SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : India Coffee House -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: sea_biscuit who wrote (8611)10/19/1999 8:34:00 PM
From: JPR  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 12475
 
DIPY:
What is your response to Morphic resonance? Also tell me more about soft money and PACs. What do you call them? Dig up some articles for me, just to prove that you are an even keel and not lop-sided in your evaluation.

JPR



To: sea_biscuit who wrote (8611)10/22/1999 2:47:00 PM
From: JPR  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 12475
 
Yo,I have traveled enough in India to know about rigged autorickshaw and taxicab meters... the guys have been doing that ever since the British left the country!<g>
DIPY SAYS
Btw, in your country, the bribe money demanded by corrupt government officials has TRIPLED IN JUST
5 YEARS!!!!


Congratulations! ;-)
deccanherald.com
The more you claim that things are changing for the better, the more we find that things are going to the
drain in your India that is Bhaarat.


Please read the previous post DipY. Explain How India is different from here? No evasive answers

Soft Money and Hard Bargain NY Times OP-ED 10/22/99
search.nytimes.com.
But the unlimited amounts that pour
through the soft-money loophole are dangerous.

failing to donate could hurt your company.

- and a $50,000 or $1 million check filtered
through a party as "soft money."


By EDWARD A. KANGAS

You could almost hear the laughter coming from board rooms and
executive suites all over the country when Senate opponents of
campaign-finance reform expressed dismay that anyone could think big
political contributions are corrupting elections and government. On
Tuesday, those opponents prevailed, blocking a final vote this year on
banning soft-money contributions. But the innocent and benign system
described by the Senators arguing against reform hardly passed the laugh
test for those of us on the receiving end of the soft-money shakedown.


For a growing number of executives, there's no question that the
unrelenting pressure for five- and six-figure political contributions
amounts to influence peddling and a corrupting influence. What has been
called legalized bribery looks like extortion to us.
The Senators who
oppose reform would be far more credible and receive a sympathetic ear
if they admitted the high cost of campaigns force them to focus on large
contributors, rather than defending the system.

Congress passed laws that would put corporate executives in jail for
offering money to a foreign official in the course of commerce. Now
some of its members express bewilderment when people note that there
is something unseemly about making large payments to the campaign
committees of American elected officials.

I know from personal experience and from other executives that it's not
easy saying no to appeals for cash from powerful members of Congress
or their operatives. Congress can have a major impact on businesses.
The solicitors know it, and we know it. The threat may be veiled, but the
message is clear: failing to donate could hurt your company. You must
weigh whether you meet your responsibility to your shareholders better
by investing the money in the company or by sending it to Washington.

Increasingly, fund-raisers also make sure you know that your competitors
have contributed, implying that you should pay a toll in Washington to
stay competitive.

Unlike individual donations, most large corporate contributions aren't
made as gestures of good will or for ideological reasons. Corporations
are thinking of the bottom line. Will the contribution help or hurt the
company? Despite the protestations of some Senators, everyone knows
big checks get noticed.

Like most Americans, corporate executives also now the issue isn't really
free speech. (You'll notice that the First Amendment argument is more
often made by the listeners, the politicians, than by the speakers.)
Companies don't question their ability to speak forcefully. We have
lobbyists and trade associations, and we provide many jobs -- all of
which help us to be heard. And, as salesmen, we resent the idea that the
only way we can get a chance to make an effective pitch about legislation
is to pay a large fee.


One clear sign of the growing dissatisfaction of corporate leaders with
this pressure is the endorsement by more than 200 business and civic
leaders of a campaign finance reform plan made by the Committee for
Economic Development, a group of chief executives and academic
leaders. This group, of which I am a member, is not saying that all
political contributions are bad or corrupting. We know campaigns cost
money.

But we see what should be obvious to everyone. There's a big difference
between a $1,000 contribution -- the current limit on individuals'
donations to a campaign -- and a $50,000 or $1 million check filtered
through a party as "soft money." The potential for corruption is minimal
at $1,000, or even at the $3,000 level to which our reform plan would
raise individual contribution limits. But the unlimited amounts that pour
through the soft-money loophole are dangerous.


Americans understand the influence of money. It's time to give elections
back to democracy's shareholders -- the voters.

Edward A. Kangas is the chairman of the global board of directors
of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu.



To: sea_biscuit who wrote (8611)10/28/1999 8:51:00 AM
From: JPR  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 12475
 
Hey Dipy: Here is something AMERICA SHOULD BE PROUD OF. Do you think illegal immigrants deserve some basic rights, YES or NO?

U.S. to Expand Labor Rights to Cover Illegal Immigrants
search.nytimes.com
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has announced
that it will extend broad anti-discrimination rights to illegal
immigrants for the first time, a policy that some critics said could be hard
to enforce and others contended would encourage illegal immigration.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced this week
that it would for the first time extend broad anti-discrimination rights to
workers who are illegal immigrants, a policy that some lawyers said might
be hard to enforce because immigrants might fear deportation if they
assert these rights.

