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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sylvester80 who wrote (6973)	9/21/2002 9:43:07 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Ex-Friends __________________________________________________ by Peter Beinart The New Republic Issue date 09.23.02 When Iraq hawks hear Iraq doves say the United States needs international support for a war against Saddam Hussein, they get suspicious. And understandably so. Saying the United States shouldn't invade without global support is a convenient way for American politicians to oppose an invasion while fobbing responsibility for that opposition onto non-Americans. It allows the Bush administration's critics to outsource foreign policy judgments they should be making themselves. But even though Americans should make up their own minds, international opposition to an Iraq war is still a big problem. The problem isn't moral--given the penchant of many of our European allies for cutting lucrative deals with dangerous dictatorships like Iraq and Iran, they don't exactly hold the ethical high ground. And it isn't military either--if the United States has the support of a couple of countries on Iraq's border, it can overthrow Saddam without a single French or German sortie. Rather, European opposition is a problem financially and politically. It's a financial problem because when it comes to overseas expenditures, the United States (especially with Republicans running the government) is cheap. If Europe doesn't back the war, it won't be obligated to help pay for the post-Saddam peace. And that could leave Iraq's reconstruction (including, perhaps, peacekeeping) almost entirely in the hands of a Bush administration that loathes nation-building and faces a mountain of budgetary red ink. In which case Iraq might never be adequately reconstructed at all. European opposition also represents a political problem because much of the world--rightly or wrongly--considers the United States a colossus bent on dominating the planet. If war with Iraq is seen as a purely American exercise, it will provoke even greater hostility toward the United States down the road. The Bush administration seems to think multilateralism gives weak European states an influence they don't deserve. But it also eases their resentment of the United States, which makes them less likely to band together to try to cut Washington down to size. Since returning from his August vacation, President George W. Bush has lobbied numerous foreign leaders, which would seem to suggest an all-out White House effort to convince other governments to back war with Iraq. But in a deeper sense, that effort is an illusion. The Bush administration has actually put remarkably little effort into winning our allies' support for overthrowing Saddam. In fact, it has helped produce much of the international opposition it now seeks to overcome. It has done so by picking a series of petty fights with America's closest allies that have bred public hostility throughout Europe and have made it politically harder for European leaders to support the United States now that it really counts. The fights started soon after Bush took office: In March 2001 he rejected the Kyoto Protocol, a global-warming pact beloved by Europeans. Relations worsened that summer when the United States opposed a treaty restricting the spread of biological weapons and signaled its intention to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. By August 2001 an International Herald Tribune poll found that less than 20 percent of respondents in Britain, Germany, France, and Italy thought Bush took European concerns into account when making U.S. policy. In a quote that now sounds prophetic, Dana Allin, an expert on trans-Atlantic relations at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies, warned, "[I]f a crisis erupts--in the Persian Gulf or Taiwan Strait--where European views and interests are ambiguous ... [Bush's] unpopularity certainly could impair his ability to line up allied support for U.S. action." Before September 11 the Bush administration could perhaps be forgiven for stiffing America's friends in Europe. After all, in a world where the United States faced no grave threats, and needed no grand coalitions, what was the harm? But astonishingly, the White House has continued playing hardball with European governments even after it knew it might need those governments' backing for a war with Iraq. All this year the Bush administration has waged a remarkably heavy-handed campaign against the International Criminal Court, an institution enthusiastically backed by virtually all of America's European allies. Rather than seeking to modify the court to protect U.S. troops from politically motivated prosecution, the White House has instead tried to bludgeon its allies into signing treaties guaranteeing Americans immunity--threatening to oppose both future peacekeeping missions and the further expansion of NATO if it doesn't get its way. On trade, the Bush administration has been equally myopic. In March it slapped tariffs on steel imports from Japan, Russia, and a host of European countries, including Britain. The tariffs humiliated Tony Blair, who was mocked at home for having sent troops to fight alongside the United States in Afghanistan and having received nothing in return. In Moscow--which had swallowed hard and allowed U.S. bases in Central Asia--Alexei Arbatov, a key member of the State Duma, spoke of Russians' "deep sense of resentment. They do not believe that for all the strategic and military concessions Russia will get great economic cooperation." The White House followed up its steel decision in May with a farm bill packed with protectionist subsidies and 27 percent duties on Canadian softwood lumber. The point is not that the Bush administration was wrong, and the Europeans right, on each conflict. Rather, it is that compared with European support on Iraq, each conflict was trivial. The Bush administration prides itself on its ability to set aside distractions that interfere with its post-September 11 mission--which is why it has essentially put American policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on hold until we go after Saddam. But with regard to Europe, the administration has done exactly the opposite--miring itself in one peripheral spat after another. And those spats are coming back to haunt the United States today. Take Germany. All year the Bush administration has been sticking its finger in Berlin's eye over global warming, trade, and the International Criminal Court. The result is that, according to a recent poll by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations and the German Marshall Fund of the United States, 62 percent of Germans rate American foreign policy as either fair or poor. And that has led German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, facing a tough reelection challenge, to curry public favor by slamming the Bush administration's Iraq policy--which must put a smile on Saddam's face. In the second presidential debate with Al Gore, Bush said, "It's important to be friends with people when you don't need each other so that when you do there's a strong bond of friendship." A good insight--too bad he's forgotten it when it matters most. _________________________________________ Peter Beinart is the editor of The New Republic. tnr.com

