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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (5844)	8/9/2001 9:33:02 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

How exactly do you know precisely what is in Bush's mind, pray tell??? JLA

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (5844)	8/9/2001 9:58:26 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 93284

An interesting conjecture, Kreskin. Do you do parties?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (5844)	8/13/2001 1:52:37 AM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 93284

I'm sure Karl Rove has had a strong impact on Mr. Bush's decision, and I'm sure it was Karl Rove's decision to put Mr. Bush on tv this week. People thought Gore was boring. On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 as the highest mark for boring, , I'd give Mr. Bush a 10. We saw him on tv earlier this week. One evening was enough. It was a good excuse to go swimming and skip the evening news. From what I've read, Mr. Bush's foray into stem-cell research doesn't go that far. I support stem-cell research, but other countries will tackle stem-cell research seriously so I'll believe progress will be made even if it isn't in the US. Cheers, Mephisto PS: Did you see the Op-Ed piece on Seattle in NYTimes?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (5844)	8/13/2001 1:54:56 AM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 93284

President Bush Waffles From The New York Times An Editorial August 10, 2001 :Last night George W. Bush had one of those rare opportunities a president gets to take a bold step that might define his administration. Instead, he ducked. In a national television address, the president said he was supporting federal funding for stem cell research. But he added restrictions so rigid that they may constitute a near-ban. After a long prelude, describing his moral debate over a decision and all the terrible diseases that stem cell research might help cure, Mr. Bush endorsed federally funded research only in cases where the cells were extracted from human embryos in the past and made to grow their own colonies, or lines. There is a very limited number of lines of these cells, not enough to provide the diversity scientists need. Furthermore, the existing lines are not necessarily immortal. Scientists believe that some may eventually stop providing stem cells and need to be replaced. By limiting the federal role so severely, Mr. Bush will hamper the government's ability to spur this important new area of medical research. Scientists hope to be able to coax stem cells to evolve into replicas of cells needed to repair diseased or damaged tissue. For example, someday they may be able to create new connections in spinal cords and regenerate brain activity in Alzheimer's patients. To get the stem cells, the scientists must extract them from blastocysts -- early-stage embryos, just a few days old. In the past, most of these blastocysts were acquired from fertility clinics, which would otherwise destroy them. Lately, researchers have begun to create their own embryos, a procedure Mr. Bush also opposes. Most people might have trouble seeing a tiny clump of cells in a petri dish as a human being. But some abortion opponents do, and they have argued that the thousands of excess embryos created by fertility clinics every year should be protected and "adopted" by childless couples. They deserve respect for their beliefs. But they should not be allowed to dictate public policy, especially in an area where the health of so many people might be in the balance. As supporters of the stem cell research keep pointing out, there is more than one way to be pro-life. During the presidential campaign, Mr. Bush appeared to be opposed to federal funding for any stem cell research. But now, with polls showing strong public support for the research, he is trying to have it both ways, permitting the experiments but not the extraction process that is needed to acquire the cells. President Clinton also tried to draw a distinction between doing the research and obtaining the stem cells. But Mr. Clinton was trying to get around a Congressional ban on stem cell research. Mr. Bush is unlikely to have that problem. Congress seems to be in a much different mood this year, led by legislators whose relatives are suffering from diseases that stem cells might someday help cure. The Senate majority leader, Tom Daschle, said yesterday that there was strong bipartisan support in the Senate for legislation to provide federal funding if the president failed to do so. In his televised address, President Bush almost seemed to be teasing the audience with a long opening disquisition on the pros and cons of every aspect of stem cell research without revealing which way he had decided to go. Disappointed Americans who had hoped for a more courageous conclusion may wind up wondering if his real concern was a perpetual fear of offending the Republican Party's right-wing base nytimes.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (5844)	8/13/2001 2:00:53 AM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 93284

