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


To: Mr. Whist who wrote (300316)9/25/2002 2:37:57 AM
From: Raymond Duray  Respond to of 769670
 
AMERICA BETRAYED AGAIN BY THE BUSH/CHENEY SWINDLERS --
WHITE MAN'S BURDEN --Paul Krugman NY Times

nytimes.com

White Man's Burden
By PAUL KRUGMAN

We should listen to Karl Rove when he lauds former presidents. For example, Mr. Rove has lately taken to saying that George W. Bush is another Andrew Jackson. As Congress considers Mr. Bush's demand that the Homeland Security Department be exempt from civil service rules, it should recall that those rules were introduced out of revulsion over the "spoils system," under which federal appointments were reserved for political loyalists — a practice begun under Jackson.

But Mr. Rove's original model was William McKinley. Until Sept. 11, we thought that Mr. Rove admired McKinley's domestic political strategy. But McKinley was also the president who acquired an overseas empire. And there's a definite whiff of imperial ambition in the air once again.

Of course the new Bush doctrine, in which the United States will seek "regime change" in nations that we judge might be future threats, is driven by high moral purpose. But McKinley-era imperialists also thought they were morally justified. The war with Spain — which ruled its colonies with great brutality, but posed no threat to us — was justified by an apparent act of terror, the sinking of the battleship Maine, even though no evidence ever linked that attack to Spain. And the purpose of our conquest of the Philippines was, McKinley declared, "to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them."

Moral clarity aside, the parallel between America's pursuit of manifest destiny a century ago and its new global sense of mission has a lot to teach us.

First, the experience of the Spanish-American War should remind us that quick conventional military victory is not necessarily the end of the story. Thanks to American technological superiority, Adm. George Dewey destroyed a Spanish fleet in Manila Bay without losing a single man. But a clean, high-tech war against Spain somehow turned into an extremely dirty war against the Filipino resistance, one in which hundreds of thousands of civilians died.

Second, America's imperial venture should serve as an object warning against taking grand strategic theories too seriously. The doctrines of the day saw colonies as strategic assets. In the end, it's very doubtful whether our control of the Philippines made us stronger. Now we're assured that military action against rogue states will protect us from terrorism. But the rogue state now in our sights doesn't seem to have been involved in Sept. 11; what determines whose regime gets changed?

Finally, we should remember that the economic doctrines that were used to justify Western empire-building during the late 19th century — that colonies would provide valuable markets and sources of raw materials — turned out to be nonsense. Almost without exception, the cost of acquiring and defending a colonial empire greatly exceeded even a generous accounting of its benefits. These days, pundits tell us that a war with Iraq will drive down oil prices, and maybe even yield a financial windfall. But the effect on oil prices is anything but certain, while the heavy costs of war, occupation and rebuilding — for we won't bomb Iraq, then wash our hands of responsibility, will we? — are not in doubt. And no, the United States cannot defray the costs of war out of Iraqi oil revenue — not unless we are willing to confirm to the world that we're just old-fashioned imperialists, after all.

In the end, 19th-century imperialism was a diversion. It's hard not to suspect that the Bush doctrine is also a diversion — a diversion from the real issues of dysfunctional security agencies, a sinking economy, a devastated budget and a tattered relationship with our allies.

*****
Halliburton has objected to my use of the word "confiscate" in summarizing changes in pension benefits to employees whose divisions were sold, changes described in a Sept. 10 New York Times article. Although Halliburton's actions were legal — I did not suggest otherwise — they had the effect of depriving workers of benefits they had been led to expect. In particular, workers who planned to take early retirement were informed that they had "severed" their employment relationship — even though they had no choice in the matter — and that as a result, if they retired early they would not receive the level of benefits suggested by their retirement plan statements. However much Halliburton may try to put a spin on its actions, its behavior remains, as one pension expert quoted in the original article put it, "scandalous."

RGD: AMERICA BETRAYED AGAIN BY THE BUSH/CHENEY SWINDLERS



To: Mr. Whist who wrote (300316)9/25/2002 2:47:21 AM
From: 10K a day  Respond to of 769670
 
dude. I think you paid too much...



To: Mr. Whist who wrote (300316)9/26/2002 12:49:40 AM
From: RON BL  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Well Flap the peasants have revolted.
You may have missed it, over the weekend, but the UK had an earthquake.
lewrockwell.com
No, not the 4.8 Richter earth tremor in Dudley, but the broad-shouldered masses of the good yeomanry of the nation, Celts and Saxons together, who marched on the bastions of the Jacobins in their Westminster haunts.

