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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Little Joe who wrote (166492)	7/31/2001 10:30:34 PM
From: goldworldnet	Respond to of 769670

Thanks Little Joe, But the truth is sometimes hard to swallow. Best Always, josh * * *

To: Little Joe who wrote (166492)	7/31/2001 10:30:42 PM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Jewish World Review July 31, 2001 / 11 Menachem-Av, 5761 Mitch Albom Wanna name my kid? Pay me a cool Mil' --- ok, a half-mil' jewishworldreview.com -- THE child could end up being called Pampers, or Saltines or Pepsi, but that's a chance the parents will take. He could be Cap'n Crunch or little Baby Ruth. One day, his mom might yell down the street: "Oh, Kleenex! Dinner's ready!" "How about Velveeta?" I ask Jason Black. "What if they wanted to name your child Velveeta?" "Sure," he says, "why not?" Black and his wife are selling the naming rights to their new baby boy - due this weekend - to the highest-bidding corporation. The minimum bid is $500,000. For that amount, the family will agree to "an unveiling ceremony" and all the publicity. They will name the child after whatever product the company desires. Fast food, detergent, deodorant - anything's fine, except guns or cigarettes. "We have standards," Black says. What a relief. Black, 32, and his wife, Frances Schroeder, also 32, are not poor. He works as an editor in New York City and makes enough that his wife can stay home and take care of their two other daughters, neither of whom carries the name of an oil filter. He insists that his child will thank him one day. He says he is only looking out for the future of little Snickers or little Pine Sol. "This was never about need," Black says calmly. "This was about opportunity." Isn't it always? This was just a matter of time, wasn't it? We already sell the naming rights to stadiums, airports, charity events. Two college kids recently offered themselves as human billboards for any paying corporation. The whole country is one big Prudential/IBM/Weedwacker Invitational. And we already shipwreck ourselves for money ("Survivor"), get married to strangers for money (Darva Conger) and air our dirty laundry for fame (Jerry Springer). So why should it shock anyone when someone combines it all, selling off the time-honored tradition of naming a child? ("Yes, it would have been sweet if we could have named him for his father or grandfather. But too bad. We took the check. That's how we got our little Roto-Rooter.") At the altar of commercialism, the first sacrificial lamb - uh, child. "Aren't you concerned about your boy going to school," I ask Black, "if his name is Scooter Pie?" "Not if we're good parents," he says, "which I think we are. We will take the time to explain to him that we were trying to be proactive and give him a future." (I can hear it now: "Son, we were only looking out for your best interests. Besides, there are lots of kids named Clorox.") What's astounding is Black's calmness. He is not a foolish man. He is educated, reasonable and rational. He honestly thinks there is nothing wrong with giving away something as sacred as a child's name for a paycheck. "It's not a paycheck," he insists. "What do you call $500,000?" I ask. "A trust fund," he says. Remember that movie "The Truman Show"? It was about a child who was televised from birth. He was born to sell products - only he didn't know it. At the end of the movie, when he realizes what a pawn he has been, he breaks free. The movie was meant to shock. In Black's case, it seems to have inspired. He says any company offering half a million bucks might want more than just a name, and that's OK, too: "We would agree to further obligations, provided it doesn't interfere with our son having a normal life." As normal as you can get when your name is Wheat Chex. You want to holler, right? You want to scream? You want to shake this guy and yell, "Don't you realize how shameful this is?" And then you realize the sad truth: You would be wasting your time. Black says the naming sale "will set our son apart from the rest of his classmates. It will make it obvious that he is a special child." Yeah. Special K. jewishworldreview.com

To: Little Joe who wrote (166492)	8/1/2001 12:08:04 AM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

Very simple why the gouging stopped. Jeffords. Because when the senate switched hands there was suddenly a big powerful cop that they didn't expect with the power to bust them. Look at Lieberman now. He's heading the investigation. This had little or nothing to do with real supply and everything to do with political corruption and price manipulation in the absence of regulators (cops on the beat). Bush/Cheney are scared shitless of Lieberman now. At least they should be. Why do you think they refuse to hand over their papers? Just as Nixon at first refused to hand over his papers and tapes? What the papers will prove is that Bush/Cheney let the energy industry dictate their policies. No surprise since Bush and Cheney are both energy cartel big-wigs and so are most of their key staff. Remember, even Condaleeza Rice has a Chevron tanker named after her. This White House might as well have been staffed at the Houston Petroleum Club, and it looks like OPEC is playing right along with them, at our expense, and our environment's, global environment that is. Why do you think they're stone-walling Kyoto and won't give any alternate plans? Because if they had their way there would be no environmental regulation at all. Anywhere. And they could be free to fix prices all around the world too thus grasping the entire world economy by the nuts and gouging it for trillions whenever they wanted to scare us. That my friends is called absolute power, at least the attempt to grab it. And as we know absolute power absolutely corrupts. Gore on the other hand (even though he isn't that big an enemy of big oil despite their paranoia) would have stressed common sense conservation, alternative fuels, cleaner fumes, retention of wilderness areas and the gradual weaning off oil as our dominant energy source say over 20 years when we start running out of it globally anyway. Does that make sense? Of course. Can it be done? Of course. Only the Energy Cartel lobby stands in our way. There will always be an oil business but this may be their last and most damaging grasp at total dominion, like what they had during the Carter years helping replace him with reagan. Which makes me wonder whether his presidency was sabotaged as well. Of course it was, look at the Iran Hostage Situation, released as soon as Reagan took office, negotiated by oil and CIA connections. And if you think the Reagans and Bushes of the world don't have CIA and oil connections you're really naive. I don't mean to sound like Oliver Stone but maybe his words were right. This was a coup d'etat. If it hadn't been for the artificial enegrey crisis GW would have never been elected. Does anyone care? Maybe the majority of Americans who didn't vote for him and those who have lost faith in him? And for you loyal Republicans, you have to think about whether or not you want your party controlled by the oil and pollution industry. Maybe it's better to get behind someone like McCain and cleanse yourselves of this corruption before it poisons your party the way Watergate did.