The E.E.O.C. said Tuesday that illegal immigrants who are dismissed or
discriminated against because of their race, sex, age or religion should
enjoy the same remedies as legal workers -- back pay, punitive damages
and even reinstatement, but reinstatement coming only if they have first
obtained legal work papers.

The new policy faces several enforcement problems, among them that
illegal aliens might be too scared to file discrimination complaints with the
E.E.O.C. and are likely to have difficulty obtaining official work
documents.

The E.E.O.C. said it issued the new policy because it wanted to ensure
that employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens were not free to
discriminate against them without facing any penalties.

But critics of the Clinton administration's immigration policies attacked
the decision, insisting that extending remedies like reinstatement and back
pay to illegal immigrants would only encourage more such immigrants to
enter the United States.

"This whole policy is creating an atmosphere hostile to removing illegal
immigrants from the labor force," said Daniel Stein, executive director of
the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a Washington-based
group pushing for stricter limits on immigration. "The E.E.O.C. is putting
itself in the position of a mother superior seeking to gather and protect
the undocumented flock."

E.E.O.C. Chairwoman Ida Castro asserted that without the policy
announced Tuesday, unscrupulous employers would feel encouraged to
hire illegal aliens with an eye to exploiting them. She said the policy would
discourage such discrimination and exploitation by guaranteeing illegal
aliens the same anti-discrimination protections as U.S. citizens and
resident aliens.

Ms. Castro said, "If you let employers just breach civil rights
requirements for a group of workers such as undocumented workers,
then you're indirectly supporting the hiring of this group and the violation
of our laws."

Several critics suggested that the Clinton administration pushed the
E.E.O.C. to embrace this new policy as a way to win support for Vice
President Al Gore's presidential campaign among three important
Democratic constituencies: labor unions, minorities and immigrants.

The A.F.L.-C.I.O., which endorsed Gore two weeks ago, has pushed
hard for the E.E.O.C. to adopt this policy, arguing that failure to enforce
discrimination laws for illegal aliens encouraged employers to hire them
and undercut workplace conditions for all workers.

Administration and E.E.O.C. officials said politics had nothing to do with
the new E.E.O.C. policy.

A.F.L.-C.I.O. general counsel John Hiatt said the labor federation has
long pushed for this policy partly because of concerns that failing to crack
down on discrimination against illegal workers can create an atmosphere
that allows discrimination of documented workers.

"They are a very welcome set of guidelines," Hiatt said. "The exploitation
of undocumented workers lowers wages, benefits and conditions for
documented workers.

The new policy continues a trend in which the federal government has
extended more and more protections to illegal immigrants. They are
covered by minimum-wage and occupational-safety laws. And The
National Labor Relations Board has ruled that employers who knowingly
hire illegal aliens are prohibited from dismissing them if they support
unionization.

Attracted in part by contingency fees and attorneys fees, some lawyers
have moved aggressively to file suits charging that employers have
violated minimum wage laws for undocumented workers. Some business
organizations voiced fears that lawyers might seek to do the same in filing
discrimination claims on behalf of illegal aliens.

One fear that some business executives expressed is that if they hire
illegal aliens without knowing of their undocumented status and later
dismiss those workers upon learning of that status, the angered workers
might file discrimination suits, charging that they were fired because of
their race or sex.

E.E.O.C. officials said they adopted the new policy after encountering
what they said were horrific examples of discrimination against illegal
immigrants.

These officials described one illegal immigrant who was dismissed after
refusing to provide sexual favors to her boss. E.E.O.C. officials also
described a group of Vietnamese workers who were illegally segregated
from other workers on a fishing vessel. These officials also described
instances in which managers retaliated against illegal aliens by dismissing
them after they sought to report racial discrimination or sexual
harassment.

"Unauthorized workers are especially vulnerable to abuse and
exploitation," Ms. Castro said. "It is imperative for employers to fully
understand that discrimination against this class of employees will not be
tolerated."

Seeking to avoid a clash with the nation's immigration laws, the E.E.O.C.
said it would push for reinstatement for illegal aliens who had been
discriminated against only when those aliens have first obtained papers
authorizing them to work in the United States. But the E.E.O.C. said it
would recommend back pay whether or not the immigrants had working
papers.

E.E.O.C. officials said the new policy would help not just illegal aliens,
but also their co-workers.

"If employers were not held responsible for discriminating against
unauthorized workers, it would create an incentive for unscrupulous
employers to employ and exploit these workers," the commission said. "It
would also harm authorized workers who might be denied these jobs or
be subjected to a workplace which tolerated discrimination."

Illegal immigration has been a controversial issue in recent decades, as
many Americans insist that illegal aliens are an unwanted public charge,
while others say they are hard workers who contribute to the economy.

Frank Sharry, the executive director of the National Immigration Forum,
a Washington-based group that promotes immigrants' rights, praised the
E.E.O.C., saying, "This new policy says that if you're working, we're not
gong to be complicit in giving employers an open door to using your
illegal status to hit workers over the head with discriminations."

