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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Win Smith who wrote (52490)	10/16/2002 9:11:05 PM
From: LLLefty	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>....I got a suspicion that the one sure thing coming from you...< While Nadine certainly can hold her own, when I see your posts, the "one sure thing" I smell is an odor. LLL@offshortlytothebreederscupraces.chi

To: Win Smith who wrote (52490)	10/16/2002 9:11:38 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

I posted a link to the entire poll ...whose figures in no way supported the New York Times headlines supposedly derived from them. Here's another piece comparing the headlines to the figures in some detail: rockymountainnews.com

To: Win Smith who wrote (52490)	10/16/2002 9:42:26 PM
From: epsteinbd	Respond to of 281500

Mister Smith : how many info from Debka have you personally found to be true, and in all media, from a day to a month after first publication ? ie: Would you happen to think that no one on that club knew of the Karine A operation an hour before the first helicopter or boat started moving ? Etc. Not that they get it all. They are also fed non verifyable fakes. The rule of the game. But I'd say they are rather good at philtering, or opening a multiple most probable avenues. Better than us Fadgers! And nothing to do with Fox, not the same business, not the same crowd : Debka monitors the trips off all Arab High level politician and get tips, some of them excellent, some of them probably from top sources that want to move things in a modern, secret (read US way. That it does not fit with the way you feel this planet swivel is sure another one of my concerns, and I have many of them nowadays, because of Saddam and AQ. That's why I replied to you, Sir. And do not see the fact that the US stopped bothering with the (just as real) Palestinian question as some conspiracy. When Bush will be in the position he expects to reach, in nine month or so, he'll give note to the Pals, almost like in the "Godfather" but the opposite : "Give them orders they can't refuse." So you hoped for a Brave New World, And you only got a Brave Good Guy. But will you acknowledge That a Brilliant Quatuor of Strategists surrounds him ?

To: Win Smith who wrote (52490)	10/17/2002 12:24:27 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Good column from "Reason" on the silence of the conservatives. November 2002 Roll Over, James Madison Where have all the federalists gone? By Jesse Walker We may be losing liberties in the war on terrorism, but at least we know they're disappearing. We've heard less about the injuries done to federalism, because the people who usually speak up for that principle -- the conservatives -- have been largely AWOL. Federalism comes in many flavors. There is your garden-variety laboratories-of-democracy federalism, where Oregon can institute single-payer health care and Wisconsin can throw everyone off welfare and Iowa gets to watch and learn. There are more hard-core varieties too, like National Review Online chief Jonah Goldberg's proposal to do away with "98 percent of all conservative-versus-libertarian arguments" by decentralizing most public policy to the cities and counties. But it's hard to devolve decision making when Washington keeps arrogating power to itself. Since 9/11, a Republican administration has federalized airport security, imposed new unfunded mandates on local transportation authorities, and even flirted with moving the military into domestic police work. A few conservatives have stood up against such changes. Others, including some purported federalist fanatics, haven?t complained about much besides the new airport security regime -- and that mostly because it won't engage in racial profiling. One conservative who's stuck to her federalist ideals is the hardest-working housewife in politics, Phyllis Schlafly. In a syndicated column this summer, she thundered against "increased federal control" in the wake of 9/11, targeting her ire at Operation TIPS (the administration?s proposed national clearinghouse for Stalinoid snitching), the USA PATRIOT Act, and the president?s National Strategy for Homeland Security. The last, Schlafly wrote, "sets us on the path of morphing driver?s licenses into a national ID card." She noted that such licenses "are and should be under state jurisdiction" -- the traditional federalist position -- and suggested that Washington could achieve the same national-security ends without stepping on the Constitution if it would merely reform "the irresponsible way it issues visas to people from terrorist countries." She also objected to the idea of using the military as domestic cops: "If U.S. troops are to defend us against terrorists, they should be used to prevent suspicious aliens from coming across our borders, not for police work against U.S. citizens." Search the work of Goldberg, semi-reformed Leninist David Horowitz, Wall Street Journal Arab basher James Taranto, and other erstwhile federalists. You?ll find no echo of this analysis. You will, however, find defenses of the new programs, with The Weekly Standard?s Fred Barnes even stumping for a national ID card. Taranto claims TIPS should raise no civil liberties concerns, and Horowitz has been nostalgic for the FBI?s old Cointelpro program of domestic spying. The writer who came closest to addressing the federalism issue was Goldberg, when he distinguished himself from "anti-state conservatives" as well as libertarians. Those groups oppose centralized power per se, he explained. And while he "would prefer as small a government as most anti-state conservatives," he figures the Republican vanguard might as well seize the commanding heights and start "kicking the Left to the curb" before it allows the state to wither away. Perhaps I?m just not being creative enough in my interpretation of federalist principles. Perhaps, when the Pentagon?s colony at Guantanamo exempted itself from the ordinary rules of imprisonment, it was merely being another laboratory of democracy. Perhaps Operation TIPS is a radical experiment in Swiss-style decentralized defense, with citizen-spies instead of citizen-soldiers. Perhaps the president reviews the collected work of James Madison each morning before setting out to make policy -- or, even more formidable, the collected reverent references to Madison in National Review. Or perhaps some of liberty?s fair-weather friends are fickle pals of federalism as well. reason.com