407,791 – four hundred and seven thousand! – good sons of the soil turned up on the Liberty and Livelihood March through London on what turned out to be the biggest civil liberty protest in British history.

The backbone of the nation – labourers, agricultural tenants, country dwellers, gentleman farmers and landed gentry – and a goodly smattering of sympathetic Townies, to boot! – all combined to protest the actions of the UK Committee of Public Safety under Tony RobespiBlaire in its attempts to social engineer this Sceptred Isle, the land of Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus, into some morally relativistic, multicultural, Islington dinner party – in between supplying auxiliaries for the Legions of the Empire, of course.

Jefferson would have been proud of the Brits, for once!

The Times noted,

"Among the placards, distrust of the Government was one common thread: ‘Blair – run the country, don’t ruin the countryside’, ‘For fox sake, fox off Blair’, ‘Towney Blair’s got rid of more farmers than Mugabe’, ‘We do not like being DEFRA-cated on’" – the last referring to the post-Foot and Mouth, spin doctor-rebranded replacement for the despised Ministry of Agriculture – a typical Blairite ploy to airbrush history.

The Sun quoted landowner Andrew Duff Gordon who declared: 'There is a huge strength of feeling because everyone in the countryside is being ignored. The reason I’m here can be summed up in one word — freedom.'

Stephen Robinson perhaps best captured the mood as he exulted in the Telegraph:

'The placards, swaying in the sunshine, conveyed an attitude of defiance. "We will not be culturally cleansed", read one; "Future Criminal" read another carried by an eight-year-old; "Revolting Peasant" another, carried by an adult, dressed in the Sloane Ranger's weekend uniform of plum-coloured corduroys.

Then, at precisely 10am, with whistles, horns and bagpipes blaring, the Liberty march began to roll from the eastern corner of Hyde Park, and into Piccadilly.

Kate Hoey, the Labour MP and darling for many of the marchers for her brave and lonely stance within her party, stood at the front, alongside Richard Burge, the alliance's chief executive. One placard read: "Hoey for Prime Minister."

The crowd eased forward at about half normal walking pace, into Piccadilly and past the Ritz where Londoners lined the pavement, shouting their support.

The marchers cheered one placard at the Ritz: "Kiwis Support Country Poms", carried by John Falloon, a New Zealand farmer visiting friends in England. Hunting is popular in New Zealand, and Mr Falloon said he worried that a ban in Britain might have a knock-on effect in his country.

As the giant procession snaked rightwards into St James's, the gentleman's clubs had all opened up. At Boodle's, the staff stood on the first floor balcony in their waiter's uniforms, quitely applauding the marchers.

The marchers loved that touch. Most of the the upmarket St James's traders were closed, but they had left banners of encouragement in their windows.

On surged the crowd, down Pall Mall, and into Trafalgar Square, where Mayor Ken Livingstone, no friend of the countryside or hunting, had left his mark. The road narrowed into an uncomfortable funnel because of the continuing roadworks, forcing the marchers to furl their giant Liberty & Livelihood banner, as they eased around the construction equipment of the mayor's half-finished pedestrianisation scheme.

The Liberty march turned into Whitehall where – with immaculate timing – it merged with the Livelihood march which had been making its way over from its eastern starting point.

There were whistles and cheers and shouts of recognition as these two tributaries met in the middle of Whitehall to form a giant river of humanity heading towards the Cenotaph, where the marchers fell silent as a mark of respect.

This meant the marchers could not shout their true feelings towards Downing Street, which was just as well as the mood was specifically hostile to the Prime Minister. One man, dressed as the grim reaper with a Tony Blair mask, was wildly cheered.

If the well-heeled of St James's were sending their best wishes, the tone of the march was not at all grand. Early yesterday, a presenter on Radio Five Live put on a jokey posh accent as he spoke to a reporter in Hyde Park, perhaps to convey the BBC's general disdain for the event.

The presenter should have spoken to Mike Idle and Ewan Gaskell, keen members of the Ullswater fell pack, whose Cumbrian accents were so thick they warned "you might need an interpreter to interview us".

Both had been to London only twice before, to attend the previous countryside marches, and they were in no hurry to come back.

They said they were incensed that the media always suggested hunting was for rich people on horseback. "There are no toffs in our hunt," said Mr Gaskell, a van driver, rather giving the impression that they would not be welcome there.

