Since the job of public editor requires me to probe and question the published work and wisdom of Times journalists, there’s a special responsibility for me to acknowledge my own flawed assessments.

As if the lurid instant messages of former Republican Congressman Mark Foley weren't bad enough news for Republicans this year, now comes a second Republican scandal, this one involving local Republican candidate Hugh Foskett. Just like the sordid scandal in the other Washington, Foskett-gate involves the internet, alcohol, and a bunch of young, attractive men. And just like the Foley scandal, it's proving embarrassing for a party that prides itself on buttoned-up behavior and "moral values." But unlike the Foley affair, this one doesn't seem to be producing any talk of resignations or investigations—yet.

I’m Hugh Foskett. I am a sophomore at the UW, majoring in Mathematics with a concentration in teacher preparation. My two main issues are education reform and the environment.
    Education – There are many things that need to be addressed within our education system. An example is text books. Many are poorly written and some have already been retired by other states’ school districts.
    Environment – We must demonstrate responsible stewardship of this area. We need to encourage environmentally safe construction in order to guarantee our future generations the beauty that we have been fortunate enough to experience.

The state Republican Party did not respond to repeated requests for comment on Foskett-gate. Neither did Foskett, nor did the campaign of Mike McGavick, which has some experience in dealing with fallout from youthful drinking binges.

Hugh Foskett

Running as a Republican for the first position in the 43rd District is Hugh Foskett. Foskett is a sophomore at the University of Washington, majoring in mathematics, which he hopes to pursue as a teacher.

Foskett has plenty of other priorities in his life, and he admits that the chances of a Republican winning in our district are very slim.

"It'd be really nice to win, but it's a really liberal district. I think it'd just be nice to get 13 percent of the vote," Foskett said. "It's mostly about running for the people that want someone different to represent them."

Foskett sees the campaign as a positive learning experience. "I've met a lot of great people. I might run for something down the road," he said.

In this blog I will pose a number of tough questions that go through my mind at times. Feel free to answer any of them.

1)If "racism" and "oppression" are the explanation for Black underachievement, explain to me why West Indian and African immigrants are outperforming we Black Americans in education and income?

Modern black culture, not its race, is the primary cause of underachievement. It’s a culture of victimization started during the Great Society movement in the 60s. As Thomas Sowell points out in many of his books and articles, the Black middle class was steadily growing from the turn of the nineteenth century until the Great Society. Harlem was an intellectual and cultural haven for blacks. Black public schools in many US cities outperformed white schools. All that went poof! as soon as liberals started paying black women to have babies and told black males they’ve no reason to feel responsible for their actions. West Indian and African immigrants do not bring that entrenched victimization culture. It should be pointed out, however, that more and more blacks are starting to resent being portrayed as victims and the black middle class is once again on the rise. That is why the Democrat’s attacks on Republican are becoming more and more outrageous. They see their chokehold on Black Americans slipping. Instilling fear is the only way they can keep votes.

2)From 1948 to 1967, the West Bank and Gaza Strip were under Jordanian and Egyptian control respectively. Why didn't Egypt and Jordan give the Palestinians a state during this period?

Parenthetically, you could also ask, “If Palestinians only want back their “occupied” territory, how does that explain the PLO? It was founded by the Arab League in 1964. What were they interested in during the 3 years prior to the1967 Israeli seizure of Gaza and the West Bank? And by the way, wasn’t Arafat an Egyptian?”

The bottom line is that Palestinians are the ugly stepchildren of the Arab world. Since 1948 they’ve served as a human cudgel used by the Arab Muslims to pound away at Israel. They’ve been slaughtered in Jordan, kicked out in large numbers from other Arab countries and otherwise have faced widespread discrimination by their fellow Muslims. It really is a disgusting history.

3)To the anti-Semitic nutcases of all stripes who say that today's Jews are not the "real Jews: Why, on God's green earth, would these people want to lie about being Jews?For two thousand plus years they have faced persecution and death at the hands of hateful people.. If they were impostors as you claim, wouldn't it have made sense for them to just stop lying and admit that they are not Jews? Why suffer through all that hatred for nothing?