To: sylvester80 who wrote (6973)	9/21/2002 9:54:49 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

From Barron's... Rich and Reviled Tech stocks with fat wallets but thin stock prices get no respect, but maybe some should By ANDREW BARY Call them the living dead or cash-rich bargain stocks. They are technology companies whose share prices have been savaged in the brutal bear market of the past 30 months and now trade at or below the value of the cash on their balance sheets. These former investor favorites include Commerce One, Corvis, Sycamore Networks, and Tibco Software. Some value-oriented investors are attracted to them because their businesses essentially can be purchased free or at a negative implied price. Investors in these stocks could win if business conditions improve or if the companies make cash distributions or are taken over. Some of the stocks have slid so low that their issuers have done reverse splits to boost their prices. Many are orphans, with little or no coverage from Wall Street analysts and scant interest from institutions because of their low market values and share prices below $5. Institutions often avoid such stocks because of their penny-stock taint and perceived bankruptcy risk, although most cash-rich outfits aren't in imminent danger of going belly up. The main risk is that operating losses continue, burning through existing cash. "You want to differentiate the solid franchises from the value traps," says Steve Milunovich, tech strategist at Merrill Lynch. "A stock may look cheap, but there could be fundamental erosion in the company's business. You want to analyze a company's strategic position and whether you can count on that cash being there in 12 months." Milunovich says a solid cash position "at least buys you time," but he and other analysts argue that sales and profit growth -- not balance sheets -- generally drive tech stocks. The accompanying table ("In the Bargain Bin"), compiled in part from a screen generated by Merrill Lynch, shows 29 cash-rich stocks. The list shows net cash (cash, after factoring in debt), net cash per share, as well as book value per share, based on the most recent quarterly financial statements. Most of the book-value calculations are conservative, being based on tangible book, which excludes goodwill and other intangibles. The net cash figures typically include marketable securities. The group can be separated into two general categories: smaller firms with large cash positions relative to their market values, and larger companies, such as Sun Microsystems, Siebel Systems and BMC Software with ample, but not enormous, cash hoards relative to their share prices, but which arguably have better business prospects and greater staying power than the smaller fry. Among the big stocks, Sun could be a bargain. The server maker trades at 2.70 a share, down 78% this year and 95% under its 2000 peak of 65. Sun faces competitive challenges and has seen an exodus of top talent. Yet it has a great balance sheet, with net cash of $4.3 billion, or $1.30 a share, as of June 30. That's about half of Sun's market value. Sun's book value is $3 a share and its tangible book, excluding goodwill, is $2.33. Sun is trading below book value for the first time since going public in 1986. In addition, Sun's price-sales ratio, derived by dividing its $9 billion market value by its projected annual revenue of $12 billion, stands at 0.75, and is only about 0.4 when adjusted for cash. Sun is expected to operate at a slight loss in the current quarter and at break-even in its fiscal year ending in June. "Sun isn't a bad one to think about," says Milunovich. "It's a big company with a large installed base. It has discounted a lot of the bad news." He says Sun will revive in the next three years and that "patient investors probably will come out okay." Many Street analysts are neutral on Sun, and Milunovich is hardly excited about it. Yet it seems that much of the risk has been wrung out of Sun, barring steep and unforeseen losses. The downside for the stock appears to be 2 to 2.50 a share, while the upside could be substantial if tech spending improves or Nasdaq rallies. Assuming 30 to 35 cents in annual earnings power, Sun could trade up to 7 or 8 in the next few years. Siebel, at 7.50, has over $3 a share in net cash, expected profits of 31 cents this year and ample cash flow from operations. Its downside risk seems limited. Yahoo, at 9.50, possesses nearly $2.50 a share in net cash, and boasts another significant asset, a 34% stake in Yahoo Japan, valued at about $3 a share. The combination of the cash and the Yahoo Japan stake so far has put a floor under Yahoo's stock at 8. Apple Computer's cash position, along with its profitability, has supported the stock. Apple trades at 14.50, little more than its $11 a share in cash. JDS Uniphase, recently at a little more than 2, has about $1.4 billion, or $1 a share in net cash and a $1.47 book value. Earthlink, the Internet-service provider, has $556 million of cash and minimal debt. At 5.70, it isn't trading much above its cash per share of $3.70, giving only a modest value to its five million subscribers. Comverse Technology, at 7.42, appears to pose little downside risk, given its net cash position of $7.30 a share. It's likely to post modest losses until next year. But, as a leading provider of voicemail software for the wireless phone industry, it has ample earnings power and strategic value. Research in Motion's key product, the Blackberry hand-held wireless e-mail device, has been dubbed the "Crackberry" because of its popularity with users, including many on Wall Street. At 9.30, it trades for little more than the $7.67 a share in cash on its balance sheet. Detractors cite competitive threats and operating losses, but RIM has staying power, given its cash. And it's a potential acquisition target. Milunovich says Corvis and the larger Ciena, both makers of optical-networking products for telecoms, could be takeover candidates, too. Corvis, which once fetched 115 a share, trades for just 62 cents a share, less than half its net cash position. Corvis's sales have collapsed, to just $3 million in the latest quarter, but its fans like its balance sheet and technology. Sycamore Networks, which once touched almost 200 a share, is languishing at 2.40, but has net cash of $4 per share. Commerce One, whose fans thought it would clean up in business-to-business e-commerce, has fallen to 2 from over $1,500, adjusted for a recent 1-for-10 reverse stock split. It has more than $5 a share in cash, but is burning through it. Merrill Lynch strategist Richard Bernstein says techs' relatively high cash levels inhibit consolidation. "A lot of these companies should be liquidated and the cash returned to shareholders," he adds. Alternatively, they might be sold.