OFF TOPIC: SEATTLE I heard that Governor Locke will be in town this week to try and help with the transportation problems. They have to come up with something. I ride the bus everywhere, but I have to leave early for appointments because you never know what kind of traffic backups or accidents that will make you late for appointments. Have you been to Portland lately? I'm amazed at what they have done. Their mass transit train is not finished but we had a chance to use it. It was great. People stand in line to use it. It's A/C and clean. We discovered that even Portland's city buses have air conditioning. Also, Portland will put in a trolley system. ....................................................................................................................... August 10, 2001 From The New York Times Even Paradise Needs Basic Maintenance By FRED MOODY Seattle, long a self-styled paradise, is in serious trouble. The clearest manifestation is its traffic jams. Perennially at or near the top of various "most livable cities" lists throughout the 1980's and 1990's, Seattle placed second this spring on the national list of cities with the worst traffic, after chronic offender Los Angeles. The city's 20-year-long Silicon Rush has sent the population skyrocketing, with huge suburbs sprawling east from Lake Washington, spawned largely by Microsoft and its tech-industry descendants. The Highway 520 bridge connecting Seattle with the massive suburban population across the lake is 38 years old, too small for current traffic, and crumbling. Its sister bridge to the south, a floating bridge on pontoons, had to sink some years ago before anyone cared enough to repair it. The city has been so intent on building cyberspace that it has failed to notice the collapse of its physical space. This summer, the State Legislature, facing traffic so bad that entire political campaigns are now run on "the transportation mess," was forced to show it recognized the problem. (Boeing, in moving its headquarters to Chicago this year, cited the horrendous traffic as one of its discontents.) But every proposed solution runs into well-organized opposition: Conservatives oppose spending on mass transit, liberals oppose bigger freeways. And since the State Legislature is virtually evenly divided — the House has 49 Democrats and 49 Republicans, and Democrats hold a one-seat majority in the Senate — nothing much ever gets accomplished. Gridlock on the highways has become a metaphor for political gridlock, which has multifarious causes. Most of Washington is rural, and the rural residents care little for the problems in the Seattle area. Seattleites, for their part, are oblivious to the needs and problems in rural Washington, where people remain relatively poor, the technology boom having passed them by. But the essential problem is that no one here is willing to pay for anything. During the biggest economic boom the Northwest has ever experienced, antitax sentiment has become positively New Hampshire- esque. In 1999, voters approved Initiative 695, which repealed the longstanding motor vehicle excise tax that had provided nearly all of the state's transportation funding. Since then transportation repair and construction have ground to a halt. The consequence of that spasm of antitax madness is that politicians in both parties now are terrified of taking responsibility for raising taxes to do anything. Washington's governor, Gary Locke, and some lawmakers were willing to push for a tax package that would have raised $8.5 billion over 10 years for road and bridge improvements. Governor Locke even called the Legislature into special session three times this year but got nowhere — a state record for political futility. The public got wind of the tax increases involved — a 9- cents-a-gallon gasoline tax and a few other fees — and the package was killed. It was really no surprise that state leaders declined to levy taxes that they know are necessary. But anti- tax sentiment is only part of the reason for Seattle's fall from grace. Far worse has been a form of environmentalism here that is little more than denial. Attempts to address population growth have been resisted by antigrowth forces moved more by a refusal to acknowledge growth than by a genuine sense of environmental stewardship. Underlying this denial is a profound sense of entitlement. We've lived with the idea of free things — good water, natural splendor, abundant exploitable resources like fish and timber. Even the 1990's technology revolution that pumped billions into the local economy was in large part a something-for-nothing phenomenon. Actually paying for public goods — like a functioning highway system — now seems like a quaint idea. In some ways, the collapse of the transportation effort last month is instructive. Ron Sims, the King County executive, says that this state "operates on government by catastrophe." But that's not entirely correct. For a long time, it was government by good fortune. What set this region apart for liveability was not that the politicians and citizens were enlightened though some were); it was that Seattle and its suburbs were so much younger than the rest of the country. In time, the Northwest's adolescence was bound to end, and the crumbling roads are proof positive that it has. Fred Moody is the author, most recently, of ``The Visionary Position.'' nytimes.com