But Sharry acknowledged that many illegal aliens might be too timid to
file discrimination charges.

Sharry said the new policy was bound to stir controversy because it pits
two fundamental concerns against each other: the desire to limit illegal
immigrations and the desire to combat discrimination on the basis of race,
sex, age or religion.

"There's a mismatch between the debate and the reality," he said. "Lots
of workers who some people say are criminals because they entered
illegally are actually hard-working, tax-paying immigrants who are
working hard to make a better lives for themselves."

In 1994, in one of the strongest backlashes against illegal immigration,
Californians passed a proposition that barred state money for education,
health care or other services for illegal aliens. A U.S. District Court in
Los Angeles has partially enjoined enforcement of the proposition.

John Findley, a lawyer with the Pacific Legal Foundation, one of the
initiative's main sponsors, criticized the E.E.O.C.'s new policy.

"To me it should be a nonstarter because an illegal alien by definition is in
the country unlawfully," he said. 'That individual has no right to the job in
question. To force an employer to rehire an individual with back pay and
subject the employers to sanctions seems to me ridiculous."



To: sea_biscuit who wrote (8611)10/28/1999 9:08:00 AM
From: JPR  Respond to of 12475
 
Hey Dipy: There is so much of school violence here that you don't hear of in India. In my opinion, it is very regrettable and must be avoided at all costs. What do you say for that. Is that nice? Or You think the level of violence in schools in India is the same as in America and it is not reported? Common man, answer this question.

3 Queens Students Charged in Sexual Attack at School

By VIVIAN S. TOY
search.nytimes.com

hree students at Bayside High School in Queens were charged
Wednesday in the beating and sexual assault of a girl who the
police said was beaten into unconsciousness and sodomized on Tuesday
in a basement bathroom.

The suspects all made written and videotaped statements admitting the
attack, which occurred about 4 P.M. Tuesday, the police said.

The victim, a 16-year-old sophomore whose name has not been
released, was found bound and beaten in a bathroom near a boys' locker
room.

She was treated at Long Island Jewish Hospital and released
Wednesday morning.

The three Queens students arrested in the attack -- Leon Elkech, of
Hollis; Parrish Jones, of East Elmhurst, and John Mendoza, of Flushing,
all 18-year-old sophomores -- were charged with kidnapping, assault,
sexual abuse and sodomy. None had a criminal record, the police said.

The girl had told the police that she had been on her way to a third-floor
lab when someone hit her from behind, and that she passed out and
woke up in the locker room.

The police revised that account Wednesday.

An investigator said that the girl had gone to the lab that afternoon to
make up a missed class but was too late. She then met the three students,
at least one of whom was an acquaintance but not a friend, he said.

After talking briefly, the investigator said, the girl told them that she
wanted to go home. The three offered to walk her to a bus stop and
went downstairs with her, the investigator said. Instead of going outside,
they led her to the basement bathroom where she was punched in the
face, her wrists were bound with rope, and she was choked with a belt
and sodomized, the investigator said.

She was left unconscious, he said.

Deputy Chief Patrick Timlin, the commander of Queens detectives, said:
"This was a brutal assault. She is a pure victim."

The girl was found about 4:30 P.M. when another student heard noises
from the bathroom and alerted a custodian. The bathroom area was
deserted, but it opens into a boys' locker room that is connected to a
pool where a swimming meet was being held at the time of the attack,
the police said.

The three suspects were awaiting arraignment last night. A man who
answered the door at Jones's home refused to comment, as did a woman
who answered the door at Elkech's home.

Students at the school said Wednesday they were shocked by the
incident and somewhat alarmed by the extra police and safety officers
assigned to the school Wednesday.

"A lot of girls are afraid to be walking around in the school now," said
Vickie Morales, 16, a junior from College Point, Queens.

"I know I didn't want to be in there today."

Jacqueline Bahamundi, 16, a junior from Douglaston, Queens, said the
added security made her feel more at ease, but added: "They'll do this for
a couple of weeks, but then they'll leave and then what's going to
happen? I like this school, but I don't feel safe anymore."

Students said the principal, Harris Sarney, told students about the
incident over the loudspeaker early in the school day and told students
that counselors would be available to speak to them.

"He sounded very stressed," said John Nadal, 18, a senior from
Woodhaven, Queens. "He gave us the basic information about what
happened, and he seemed like he was trying to give everybody
assurances that things would be O.K. But today it was like we were all
locked in school."

Many of the exits that students usually use were locked Wednesday and
security officers closely monitored people entering and leaving, as well as
students walking in the hallways. Students said they were repeatedly
asked to show their student identification.

Bayside High School is one of the few high schools in the city that does
not have metal detectors.

Students and parents said violence was rare, and students were not often
found carrying weapons.

"This incident is just a horror, and very alien in this community," said
Frank Skala, president of the Bayside High School New Alumni
Association and the president of the East Bayside Homeowners
Association. "The kinds of problems we usually see are graffiti and kids
hanging out on people's cars, quality of life problems that in other places,
people would call it paradise."