Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thames_sider who wrote (18957)	7/22/2001 7:58:29 PM
From: Win Smith	Respond to of 82486

On the environmental front, there was this article in the Sunday paper: Part of the new spin on coal is that it's the engine behind the New Economy. Industry executives never tire of suggesting that, without coal, there would be no semiconductors, no Internet. The first time I talked to Bill Raney, the powerful president of the West Virginia Coal Association, he said, apropos of nothing, "Did you know that it takes more energy to charge up a Palm hand-held than it does to power a refrigerator for a month?" It turns out Raney's claim is a bit exaggerated; a Palm is roughly 1,500 times less power hungry than a refrigerator. But Big Coal loves such hyperbole. The West Virginia Coal Association's Web site boldly claims that "the process of ordering a book from Amazon.com uses about a half of a pound of coal" and that computers and the Internet suck up 13 percent of the electricity in America. In fact, the best studies suggest that such activities consume only 3 percent of the nation's electricity. nytimes.com Somewhat less amusingly, there was this news article last week about how policy is being made these days: The letter seeks information about people with whom Mr. Cheney and other task force members met while developing the group's policies, but not information about "the deliberative process." Mr. Cheney has said that the task force's report in May, which contained more than 100 recommendations involving energy production, infrastructure, conservation and the environment, was based on sound public policy considerations. In an interview tonight on "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer," broadcast on PBS, Mr. Cheney said the task force realized at the outset that it had to have an "adequate concern for the environment in this report, or we're not going to have a credible report." But some Democrats and other critics say energy industry executives and their lobbyists had too much influence over Mr. Cheney's plan, while environmental and consumer groups were ignored or treated perfunctorily. And the vice president's refusal to release the names of people who contacted the task force led two of his chief critics, Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California and John D. Dingell of Michigan, both Democrats, to bring in the accounting office for a closer look. nytimes.com I'm sure Dick met with just the right kind of people to formulate the "correct" policy. The seamless transition from president of Halliburton to acting president of the US didn't require any adjustments in figuring out what the "correct" policy was, either. What the heck, the same people are paying his way in either job.

To: thames_sider who wrote (18957)	7/23/2001 1:33:12 AM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

You Brits make me sick! Sick! news.bbc.co.uk!articles@3276960428/hi/english/uk/newsid/123456.htm

To: thames_sider who wrote (18957)	7/23/2001 8:42:46 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

In my opinion, it would be difficult to select competent experienced advisers who were not those with an agenda. The difference between the Bush advisers and say Clinton/Gore advisers I am quite confident, would be that you are more comfortable with the Clinton/Gore agenda than the Bush agenda. But to take a position that Bush advisers are somehow tainted because the agenda differs is unrealistic and unfair. Personally, i didn;t care much for Robert Reich, Donna Shalala, et al. (and any respect for their integrity I totally lost when they failed to resign during the Lewinski scandal)but I did admire their intellect and commitment their agenda. I find Bush selection of advisers to reflect the Bush agenda. The quality is very good, plenty of experience and plenty of intellect, hardly backward thinking. Liberals like to use the term "isolationist"like it is a bad thing. its not necessarily. But in this case I think it is misused because I think the Bush agenda is more to put a primiary emphasis on US interest first and that is refreshing after the past eight years. Tangibly, the Bush gambit on missile defense appears to be paying off with the joint statement of Putin and Bush tying arms reduction to missile defense. The Europeans were wrong about the deployment of Pershings and they appear to have been wrong again about missile defense. The tax cut being risky? In light of the fact that it phases in over 11 years, I can not hold this a valid criticism. Bush enviro policy has been misrepresetned I beleive by a leftist mianstream press in the US and he has shown some flexibility on the "global warming" issue for which he is not given credit. Your comments about a powerful state are quite out of step with the Bush agenda. I would need to see specific examples of what you refer to to comment more definitively. In fact it is my impression (and I do live in the US) that quite the opposite is true. Bush is typically conservative, lower taxes, smaller government, more local control of issues that matter locally like education. JLA