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.
Politics : The Donkey's Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Mephisto who wrote (4257)7/26/2002 12:12:38 PM
From: Rascal  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 15516
 
nytimes.com.
July 26, 2002
The Private Interest
By PAUL KRUGMAN

ince the early months of 2000, the Nasdaq has fallen about 75 percent, the broader S.&P. 500 more than 40 percent. These aren't mere paper losses; they translate into disappointment and even hardship for millions of Americans. Now more than ever we need institutions that provide a safety net for the middle class.

Yet George W. Bush still wants to party like it's 1999. On Wednesday he insisted that he continued to favor partially privatizing Social Security.

Bear in mind that ordinary Americans are already more vulnerable to stock market fluctuations than ever before. Twenty years ago most workers had "defined benefit" pension plans: their employers promised them a certain amount per year. During the long bull market, however, such plans were largely replaced with 401(k)'s — "defined contribution" plans whose payoff depends on the market. This sounded great when stocks were rising. But now many will find either that they can't retire, or that they will have to get by with much less than they expected. For some, Social Security will be all that's left.

Mr. Bush first proposed privatizing Social Security back when people still believed that stocks only go up. Even then his proposal made no sense; as I've explained before, it was based on the claim that 2-1=4, that you can divert the payroll taxes of younger workers into personal accounts and still pay promised benefits to older workers. But now even the nonsensical promise that individual accounts would earn stock market returns looks pretty unappealing. So why does he keep pushing the idea?

One reason is ideology: hard-line conservatives are determined to build a bridge back to the 1920's. Another is Mr. Bush's infallibility complex: to back off on privatization would be to admit, at least implicitly, to a mistake — and this administration never, ever does that.

But there may be a third reason. Ask yourself: Who would benefit directly from the creation of "personal accounts" under Social Security?

Those personal accounts won't be like personal stock portfolios. The Social Security Administration can't and won't become a stockbroker for 130 million clients, most of them with quite small accounts. Instead it's likely that a privatization scheme would require individuals to invest with one of a handful of designated private investment funds.

That would mean enormous commissions for the managers of those funds. And those who would be likely to benefit showed their appreciation, in advance: During the 2000 election, according to opensecrets.org, campaign contributors in the two categories labeled "securities and investment" and "miscellaneous finance" (basically individual wheeler-dealers) gave Mr. Bush almost six times as much as they gave Al Gore.

Here, too, Mr. Bush's past is prologue. I reported in an earlier column the story of Utimco, the University of Texas fund that, while Mr. Bush was governor and the current secretary of commerce, Donald Evans, headed the U.T. regents, placed more than $1 billion with private funds, many with close business or political ties to Mr. Bush himself. Among the beneficiaries were the Wyly brothers, who later financed a crucial smear campaign against John McCain. ("Bush reveals his poisonous colors" was the headline of a piece about that campaign, written by the online pundit Andrew Sullivan.)

Could America's retirement savings really be used to reward the administration's friends? Ask the teachers of Texas. In one of many odd deals during Mr. Bush's time as governor, the Texas teachers' retirement system sold several buildings without open bids, taking a $70 million loss, to a company controlled by Richard Rainwater, a prime mover behind Mr. Bush's rise to wealth.

In an Aug. 16, 1998, article in The Houston Chronicle — which should be required reading for anyone trying to understand the Bush administration — the reporter, R. G. Ratcliffe, matter-of-factly summarized this and many other unusual deals thus: "A pattern emerges: When a Bush is in power, Bush's business associates benefit."

Of course, personal Social Security accounts would have to be managed by nationally reputable institutions. Mr. Bush couldn't give the business to his old Texas cronies — could he?

When a politician won't let go of a proposal that, by any normal calculation, should be completely off the table, you have to wonder.



To: Mephisto who wrote (4257)7/26/2002 3:51:01 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
Bigotry in Islam - And Here

"History suggests that focusing on the moral deficiencies of other peoples simply underscores our own."

The New York Times
July 9, 2002

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

The Islamic world represses women, spawns terrorism, is prone to war, resists democracy and has contributed remarkably
few great scientists or writers to modern civilization. So it's time to defend Islam.