That is an interesting question. I assume it refers to the notion that imposter (i.e., European) Jews swarmed into Israel after 1948, thereby making it an illegitimate state.

I’m not sure how to answer it other than with an anecdote. I’ve recently started reading Victor Klemperer’s diary of his life in Dresden from 1933-1945. He was ethnically a Jew who was married to a non-Jewish German. His father was a rabbi, but of a reformed congregation. In fact they were so “reformed” their services resembled many German Protestant faiths, except of course they did not worship Christ. His brothers became Protestants and worked in various professions. He became an intellectual, a respected university professor of literature. During WWI he served in an artillery unit on the Western Front. He fully supported Germany’s position in the war. He and his wife eventually settled in Dresden. The only way anyone would know he was Jewish was if they asked what his father did for a living, or if they checked his birth certificate. In 1933 the Nazis of course did the latter and he spent the next 12 years living in fear of a knock on the door or the approach of Gestapo officers on the street. He was kept alive solely by being married to a non-Jew. If he would have been widowed or divorced, he would have been sent to the gas chambers. In February 1945 the Nazis changed the rules on Jews sent to the camps; marriage was no longer a protection. One day that February, he reported to the Gestapo and was told the date of his transfer to a labor camp. Then in his 60s, he was essentially handed a death sentence. The night before he was to be deported, the massive Allied aerial bombing of Dresden began. The 3,900 tons of high explosive and incendiary bombs dropped on the city created an inferno that consumed it, killing tens of thousands outright. The heat was so intense, people were incinerated instantly either by direct hits, or when sucked into the firestorm by its intense winds. The destruction of the city was near total. Klemperer and his wife survived the attack and were able to escape in the confusion afterwards. They eventually arrived in a sector of Germany controlled by the Americans. A firestorm had saved his life. He and his wife stayed in Germany after the war, but I would not have begrudged them a home in Israel. Would you?

4)Why is it overlooked that Great Britain worked the hardest to abolish slavery-not just in its empires but throughout the world?(See Thomas Sowell's book "Black Rednecks and White Liberals for more info)?

I haven’t read that Sowell book, but I see this argument hinging on how history is taught and studied. The study of history over the past 40 years has been dominated by Marxist theory, which argues that history is the struggle of the oppressed and oppressors. Capitalist societies are of course the oppressors, and therefore get credit for nothing except…well…oppression. Great Britain was not only a capitalist society; it had the added black mark of being imperialist. It doesn’t matter that GB ended the slave trade. The fact that it was imperial meant the empire’s non-British (English, Scottish, etc.) subjects were in fact “slaves”. Of course this is all complete nonsense.  However, it is a way of thinking that has become entrenched not only in academia, but the culture at large.

5)Why are the multiple benefits of Western civilization ignored and its faults amplified?

See answer to #4. The only thing that matters in Marxist theory is that we are the imperialists and oppressors.

6)Why are the faults of non-Western societies glossed over?

Ditto #5.

7)Why was South Africa (justly I may add) boycotted so strenuously while Black African dictators and tyrants were generally ignored? I'm sure we can all remember the "Free South Africa" marches from that decade. But where were the "Free Uganda", "Free Liberia", "Free Zaire", "Free Ethiopia" marches and protests? Does the world only care about oppression and injustice if the perpetrators are White?

Yes. Again, it all falls back on Marxist theory and how entrenched it has become.

8)We have made many advances in treating AIDS and prolonging the lives of those infected with HIV. But this comes at a cost. The virus mutates and as it does more drugs must be developed to treat it. As the political, social and financial costs from this epidemic continue to mount, shouldn't we start giving more airtime to methods like abstinence and marital fidelity?

I actually think that is starting to happen. Slowly, yes. But just like the daughters of career women who don’t themselves want to raise latch-key kids, I see at least anecdotal evidence that a generation of young adults is looking back 10-20 years and saying, “I don’t want to live like that.”  Now excuse me. I need to clean my rose-colored glasses.