticism that is generated by this worship of a test, of a score, that turns out to be reductive of the mission of higher education.

The mission of higher education, I would argue, is to develop a new cohort of potential leaders, and it's very important that they be diverse, not just in terms of who can afford SAT prep but working class and poor, black and white.

With the focus on tests, the mission gets lost in my view — to promote democracy and prepare an important group of students for being confident about a leadership position that's not just an opportunity for them, but for their communities.

So if not by a test score, how do we determine merit?

Amartya Sen [the Harvard philosopher and economist] says merit is an incentive system that rewards actions society values.

I am influenced by some of the work of Scott Page at the University of Michigan, who says that what you're really looking for in terms of merit is the ability of people to collaborate where you have very different perspectives brought together.

You're not just taking the smartest people in the room. You're also trying to create a collaborative team where people have different strengths and the capacity to work with people with different perspectives.

Let's say you gave a group of people a 10-question test. You don't just want the two or three people who got the most questions right. You also want to include the people who did not get all the questions right, but who did get the three questions right that the others got wrong.

You want the capacity to acknowledge and take advantage of the insights that this group of people will now have.

Those with different insights have to learn how to work together. This is not about extreme views to the right or the left. This is about bringing people together to solve a problem.

In the book, you discuss the Posse Foundation, a program that identifies, recruits and trains public school graduates, and places them in supportive groups of 10, to help them succeed in college. Tell me why you found this model so intriguing.

So the origin story of the Posse program, at least as I understand it, there was a young man who was very smart and he got into college, but he felt out of sorts because he was from a very different background from most of the other students, and he basically dropped out.

The Posse program was inaugurated when the person who leads it [Deborah Bial] ran into this young man, whom she had helped to tutor, and asked him: Why did he drop out? And he said, if I'd had my posse I could have made it.

What's interesting is the way the members of the posse reinforce and support each other. They're not competing against each other or other people. They're collaborating together to take maximum advantage of the opportunities they've been provided.

One last question. A lot of your book seems to focus on admissions and educational policies at elite institutions. But there's also a conversation going on about the need to develop a differentdefinition of excellence in higher education — one that recognizes the mission of institutions that already serve a broad range of students, the Cal State Northridges and CUNYs, not just the Berkeleys and Columbias.

I want to associate myself with the position that David Labaree, at the Stanford school of education, has taken. And that is that higher education has multiple missions.

Part of its mission is to educate a group of people, some of whom are prepared to be leaders and to be innovators. I think the mission should be similar in both types of institutions that you mention — both cohorts.

We live in a society that's very proud of being a democracy. If we are truly committed to that mission, we need leadership not only from those whose parents are wealthy, but also from those whose parents are poor and working-class people.

The goal is that there is a mission for developing access to good jobs, but it also includes a democratic element of the goal of higher education, and that's training citizens who are not only going to be leaders but also good citizens: citizens who reach out to other people, who are willing to accept challenges that require concentration, but who also have the ability to work as a team.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy

Meritocracy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Meritocracy (merit, from Latin mereō "earn" and -cracy, from Ancient Greek κράτος kratos "strength, power") is a political philosophy which holds that power should be vested in individuals almost exclusively according to merit.[1] Advancement in such a system is based on intellectual talent measured through examination and/or demonstrated achievement in the field where it is implemented.

Early definitions[edit]

The "most common definition of meritocracy conceptualizes merit in terms of tested competency and ability, and most likely, as measured by IQ or standardized achievement tests."[2] In government or other administration systems, meritocracy, in an administrative sense, is a system of government or other administration (such as business administration) wherein appointments and responsibilities are assigned to individuals based upon their "merits", namely intelligence, credentials, and education, determined through evaluations or examinations.[3]

Supporters of meritocracies do not necessarily agree on the nature of "merit"; however, they do tend to agree that "merit" itself should be a primary consideration during evaluation.

In a more general sense, meritocracy can refer to any form of government based on achievement. Like "utilitarian" and "pragmatic", the word "meritocratic" has also developed a broader definition, and may be used to refer to any government run by "a ruling or influential class of educated or able people."[4]

This is in contrast to the original, condemnatory use of the term by Michael Young in 1958, who defined it as a system where "merit is equated with intelligence-plus-effort, its possessors are identified at an early age and selected for appropriate intensive education, and there is an obsession with quantification, test-scoring, and qualifications."[5]

Meritocracy in its wider sense, may be any general act of judgment upon the basis of various demonstrated merits; such acts frequently are described in sociology and psychology. Thus, the merits may extend beyond intelligence and education to any mental or physical talent or to work ethic.