To: sylvester80 who wrote (6973)	9/21/2002 12:30:47 PM
From: Jim Willie CB	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 89467

Fascist creeping elements began with Rehnquist court with changes to Search & Seizure laws e.g. probable cause redefined, criminal intent interpretable Nixon had a profound effect on the legal system, police enforcement, and civil liberties Clinton did nothing to relax the trend toward fascism instead, he embarked on a Strong Dollar policy that wrecked the entire US Mfg sector and on a Financial Reform movement that repealed Glass-Steagal Clinton's legacy will be financial in nature think WRECKING BALL after the middle class wrote the Hamptons a check ironically, the rejoining of bank-broker-insurance comes just in time for the Greater Depression underway the lawsuits are mounting, not with much publicity yet but these lawsuits will be monstrous JPMorgo will need all that Salomon deep pockets not sure they merged enough insurance pockets though both Dem and GOP leaders make huge errors they pick different places to cause havoc and undermine this country's heritage the problem is that we choose our leaders based upon ability to look convincing and charming before a TV set or a podium, and to raise large sums of money actually, I think we love to choose NOBODY MEN, men with no past and no history, no opinions, no bonds e.g. Carter, Clinton, Bushy who will the next NOBODY be? they are all amateurs at leadership we might as well offer up rotating CEO's Reagan bankrupted the nation with federal debt, in between Cabinet Meeting naps the gain was a destroyed Soviet Union as they could not keep up with our military development pace the payback for us is really nice killing machines to use in the deserts of the MidEast / jim

To: sylvester80 who wrote (6973)	9/21/2002 1:42:13 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

This is too funny... 'Flight of the ChickenHawk' toostupidtobepresident.com

To: sylvester80 who wrote (6973)	9/22/2002 9:18:10 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