"And I'll tell you now, we're not going to stop because of what Blair says. How are they going to stop it? They don't police the towns in Cumbria, so how will they police the hunts?" There was a definite edge of defiance on the streets.

From a different perspective, Richard Fry, who owns a business in London and a farm in Dorset, had brought his family, along with another 1,000 or so supporters of the Cattistock Hunt.

"Make no mistake," he said, "this one is the last peaceful march I'm coming on. If they press on with a ban now, the gloves will really come off."

There were no speeches, no rally, no concert to raise the spirits before the long journey home. Once they had passed the counting station, the marchers were asked simply to disperse to allow those behind to complete the route.

The very spareness of the march somehow added to its power. Some 400,000 people came to London from all over the country to tramp along the streets, and simply be counted.

The walk took a good two hours, and the wait could be double that. No gift packs were offered to the children, no jugglers or clowns along the way, no computer games to take home – just long journeys by coach or train, and a long, tiring, march, and aching bones.

"It was brilliant, brilliant," said Daisy Walker, 12. She was there with her parents, Sean and Karen, north Londoners who carry no candle for hunting – Daisy strongly disapproves of it as well – yet adamant that they should support the countryside.

"It's a matter of individual choice," said Mr Walker.

To be on the streets yesterday was to feel you were part of something much larger even than the important issues that had drawn the masses to the capital.

As hard as a BBC presenter might try, you could not generalise about these people. No cosy British social snobbery or inverted snobbery helps you out, for the crowds were so socially and geograpically diverse.

One of the last banners read: "Mr Blair, see what a minority looks like." This was a pretty good joke when 200,000 were expected, but became better still when more than double that figure turned up.'"

But what was the response of our latter day Richard II to this horde of modern Wat Tylers?

Very much that of Shakespeare’s arbitrary monarch, for Blair was off at his weekend grace and favour retreat in Chequers, playing geopolitics, and no doubt telling his fawning coterie of court favourites:

"We will ourself in person to this war:
And, for our coffers, with too great a court
And liberal largess, are grown somewhat light,
We are inforced to farm our royal realm;
The revenue whereof shall furnish us
For our affairs in hand: if that come short,
Our substitutes at home shall have blank charters;
Whereto, when they shall know what men are rich,
They shall subscribe them for large sums of gold
And send them after to supply our wants."

Richard, you may recall, gratifyingly, did not end well, and, when Bolingbroke finally cast him down from the throne, few mourned his passing:

"With much more contempt, men's eyes
Did scowl on gentle Richard; no man cried 'God save him!'
No joyful tongue gave him his welcome home:
But dust was thrown upon his sacred head."

One can only hope!

countryside-alliance.org



To: Mr. Whist who wrote (300316)9/26/2002 12:52:40 AM
From: RON BL  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Flap on a far more important matter:

Unifying a nation and a team

By Kevin Allen, USA TODAY

Canadian commerce was halted, schools were closed and life stood still
from
Vancouver to Halifax on the morning of Sept. 28, 1972. Team Canada's
Paul
Henderson became a national icon by scoring a series-clinching goal
with 34
seconds left in Game 8 of the 1972 Summit Series with the Soviet hockey
team. (Related item: Where are they now?
<http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/2002-09-16-summit-sidebar.htm> )


<http://images.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/_photos2/2002-09-16-summit.jpg>
<http://images.usatoday.com/_common/_images/clear.gif> Paul Henderson
starts a nation's celebration in 1972.
<http://images.usatoday.com/_common/_images/clear.gif>
By Frank Lennon, AP

Team Canada's ability to shut down the Soviets wasn't nearly as
impressive
as its ability to shut down the Canadian nation.

"My dad worked in a machine shop," recalls NHL player agent Don Meehan,
who
was a law student at the time. "They had 3,500 people in his shop, ran
three
shifts 24 hours and nothing ever changed that. But I can remember my
dad
telling me the shop basically stopped for that game."

Just as American baby boomers know where they were when President
Kennedy
was assassinated in 1963 and when Neil Armstrong stirred up moon dust
in
1969, Canadians over 40 all know where they were when Henderson poked
the
puck past world-class goalie Vladislav Tretiak.

That the 30th anniversary is being marked by expansive media coverage
in
Canada speaks to the magnitude of the event. The accomplishment hasn't
lost
its luster. If anything, time has allowed Canadians to romanticize and
appreciate the importance of the win in their culture.