In speaking to Arab friends, I've reproached them for the virulent anti-Semitism in their societies. But it's a cheap shot for us to
scold Arabs for acquiescing in religious hatred unless we try vigorously to uproot our own religious bigotry.

Since 9/11, appalling hate speech about Islam has circulated in the U.S. on talk radio, on the Internet and in particular among
conservative Christian pastors -
the modern echoes of Charles Coughlin, the "radio priest" who had a peak listening audience
in the 1930's of one-third of America for his anti-Semitic diatribes.

"Islam is, quite simply, a religion of war," Paul Weyrich and William Lind, two leading American conservatives, write in a new
booklet titled "Why Islam Is a Threat to America and the West." Mr. Lind said of American Muslims: "They should be
encouraged to leave. They are a fifth column in this country."

Ann Coulter, the columnist, suggested that "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to
Christianity."


The Rev. Franklin Graham, son of the Rev. Billy Graham and a prominent evangelist in his own right, said of Islam: "I believe
it's a very evil and wicked religion." The Rev. Jerry Vines, past president of the Southern Baptist Convention, declared that the
Prophet Muhammad was "a demon-obsessed pedophile."


President Bush set an example of tolerance immediately after 9/11, but lately has been quiet. He should denounce the
bigotry, rather than (as he did by speaking to the Baptist convention after the "pedophile" slur) condoning it. If we want Saudi
princes to confront their society's hate-mongers, our own leaders should confront ours.

One problem with this prejudice (as with Osama bin Laden's) is that it blinds the bigots to any understanding of what they
deride. If Islam were really just the caricature that it is often reduced to, then how would it be so appealing as to become the
world's fastest-growing religion?

Islam already has 1.3 billion adherents and is spreading rapidly, particularly in Africa, partly because it also has admirable
qualities that anyone who has lived in the Muslim world observes: a profound egalitarianism and a lack of hierarchy that confer
dignity and self-respect among believers; greater hospitality than in other societies; an institutionalized system of charity,
zakat, to provide for the poor. Many West Africans, for example, see Christianity as corrupt and hierarchical and flock to Islam,
which they view as democratic and inclusive.

One can dispute that, and it's reasonable to worry about the implications of the spread of Islam for the status of women and for
the genital mutilation of girls. But simply thundering that Islam is intrinsically violent does not help to understand it and picks
up on racist and xenophobic threads that are some of the sorriest chapters in our history.

Of course, Islam is troubled in ways no one can ignore. The scholar Samuel Huntington has noted that the Islamic world has
"bloody borders," with conflict around much of its perimeter. Of the 26 countries torn by conflict in the year 2000, 14 have
large Muslim populations. And on average, Muslim countries mobilize twice as large a share of the population in armed forces
as do predominately Christian countries.

This is fair grounds for debate, but the sweeping denigrations of Islam are mush. Critics often quote from the Koran, for
example, to argue that Islam is intrinsically violent ("fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them,
beleaguer them"). But the Koran, like the Bible, can be quoted for any purpose. After all, the New Testament embraces slavery
("Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling").


In times of stress, even smart and sophisticated people tend to be swept up in prejudice. Teddy Roosevelt said in 1886: "I don't
go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn't inquire too
closely in the case of the tenth. The most vicious cowboy has more moral principle than the average Indian."


History suggests that focusing on the moral deficiencies of other peoples simply underscores our own.

nytimes.com
Copyright 2002 The New York Times



To: Mephisto who wrote (4257)7/26/2002 3:54:56 PM
From: Mephisto  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 15516
 
Silencing a Palestinian Moderate

"…important elements in the Israeli government do not want a real two-state solution and do not want political
negotiations with a reformed Palestinian leadership. They prefer the present situation: the West Bank occupied or tightly
controlled by Israel, with an increasing number of Jewish settlers. The last thing they want is a respected Palestinian
interlocutor. "

July 13, 2002

By ANTHONY LEWIS

Why would Israel shut down the office of the leading Palestinian moderate? Many asked that question when Israeli police
acted this week against Sari Nusseibeh, president of Al Quds University and the Palestine Liberation Organization's
designated representative in Jerusalem. They carted off his files and changed the lock on the door.