In rhetoric, the demonstration of one's merit regarding mastery of a particular subject is an essential task most directly related to the Aristotelian term Ethos. The equivalent Aristotelian conception of meritocracy is based upon aristocraticor oligarchical structures, rather than in the context of the modern state.[6][7]

More recent definitions[edit]

Although meritocracy as a term is a relatively recently coined word (1958), the concept of a government based on standardized examinations originates from the works of Confucius, along with other Legalist and Confucianphilosophers. The first meritocracy was implemented in the second century BC, by the Han Dynasty, which introduced the world's first civil service exams evaluating the "merit" of officials.[8] Meritocracy as a concept spread from China to British India during the seventeenth century, and then into continental Europe and the United States.[9]

With the translation of Confucian texts during the Enlightenment, the concept of a meritocracy reached intellectuals in the West, who saw it as an alternative to the traditional ancient regime of Europe.[10] In the United States, the assassination of President Garfield in 1881 prompted the replacement of the American Spoils System with a meritocracy. In 1883, The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act was passed, stipulating government jobs should be awarded on the basis of merit through competitive exams, rather than ties to politicians or political affiliation.[11]

The most common form of meritocratic screening found today is the college degree. Higher education is an imperfect meritocratic screening system for various reasons, such as lack of uniform standards worldwide,[12][13] lack of scope (not all occupations and processes are included), and lack of access (some talented people never have an opportunity to participate because of the expense, most especially in developing countries).[14] Nonetheless, academic degrees serve some amount of meritocratic screening purpose in the absence of a more refined methodology. Education alone, however, does not constitute a complete system, as meritocracy must automatically confer power and authority, which a degree does not accomplish independently.




“As a high school student, Lani Guinier wrote a letter to the College Board over a math question on the SAT that she found problematic. When she got to Harvard's Radcliffe College, her roommate announced that she was worried about something: With her perfect SAT score she'd have trouble finding someone to marry. "Her bragging ... and my nagging," were two sparks of a lifelong interest in what Guinier calls "the testocracy." Now a professor at Harvard Law School, she has written a book,The Tyranny of the Meritocracy, that calls for a rethinking of who gains admission to schools like Harvard. You talk in the book about the correlations between SAT scores and family incomes. But some people argue that the SAT is more meritocratic than the networks of influence that it replaced..... Part of the reason that upper middle and upper class students are more likely to get admitted is because they're more likely to do well on the SAT. So why not focus on preparing poor or working-class students better so they can do well on these tests?.... The mission of higher education, I would argue, is to develop a new cohort of potential leaders, and it's very important that they be diverse, not just in terms of who can afford SAT prep but working class and poor, black and white. With the focus on tests, the mission gets lost in my view — to promote democracy and prepare an important group of students for being confident about a leadership position that's not just an opportunity for them, but for their communities. ... You're not just taking the smartest people in the room. You're also trying to create a collaborative team where people have different strengths and the capacity to work with people with different perspectives.... Those with different insights have to learn how to work together. This is not about extreme views to the right or the left. This is about bringing people together to solve a problem.”

Read the Wikipedia article above on Meritocracy. In my opinion, the US has never been truly a meritocracy because our leaders are elected on a wide range of characteristics, and having an advanced education is not always true of them. Another interesting Wikipedia article is called “List of Presidents of the United States by education.” That article states that Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Andrew Jackson, and about 8 other presidents did not graduate from any college. Abraham Lincoln had “only about a year of formal schooling of any kind.” He did, however, educate himself by reading whatever books he could get “by the firelight” it is said. His family was very poor. Despite that he “read the law” well enough to pass a bar exam and become a lawyer. The article continues: “Most Presidents of the United States received a college education, even most of the earliest. Of the first seven Presidents, five were college graduates. College degrees have set the Presidents apart from the general population, and Presidents have held such a degree even when this was quite rare and, indeed, unnecessary for practicing most occupations, including law. Of the forty-three individuals to have been the President, twenty-four of them graduated from a private undergraduate college, nine graduated from a public undergraduate college, and eleven held no degree. Every President since 1953 has had a bachelor's degree.”

I do believe every legislator and head of government, including Mayor of a city, should be required to have at least a 4 year college degree, and even better a professional degree such as Masters/PhD in some field. Law would be ideal. Beyond that they should have a background of activities in the public arena, and if possible elected or appointed positions. They need to know how to talk to people politely, evaluate written material, make logical arguments, and meet with other heads of state as needed.

So if that is a meritocracy, then I believe we should operate as one, but the college degree is not enough, and in ordinary daily life people should not be put on a pedestal and revered, even if they are important leaders. We should remain a democratic and inclusive society and not be status ranked by our education or wealth alone. We need to “walk humbly” and be respectful even of the needy. What use is a society in which people who are not strong, rich or white enough are abused? So there are things that I prize more highly than those status symbols.