<http://images.usatoday.com/_common/_images/clear.gif> Summit
Series glance <http://images.usatoday.com/_common/_images/clear.gif>
<http://images.usatoday.com/_common/_images/clear.gif>

<http://images.usatoday.com/_common/_images/clear.gif>

The 1972 Summit Series was considered a defining moment in Canadian
hockey
history as NHL stars rallied to edge the Soviets in an eight-game
series. A
look back:

<http://images.usatoday.com/_common/_images/bullet.gif> Game 1, Sept.
2,
Montreal, 7-3 Soviets: The Soviets score four unanswered goals to erase
a
2-0 Canada lead, then shock Canadian fans with three late goals.

<http://images.usatoday.com/_common/_images/bullet.gif> Game 2, Sept.
4,
Toronto, 4-1 Canada: Phil (goal, assist) and Tony Esposito (20 saves)
lead
the way.

<http://images.usatoday.com/_common/_images/bullet.gif> Game 3, Sept.
6,
Winnipeg, 4-4 tie: Vladislav Tretiak makes 34 saves as Canada twice
blows
two-goal leads.

<http://images.usatoday.com/_common/_images/bullet.gif> Game 4, Sept.
8,
Vancouver, 5-3 Soviets: Boris Mikhailov scores twice; fans boo Team
Canada.

<http://images.usatoday.com/_common/_images/bullet.gif> Game 5, Sept.
22,
Moscow, 5-4 Soviets: Soviets score five goals on 11 shots in the third
period for a commanding 3-1-1 series lead.

<http://images.usatoday.com/_common/_images/bullet.gif> Game 6, Sept.
24,
Moscow, 3-2 Canada: Bobby Clarke slashes Valeri Kharlamov. Paul
Henderson
scores the eventual game-winner.

<http://images.usatoday.com/_common/_images/bullet.gif> Game 7, Sept.
26,
Moscow, 4-3 Canada: Henderson beats two defensemen to score the
game-winner
while being tackled.

<http://images.usatoday.com/_common/_images/bullet.gif> Game 8, Sept.
28,
Moscow, 6-5 Canada: Facing a must-win situation - a tie would give the
Soviets the tournament on goal differential - Canada prevails on
Henderson's
second rebound with 34 seconds left.

<http://images.usatoday.com/_common/_images/clear.gif>
<http://images.usatoday.com/_common/_images/clear.gif>

"As big as the 1980 U.S. Olympic triumph was in the U.S. - and it was a
defining moment in sports history - the 1972 win was even bigger in
Canada,"
says Vancouver Canucks general manager Brian Burke. "You have to
understand
the relative space that hockey occupies in the fabric of the culture.
Hockey
isn't a sport in Canada. It's a cult."

The irony of the 1972 Summit Series celebration is that none of the
participants, or even the organizers of the eight-game tournament,
realized
its potential importance.

Phil Esposito, crucial to Canada's success, almost decided not to play
because he thought it was going to be a friendly All-Star game. He and
his
brother, Tony, selected as one of the Canadian goaltenders, had a youth
hockey school, and they didn't want to lose the revenue to train for an
exhibition series against Soviet players.

"I didn't know who the Russians were, and I could have cared less,"
Phil
Esposito recalls.

But it took only one game for the players to understand this wasn't an
All-Star tournament. This was communism vs. democracy and more
important,
Canadian hockey vs. Soviet hockey.

"The Cold War was at its height," says Canadian player Pete Mahovlich.
"It
was our lifestyle against their lifestyle. Who could win this hockey
game
had the better lifestyle."

To appreciate the triumph further, remember that Canadians held 99% of
NHL
jobs at that point.

Every small Canadian town has a hockey rink, and every Canadian parent
has
stories about taking children to practice before the sun comes up. The
only
heat in a Canadian rink is the steam rising off the coffee of proud
parents
watching their sons and daughters carrying on a tradition that gives
the
country part of its identity.

The celebration that followed Canada's victory in Moscow was said to be
the
most boisterous day for Canadians since the end of World War II.

Surprisingly tough foe

It became clear in the first three games in Canada that this was
anything
but an exhibition series.

This came as a surprise to the Canadians, whose scouts had watched
Tretiak
get trounced in a game and came home to tell coach Harry Sinden they
should
have an easy time with the Soviets.

