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: TigerPaw who wrote (7090)	9/22/2002 8:13:24 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

<<...If preemption became widely acceptable, according to some military experts, one country fearing an assault might attack its rival first, preempting the preemptor and escalating a conflict that might have been resolved without force. Or a nation under a sudden attack might choose to deploy chemical, biological or nuclear weapons it otherwise might not use...>> washingtonpost.com TP: Good Find...The Washington Post had that story on the front page of today's newspaper...lets hope it motivates Congress to ask the Administration some tough questions about this 'new road' they seem to want to travel down. Shrub and the NeoCon policy makers are sure doing a good job at antagonizing our allies overseas...My hunch is that Colin Powell is a prudent and reluctant warrior who is getting quite frustrated...I think most of this new policy comes from the Perle, Rice, Cheney wing of the Administration...It doesn't surprise me at all...Let hope Congress steps up to the plate and does its job now. -Scott

To: TigerPaw who wrote (7090)	9/22/2002 8:22:33 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

U.S. Senators Warn of Possible 'Arab-Israeli' War By Lori Santos September 22, 2002 03:46 PM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Prominent members of the U.S. Congress warned on Sunday that a unilateral U.S. attack on Iraq could draw in Israel and lead to a wider Middle East war. Sen. Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said if the Israelis became involved "it becomes an Arab-Israeli war." Biden and others appearing on Sunday television talk shows responded to a report in The New York Times that said Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had told the Bush administration he would retaliate if Iraq attacks Israel. On CNN's "Late Edition," Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres would not say what Israel would do in the event of an Iraqi attack, but made it clear his country would coordinate its response with the United States. "We are not the ones to tell the United States what to do," Peres said. "We understand there is not going to be two wars and there are not going to be two supreme commands. So whatever will be, if it will be, should be coordinated." Biden, appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation," said if Israel responded to an attack no Muslim nation, including such critical allies as Saudi Arabia and Turkey, could support the U.S. effort against Iraq, even behind the scenes. "And you would find probably every embassy in the Middle East burned to the ground before it went too far," Biden warned. Sen. Richard Shelby, ranking Republican on the Senate intelligence committee, said any retaliation by the Israelis could mean "a widespread war in the Middle East." "And also we'd be perceived, we'd be fighting side-by-side with the Israelis against all the Arab interests, and the war could spread," the Alabama senator said on "Face the Nation." GULF WAR EXPERIENCE The New York Times said Sharon had told senior American officials privately of Israel's intention to act, unlike in the 1991 Gulf War, when dozens of Iraqi Scud missiles struck without an Israeli response. Biden urged President Bush to make his case for U.S. action based on his stated goal of ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. "That should be our international rationale for moving, if we move, not this new doctrine of pre-emption and this doctrine of "regime change," because then what do you tell the Israelis?" he asked. "Regime change" is the term Bush has used in calling for Saddam's ouster. The administration last week announced a new U.S. security doctrine of pursuing pre-emptive action against potential enemies. "If we make that the premise for our action, then in fact what ... pressure can we put on Israel not to do something that could make this an overall Middle East war?" Biden asked. Both lawmakers predicted, however, that the United States would move against Iraq in the new year. Biden also said Bush should make his case on Iraq before the American public. WAR RESOLUTION Shelby said he expected both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate to overwhelmingly pass a resolution giving Bush broad authority to attack Iraq though other lawmakers, mostly Democrats, have questioned the scope of the version proposed by the president last week. "It's much too broad," said Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "I think you will find a number of Republicans as well as Democrats who will be working on some language with some limits on it," Levin told "Fox News Sunday." Several lawmakers objected mainly to the White House wording authorizing use of force to "restore international peace and security in the region" around Iraq, which many said was a blank check for the administration to strike any country in the volatile area. Biden said he believed the American people would back the president but should be aware that any operation will cost billions of dollars and require thousands of U.S. troops. "The president should ... go on air and say, 'This is why I believe we will have to act, if we do, and the rationale for it and what we're in for.' ... There can be no foreign policy that succeeds without the informed consent of the American people." reuters.com

To: TigerPaw who wrote (7090)	9/22/2002 8:44:43 PM
From: lurqer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