Mr. Nusseibeh has been a voice for peace over many years. In 1988, before a two-state solution was policy on either side, he
told me that Palestinians should say to Israel: "We don't want to destroy your state, but we want our own state alongside." Last
fall he said Palestinians should give up their claim of a right to return to homes in Israel.

In short, he is the perfect example of the new kind of leadership, peaceful and pragmatic, that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of
Israel and President Bush have said the Palestinians must have before there can be political negotiations on an end to the
conflict. Why target him?


The answer is that important elements in the Israeli government do not want a real two-state solution and do not want political
negotiations with a reformed Palestinian leadership. They prefer the present situation: the West Bank occupied or tightly
controlled by Israel, with an increasing number of Jewish settlers. The last thing they want is a respected Palestinian
interlocutor.

The police raid was ordered by Uzi Landau, minister of public security in the Sharon government. A hard-line member of the
Likud Party, Mr. Landau opposed the Oslo agreement, with its call for gradual Israeli withdrawal from occupied territory in
favor of Palestinian control.

Jerusalem is a second part of the disinclination to negotiate. Mr. Landau and others on the political right oppose giving up any
part of Israel's claimed sovereignty over greater Jerusalem. But Palestinians say they must have the capital of their state in East
Jerusalem, which is overwhelmingly Palestinian in population.

No Palestinian leader would, or politically could, accept a final agreement without at least a small, symbolic Palestinian piece of
Jerusalem. The previous Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, recognized as much at Camp David two years ago when he offered
the Palestinians sovereignty over parts of East Jerusalem. Israelis like Mr. Landau who say they will refuse to negotiate about
Jerusalem are in effect saying there will be no negotiations.

Mr. Landau said Mr. Nusseibeh's role as Jerusalem representative of the P.L.O. was an effort to "undermine Israeli sovereignty
in Jerusalem." Mr. Nusseibeh has no power there, but he is visible. And he comes from a family that has been prominent in
Jerusalem for centuries. The Nusseibehs hold the keys to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, given to them by the quarreling
Christian sects because they could not agree on which should have them.

Where does Prime Minister Sharon stand on these questions? He did not tell Mr. Landau to move against Sari Nusseibeh. But
given the positions he has stated frequently, there is no reason to think that he opposed the police raid or disagreed with its
objectives.

Mr. Sharon has made clear that his idea of a "Palestinian state," if he ever agreed to its creation, is very different from the viable
state that international negotiators have had in mind. He envisages islands of Palestinian territory, not contiguous, surrounded
by Israeli settlements, highways and military units. It would not include any part of Jerusalem.


Mr. Sharon and Mr. Landau did not worry about United States reaction to the Nusseibeh raid. They believe they have carte
blanche from President Bush to act as they wish against the Palestinians. Mr. Bush's recent speech really withdrew the United
States from an active role for the moment. So Israel felt no sting from a White House statement that the Nusseibeh raid was
"troubling."

All this must fascinate Sari Nusseibeh, who is really not a politician but an Oxford-educated philosopher. This spring he, a
Muslim, used a Christian metaphor in a comment to David Remnick of The New Yorker. "The Palestinians," he said, "have to
resurrect the spirit of Christ to absorb the sense of pain and insult they feel and control it, and not let it determine the way
they act toward Israel. They have to realize that an act of violence does not serve their interest. This is a gigantic undertaking."

Anthony Lewis is a former Times columnist.

nytimes.com
Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company



To: Mephisto who wrote (4257)7/26/2002 5:15:09 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
Palestinian children's plight: Amid conflict, malnutrition has risen
substantially


"The preliminary findings indicated that 30 percent
of children were suffering from chronic
malnutrition and 21 percent from acute
malnutrition, according to diplomats who had
been briefed on the findings"

James Bennet The New York Times
Friday, July 26, 2002

iht.com


JERUSALEM A study under way for the U.S.
Agency for International Development is finding
that malnutrition among Palestinian children in
the West Bank and the Gaza Strip has increased
substantially during the conflict with Israel,
according to diplomats and government officials
knowledgeable about the survey.