What the Canadians didn't know, Sinden says, was Tretiak was distracted
in
that game because he was about to get married.

They learned that the Soviets, who trained year-round, were more highly
skilled than anyone had anticipated. The series stood at 1-1-1, and
when the
Canadians lost Game 4 in Vancouver, fans were so distraught they
started to
boo their players.

That set the stage for Esposito to make a speech on Hockey Night in
Canada
that is considered the turning point of the series. Miffed about the
booing,
Esposito chastised the Canadian people for not standing behind the
team.

"I didn't plan it - didn't even think about," Esposito says. "Words
just
came out."

Says Team Canada member Ron Ellis about the Esposito speech: "If other
guys
on the team would have been (asked), they would have had the same type
of
interview. But they wouldn't have had the same passion that Phil had."

The speech unified a country, and when the Canadians arrived in Moscow
for
the final four games, they found bundles of supportive telegrams
waiting for
them.

"We weren't Team Canada until Game 5," says Mahovlich.

To appreciate the situation, according to Mahovlich, it needs to be
remembered that players didn't have the same fraternal bond that
today's
players have. Most NHL players stayed on the same teams for the
majority of
their careers, and they didn't play on international teams together.
Even in
the offseason, players hung out with their teammates.

What Esposito's speech did was unify a nation and a team.

Florida Panthers coach Mike Keenan was playing at the University of
Toronto
when Esposito made his speech, but he immediately understood its
significance.

"As Canadians we sit and judge rather than stand and support," he says.
"I
think that's the difference between the American public when they go to
sporting events. Phil was asking for Canada's support."

Clarke followed orders

Once in Moscow, the Canadians turned up their performance, which was
definitely needed to beat a Soviet team that had many premium players.

"Our problem (in the first four games) was not our team, it was the
Russian
team," Sinden says.

The Soviets seemed masterful at puck possession, and their passing and
skating skill was eye-catching. "I think every single one of the
(Soviet)
players could have played in the NHL," Sinden says.

Canada didn't have Bobby Hull, J.C. Tremblay, Gerry Cheevers and Dave
Keon,
among others, because they had jumped to the World Hockey Association,
and
the agreement was between the NHL and the Soviets. Bobby Orr couldn't
play
because of injury. Then there was the booing in Vancouver and the
erroneous
scouting reports on the Soviets.

The series was rough, but the intensity was war-like in the games in
Moscow.
"Everyone did some things that we didn't normally do," Mahovlich says.

Philadelphia Flyers general manager Bobby Clarke, then a 20-year-old
NHL
rookie, broke the ankle of Russian great Valeri Kharlamov with a slash
in
Game 6. Assistant coach John Ferguson concedes that he asked Clarke to
do
what he could to take out Kharlamov.

"From my point of view, he was the guy we had to stop," Ferguson says,
"whether we took him out of the game or slowed him down. He was unreal.
Then
Bobby took the initiative with prodding from myself. I said, 'Bobby,
you got
to give him a little tap on the ankle. We had better stop this guy.' "

Says Clarke: "Everybody likes to talk about it, but I don't think (the
slash) had any effect on their team. He was a fast little bugger, but
Ron
Ellis shut him down pretty good after that first game."

Ferguson said the intensity level was so high that players performed
out of
character.

"Rod Gilbert was running at people, and J.P. Parise came out of his
shell,"
Ferguson says. "Those were guys that normally didn't play that way in
North
America."

The harshness wasn't restricted to Canada. In Game 7, Soviet player
Boris
Mikhailov kicked defenseman Gary Bergman, who had been one of Canada's
unsung heroes.

Many believe that the tournament wouldn't have meant as much had the
Canadians won convincingly. "The adversity just added to the story,"
Ellis
says.

Setting a precedent

By winning this tournament the Canadians established a tradition of
pride
and resiliency that still lives today. Canadians are revered for their
drive
and intensity at international tournaments, particularly their
teenagers who
play at the World Junior Championships.

Canadian national coaches always talk about the pride of wearing the
Canadian crest - a pride that was born in 1972. In the last Olympics,
the
Canadians won the men's and women's gold medals.

"As a history buff I can't say (the 1972 Summit Series) should rank
with
Canada's participation in two World Wars - that comparison shouldn't be
made," Sinden says. "But in terms of creating national pride and a
national
feeling about a resource, this ranks at the top."

Contributing: Chuck Gormley

_____


<http://images.clickability.com/pti/spacer.gif>