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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: tejek who wrote (155332)11/27/2002 1:05:40 PM
From: i-node  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1579785
 
It is an important axiom of the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction "against his own people"; but the concept of "own people" in Arabia needs footnoting, as the Hama massacre illustrates

This is a misrepresentation. You can replace "his own people" with "neighbors", "other people", "humans" .. anything goes, and the underlying meaning is the same. The "own people" phrase is merely punctuation.



To: tejek who wrote (155332)11/27/2002 1:09:35 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1579785
 
The New York Times

The Sons Also Rise
By PAUL KRUGMAN

America, we all know, is the land of opportunity. Your success in life depends on your ability and drive, not on who your father was.

Just ask the Bush brothers. Talk to Elizabeth Cheney, who holds a specially created State Department job, or her husband, chief counsel of the Office of Management and Budget. Interview Eugene Scalia, the top lawyer at the Labor Department, and Janet Rehnquist, inspector general at the Department of Health and Human Services. And don't forget to check in with William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, and the conservative commentator John Podhoretz.


What's interesting is how little comment, let alone criticism, this roll call has occasioned. It might be just another case of kid-gloves treatment by the media, but I think it's a symptom of a broader phenomenon: inherited status is making a comeback.

It has always been good to have a rich or powerful father. Last week my Princeton colleague Alan Krueger wrote a column for The Times surveying statistical studies that debunk the mythology of American social mobility. "If the United States stands out in comparison with other countries," he wrote, "it is in having a more static distribution of income across generations with fewer opportunities for advancement." And Kevin Phillips, in his book "Wealth and Democracy," shows that robber-baron fortunes have been far more persistent than legend would have it.

But the past is only prologue. According to one study cited by Mr. Krueger, the heritability of status has been increasing in recent decades. And that's just the beginning. Underlying economic, social and political trends will give the children of today's wealthy a huge advantage over those who chose the wrong parents.

For one thing, there's more privilege to pass on.
Thirty years ago the C.E.O. of a major company was a bureaucrat — well paid, but not truly wealthy. He couldn't give either his position or a large fortune to his heirs. Today's imperial C.E.O.'s, by contrast, will leave vast estates behind — and they are often able to give their children lucrative jobs, too. More broadly, the spectacular increase in American inequality has made the gap between the rich and the middle class wider, and hence more difficult to cross, than it was in the past.

Meanwhile, one key doorway to upward mobility — a good education system, available to all — has been closing. More and more, ambitious parents feel that a public school education is a dead end. It's telling that Jack Grubman, the former Salomon Smith Barney analyst, apparently sold his soul not for personal wealth but for two places in the right nursery school. Alas, most American souls aren't worth enough to get the kids into the 92nd Street Y.

Also, the heritability of status will be mightily reinforced by the repeal of the estate tax — a prime example of the odd way in which public policy and public opinion have shifted in favor of measures that benefit the wealthy, even as our society becomes increasingly class-ridden.

It wasn't always thus.
The influential dynasties of the 20th century, like the Kennedys, the Rockefellers and, yes, the Sulzbergers, faced a public suspicious of inherited position; they overcame that suspicion by demonstrating a strong sense of noblesse oblige, justifying their existence by standing for high principles. Indeed, the Kennedy legend has a whiff of Bonnie Prince Charlie about it; the rightful heirs were also perceived as defenders of the downtrodden against the powerful.

But today's heirs feel no need to demonstrate concern for those less fortunate. On the contrary, they are often avid defenders of the powerful against the downtrodden. Mr. Scalia's principal personal claim to fame is his crusade against regulations that protect workers from ergonomic hazards, while Ms. Rehnquist has attracted controversy because of her efforts to weaken the punishment of health-care companies found to have committed fraud.

The official ideology of America's elite remains one of meritocracy, just as our political leadership pretends to be populist. But that won't last. Soon enough, our society will rediscover the importance of good breeding, and the vulgarity of talented upstarts.

For years, opinion leaders have told us that it's all about family values. And it is — but it will take a while before most people realize that they meant the value of coming from the right family.



To: tejek who wrote (155332)11/27/2002 1:34:08 PM
From: Alighieri  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1579785
 
The answer lies in the despotic tyranny under which most Arabs now live. President Bush said, "They hate us for our freedoms" — but that's not true: Freedom is a rare commodity that Arabs would dearly like a lot more of. They hate us, rather, for the condition of humiliating subjection in which they find themselves, and for which, rightly or wrongly, they hold us responsible.