Preliminary results of the study, due to be
completed and made public next month, are
causing alarm within the Israeli government and
the Bush administration, which has been pressing
Israel to alleviate Palestinian suffering.


A senior Israeli official said that Israel had learned
through diplomatic channels of two forthcoming
American studies detailing a rise in malnutrition.
"This is going to be disastrous for Israel," the
official said.

The Israeli government, already anticipating
international criticism over conditions among
Palestinians, has recently stepped up talks with
Palestinian representatives to address the needs
of those in the West Bank.

At the urging of the Bush administration, the
Israelis have shelved a demand that the Americans
supervise any transfer to Yasser Arafat's
Palestinian Authority of Palestinian tax revenue
that Israel has withheld during the conflict, Israeli
officials said Thursday.

Shimon Peres, the Israeli foreign minister, said
Israel would begin transferring a relatively small
portion of the money to the Palestinian Authority
next week.

The preliminary results of the Agency for
International Development's malnutrition survey
have been widely discussed in diplomatic and aid
donor circles here. Palestinian officials have also
learned of the results, and some of the early
findings have been posted on a Palestinian Web
site, www.miftah.org.

American, Israeli and Palestinian officials, as well
as European diplomats who were briefed about
the survey, said they expected the final study to
show a substantial increase in malnutrition.

The survey, conducted by Johns Hopkins
University on contract for the Agency for
International Development, covers 1,000
households in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The
preliminary results were based on about a third of
that sample, a diplomat here said.

The preliminary results overstate the current
findings of the survey, according to Western
diplomats who have seen more recent conclusions.

The preliminary findings indicated that 30 percent
of children were suffering from chronic
malnutrition and 21 percent from acute
malnutrition, according to diplomats who had
been briefed on the findings.


As the researchers broadened their study to the
bigger sample, those numbers declined. But the
figures continue to show a substantial rise in
malnutrition, people familiar with the survey said.

Two years ago, a survey done for the same agency,
described by diplomats as somewhat less rigorous,
found that 7 percent of Palestinian children were
chronically malnourished and 2.5 percent were
acutely malnourished.

Officials of the Agency for International
Development declined to discuss the findings,
scheduled to be issued Aug. 5.

"We can't substantiate any numbers until Aug. 5,"
said Gina Benevento, the press officer for the
agency in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.The
Israeli military operation has presented the
government with a dilemma, Israeli officials said.

While it wants to remain at least for now in the
West Bank, the Israeli government does not want
to shoulder the costly burden of supplying
services to the Palestinians, as it did before the
Oslo accords created limited Palestinian self-rule.

For Israel to supply food, an Israeli official said,
would be to start down that road. "We've been
there," he said. "So the dilemma here is between
the security and need."

In all, Israel has withheld some $600 million in
Palestinian tax revenue during the 22-month
conflict, contending that the money might be used
to finance terrorism.

Under the Oslo accords, Israel is supposed to
transfer the money - amassed from customs
duties, value added taxes and other fees - to the
Palestinian Authority.


Israeli officials said they now intended to hand
over $43 million in tax revenue, with a first
payment of $15 million likely to be made next
week.

iht.com



To: Mephisto who wrote (4257)7/26/2002 5:28:11 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
"Evil" has been one of George W. Bush's favorite words. There is "the axis of evil" And there
are the "evil-doers," a term Bush coined for the Taliban and Saddam Hussein among others.
Still, I wonder if George W. Bush ever thought of himself as an "evil-doer."

Surely he should. He let Ariel Sharon use an American F16 to kill Palestinian civilians.
Now, after Israel's recent attacks on the Palestinian territority, Palestinian children starve. (See: siliconinvestor.com

Why has Bush let Sharon kill and starve the Palestinians?


According to The Times of London , the answer is easy: Bush wants the Jewish vote. - Mephisto

" Ariel Sharon is now Israel's Prime
Minister. Mr. Bush shares his father's
dislike of the man but hides it better
and has shied from criticising
hardline Israeli policy. His strategists
want to increase his Jewish vote from
19 per cent in 2000 to more than a
third."