War Against Iraq Needs UN Stamp By Clyde Prestowitz Editorial The Chicago Tribune Published September 22, 2002 "If you attack Iraq without adequate United Nations authorization, Indonesia and Malaysia will blow up. With the UN you can manage it. Without the UN it will be a disaster." Those words, spoken by a prominent Southeast Asian leader at a recent conference on anti-Americanism sponsored by the State Department, were echoed by other participants from virtually every part of the globe and should serve as a reality check for Congress as it considers a possible resolution authorizing a U.S. attack on Iraq. In the wake of President Bush's appeal to the United Nations to enforce its resolutions calling for Iraq to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction, a great debate has erupted on U.S. editorial pages and within the Democratic and Republican Parties over how long to wait for the UN to act and under what circumstances the United States should be prepared to move without UN authorization and support. As this debate moves to Congress in the next few weeks, it is critically important for that largely parochial body to gain some inkling of how the rest of the world feels about America and how it might react to a solely American show in Iraq. Representing a cross section of government, academic and media experts from around the world, conference participants emphasized that sentiment about America has changed dramatically since the outpouring of support that flowed in the immediate wake of Sept. 11. Then, as American Embassies around the world were buried in flowers, and as candlelight vigils in Tehran were accompanied by expressions of sympathy and support from Chinese President Jiang Zemin, French flags flew at half-staff along the Seine in Paris. Now, an instinctive affection overseas for Americans as people and an admiration for American institutions and values is being soured by policies and attitudes that conference participants said seem at odds with what the United States has preached in the past as well as with the interests of much of the rest of the world. Foreign concerns about the United States cover a broad range of issues, but four stand out. First, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the United States is seen by most foreign observers to be favoring Israel. This, coupled with much U.S. media commentary that seems to link Islam and extremism, has inflamed anti-American sentiment throughout the Muslim world by creating the impression that America is attacking Islam itself. Second, America's attitude toward its allies is often seen as inconsistent and self-serving. Pakistan, for example, has sometimes felt like a tennis ball as it bounced from being a fast friend during the Cold War to the object of harsh criticism for lack of progress on democracy to being a fast friend again when needed for support of the U.S. strike against Afghanistan and then back to the doghouse again for its conflict with India over Kashmir. Third, there is also widespread dismay over U.S. unilateralism as demonstrated by U.S. rejection of international treaties such as the Kyoto agreement on global warming, the international agreement to ban chemical and biological weapons, the treaty limiting exports of small arms, the agreement banning use of land mines, and the International Criminal Court, all of which the United States played a large role in initiating. Many longtime friends of America feel the United States is reneging on its obligations as a global citizen and turning its back on the whole notion of a global system based on the rule of law and multilateral institutions it has championed since the end of World War II. This fear is exacerbated by the fourth issue of concern, which is the new doctrine of pre-emptive attack. No nation in history has had the relative power of the United States, and this power has accrued at a moment when the world has shrunk so that the might of America is omnipresent. Even a benign hegemon with that much power is frightening. A hegemon of such enormousness that baldly commits itself to pre-emptive action as it sees fit is frightening. All of these concerns become fused in the case of Iraq. While there is no love in the Muslim world for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Washington's threats of an attack to achieve regime change are interpreted as just more evidence of American hostility to Islam. Yes, people know Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, but so, they note, do many other nations, including China, North Korea, Russia, India, Pakistan, Iran and Israel. And yes, they know Iraq is in violation of UN resolutions, but so is Israel. So why is the U.S. focus only on Iraq, they ask. In the Muslim world, the answer is obvious: U.S. hatred of Islam. There is also fear of American inconsistency. Yes, people know Hussein gassed his own population, but the United States voiced no outrage at the time. Indeed, it continued to back Iraq as a bulwark against Iran. Will America flip-flop again at some time in the future, leaving its allies in the lurch? Finally, there is fear of setting a dangerous precedent in terms of international law. If the United States decides unilaterally to remove Hussein today, whom will it target tomorrow? Are only countries that embrace Western values to be tolerated? All these fears are generating opposition to U.S. action against Iraq that can be assuaged only by clear UN backing. Even longtime U.S. allies like Germany are firmly insisting that they will provide no assistance to a U.S. action against Iraq unless it is on the basis of UN authorization. Rather than being an obstacle, the UN could be an opportunity for the United States. As one UN ambassador at the conference emphasized: "No country wants to endanger its bilateral relations with America over multilateral institutional matters. The United States can get the blessing it needs if it will only ask." As evidence of this, he noted that the Security Council had recently granted the United States certain exemptions from the jurisdiction of the new International Criminal Court despite initial opposition by all the non-U.S. members of the council. In view of this, Congress would be wise to consider the possibility that the fastest and easiest road to Baghdad lies through New York and the UN Security Council and to craft its resolution with that in mind. ________________________________________________________ Clyde Prestowitz is president of the Economic Strategy Institute in Washington Copyright © 2002, Chicago Tribune chicagotribune.com