In case you haven't seen it, another "consequences" post Message 18018286 lurqer

To: TigerPaw who wrote (7090)	9/23/2002 5:40:39 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Closing the digital divide Editorial By John Conyers, Jr. and Mel King The Boston Globe 9/23/2002 IN THE SAME WAY that the technology sector fueled the economic boom in the 1990s, the implosion of the technology sector is creating a drag on economic recovery. Since 2000, technology companies lost nearly $2 trillion in paper value on the stock market, witnessed the elimination of 225,000 jobs - one-fifth of the total jobs lost in the country - and accumulated as much as $400 billion in questionable debt. In our quest to revitalize this essential sector, we must realize one of its past shortcomings: Too few people participated in the information revolution. Indeed, only 30 percent of African-Americans and 32 percent of Hispanics use the Internet, usage rates less than half that of the general population. And while the next generation of Internet transmission technology - DSL or broadband - is available in 85 percent of American households, only 12 percent actually use the pricey service. Revitalizing the technology sector requires first and foremost public policies that will bring more Americans into the information age as full participants. This is especially important in African-American and other communities of color where technology, if readily accessible, helps overcome historical racial inequities in the marketplace. One of the most important things Congress ever did in this respect was to pass the 1996 Telecommunications Act. It required the Bell monopolies to open their transmission pipelines to competitors who wanted to develop innovative services. The law gave the Bells some benefits - it allowed them to charge these competitors handsome profits leasing these transmission lines and to enter the lucrative long distance market. It was a first step, and is now showing great promise. It has opened the door for hundreds of our small businesses - African-American, Latino, Asian, and Native American - to be part of the information age as entrepreneurs. These small telecom companies now offer service to 16 million consumers, generally at prices 10 to 50 percent less than the Bell companies. And in states like Michigan where competition is vigorously enforced, the Bells have been forced to slash basic phone rates by a third, from $21 to $14, saving consumers $27 million annually. The policy idea behind all this is called ''market-access'' or ''open systems'' It's become the acid test of civil rights in the technology arena. Without open systems, our small entrepreneurial firms can't get access to the transmission lines and will never bring their services to the market. Without open systems, there will be no competition to bring down prices so Americans of modest incomes can participate in the information age on equal footing. It's the technological equivalent of getting a seat on the bus. Amazingly, Congress is now considering legislation that would effectively repeal the 1996 Act. The Bell monopolies are pushing it as their number one Washington priority. While the Bells told us they'd support the democratizing requirements of the 1996 Act, they never fully supported it. In Massachusetts and elsewhere, they've been fined over $2 billion for thumbing their nose at the Act. Their goal is to wear down competitors and regulators to keep their systems closed. They've managed to hold onto nearly 90 percent of the market and control nearly every phone line going into the home. The Bells argue today that we must revert to closed systems, because leasing their transmission lines to competitors, they say, causes them to lose money they would otherwise use to deploy more fiber for broadband networks. But in Verizon v. FCC, the conservative and pro-business US Supreme Court called their story ''patently absurd'' and noted conversely ''actual investment in competing facilities since the effective date of the Act simply belies the no-stimulation argument's conclusion.'' Does the proposed repeal of the 1996 Act sound counter-productive and antisocial? Well, there's more. The bill proposes to preempt state regulators from protecting Massachusetts consumers from overcharges and other abuses. One state recently found that its Bell company had overcharged consumers $350 million for local telephone bills and millions more for DSL service that consumers never received. Questions have also been raised as to whether Verizon, through accounting games, is passing on false equipment expenses to Massachusetts consumers. Other countries, by contrast, have seen the light. South Korea champions competition to keep its telecommunications sector vibrant. Broadband usage there is four times as high as in the United States. Economic growth and civil rights go hand in hand. Bringing more people to the economic table means more innovation, lower prices, and a bigger customer base. No principle ushers that along better than market access. It's a calling card for economic civil rights in this new millennium. ___________________________________________________________ Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan is ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. Mel King is senior lecturer emeritus in MIT's Department of Urban Studies and Planning and a former state representative from the South End and Roxbury. boston.com