July 26 2002
timesonline.co.uk
WORLD

Bush finds his future is
undermined by the past

From Roland Watson in Washington

WHEN President Bush visits the family compound in
Maine, he lets his father drive the golf buggy. What
worries the White House is that the elder Bush's
political roadmap is one to be avoided at all costs.

Both men attained tremendous
popularity thanks to their leadership
at times of national crisis - the 1991
Gulf War and now the War on Terror.
But polls this week show the younger
President's ratings beginning to slip
in much the way his father's did in
the early 1990s. From a seemingly
impregnable position, Mr Bush Sr
ended up losing in 1992.

No one is suggesting that the
incumbent will lose in 2004, but his
approval ratings are slipping, his
handling of America's corporate crisis
is doubted and his closeness to big
business is being questioned. It looks
like a classic recipe for a rebuff in
November's congressional elections.

The irony is that Mr Bush has made it
a central tenet to avoid the mistakes
that cost his father re-election. The
Texan swagger designed to distinguish
him from the North-Eastern patriarch
he calls "Poppy" epitomises an urge to
be different in office as well as style.
But on almost every big issue there
are echoes of the past. The elder
President was the victim of economic
recession. The economy is again
troubled and falling stock markets
have shaken the country. In two
months the right track/wrong track
measure, the "Dow Jones of politics",
has turned from plus 13 points to
minus 13.

Approval for Mr Bush's response to
accounting scandals has fallen from
plus 19 to plus 7 in the past week.

Having maintained his
post-September 11 approval ratings in
the 80s well into this year, his
showing has now been dragged down
into the mid- 60s. The angle of decline
may not mirror his father's. But nor is
it so different.

Mr Bush has one clear advantage over
his father - the economic problems
have come early. If Mr Bush Sr had
served another two years, voters may
have judged his painful decision to
reduce the budget deficit more kindly.
Instead all they remembered was his
broken promise: "Read my lips - no
new taxes".

This President is also a different
character, a more astute campaigner.
Mr Bush Sr's idea of sympathising
with struggling voters was his 1992
soundbite: "Message: I care." His son
never delivers a speech without
furrowing his brow for the line: "If one
American loses their job, I'm
concerned."

But this is an election year and if the
Democrats win the House and retain
the Senate, the President may face
the kind of budget deadlock that
wounded his father. Mr Bush's key
domestic achievement - a sweeping
ten-year, $1.3 trillion tax cut -
deliberately distinguished him from
his father. But September 11 has
changed the backdrop. A budget
surplus of $127 billion has been
transformed into a $165 billion deficit.

If the deficit continues to grow, the
value of pensions to fall and outrage at
millionaire business executives
persists, will Mr Bush's refusal to
rewrite his tax plans be as damaging
as his father's reversing of his? The
burden of history could grow heavier.


Mr Bush has also chosen the Middle
East to paint himself differently. Mr
Bush Sir had good relations with
Yitzhak Shamir, the Israeli Prime
Minister, but said of the Housing
Minister: "Sharon is a problem." He
stood up to Israel over its settlement
programme and saw his share of the
US Jewish vote fall from 35 per cent in
1988 to 11 per cent in 1992.

Ariel Sharon is now Israel's Prime
Minister. Mr Bush shares his father's
dislike of the man but hides it better
and has shied from criticising
hardline Israeli policy. His strategists
want to increase his Jewish vote from
19 per cent in 2000 to more than a
third.


The other great issue that confronted
both administrations is Saddam
Hussein. The Iraqi President outlasted
Mr Bush Sr, his Gulf War victor. Now
his son is vowing to topple him.
Success in that endeavour could
secure his re-election, of course, but
White House officials deny that his
policies are being in any way dictated
by family history.

"I think he's trying to avoid the
mistakes of Bush I, of Bill Clinton, of
John Quincy Adams," one White
House official said. The reference to
Adams, America's sixth President, was
no accident. He came to office in a
disputed election and lost four years
later. His father, John Adams, had
suffered the same fate in 1800.

timesonline.co.uk