What a shameful piece of introspective liberalism. :>)

Al



To: tejek who wrote (155332)11/27/2002 2:22:29 PM
From: richard surckla  Respond to of 1579785
 
CIA: Saudis still sending tens of millions to Al Qaida



worldtribune.com

CIA: Saudis still sending tens of millions to Al Qaida


SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Wednesday, November 27, 2002
The CIA has traced transfers of tens of millions of dollars from the Saudis to Al Qaida over the last year, U.S. officials and congressional sources said.

The key backers of Al Qaida are said to be 12 prominent Saudi businessmen — all of whom have extensive business and personal connections with the royal family. These include ties to such ministers as Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan Bin Abdul Aziz, Interior Minister Prince Nayef Bin Abdul Aziz and Riyad Governor Prince Salman.

In July, the Rand Corporation delivered a briefing the Defense Policy Board which warned that the Saudi royal family has grown dependent on Islamic insurgency groups linked to Al Qaida. The Saudis spend billions of dollars in supporting anti-Western religious activities throughout the world, Middle East Newsline reported.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Celebrate The Holidays By Working From Home: Special Offer

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CIA has tracked the flow of the funds of the 12 businessmen and have urged U.S. allies in Africa, Asia and Europe to freeze the assets of the Saudis. So far, no action is said to have been taken.
On Tuesday, officials said the National Security Council has discussed a plan to pressure Saudi Arabia into ending the flow of funds to Al Qaida. They said one proposal, which has not yet been approved, calls for a U.S. ultimatum that would give the kingdom 90 days to crack down on Al Qaida or face unilateral U.S. action. Officials would not elaborate what this action would involve.

"The facts are not in dispute," a congressional source familiar with the CIA investigation said. "The CIA has briefed key congressional committees on the Saudi violation of its promises to stop funding to Al Qaida. The argument between the administration and Congress concerns what do we do now."

The United States relayed the names of the businessmen to Riyad in February. But officials and congressional sources said the kingdom took no action against them.

ABC News identified one of the businessman as Yassin Al Kadi. He was described as a multi-millionaire involved in banking, chemicals, diamonds and real estate.

"I fear that many people in the royal family or people close to the royal family have been aiding and abetting terrorists, wittingly or unwittingly," Sen. Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican and a leading member of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, said.

"The president believes that Saudi Arabia has been a good partner in the war against terrorism," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, who confirmed the council's discussions, said. "But even a good partner like Saudi Arabia can do more in the war against terrorism. And that involves the financial front, diplomatic front."

Earlier, Treasury Undersecretary Jimmy Gurule told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Saudi Arabia has agreed to establish an oversight committee on Islamic charities. But Gurule acknowledged that the United States will not have any influence on this panel.

A report by the New York-based Council of Foreign Relations said Al Qaida's global fundraising network leans heavily on Saudi Arabia. The report said Al Qaida's network is built upon a foundation of charities, nongovernmental organizations, mosques, web sites, intermediaries, facilitators and banks and other financial institutions. Some donors are aware that their money will fund Al Qaida attacks, the report said.

Others donate money to legitimate humanitarian efforts, but the money is nonetheless diverted to Al Qaida.

"For years, individuals and charities based in Saudi Arabia have been the most important source of funds for Al Qaida," the report said. "And for years, Saudi officials have turned a blind eye to this problem."

Al Qaida channels funds through banks, Islamic banks and money changers, the report said. The movement also employs trade in gold and other other commodities to move and store value.

The organization, which began in the late 1980s, was established by Osama Bin Laden through the use of Saudi funds funneled to Islamic insurgents fighting Soviet troops in Afghanistan. Al Qaida's financial network was maintained when the organization moved from Saudi Arabia to Sudan, and then Afghanistan.

"Al Qaida differs from traditional, state-sponsored terrorist groups in one critical way: it is financially robust," the report said. "Having developed multiple sources of support, it is free from the control of any government and able on its own to maintain its organizational infrastructure, communications systems, training programs, and operations. As such, it historically has been able to operate from failed or dysfunctional states."



To: tejek who wrote (155332)11/27/2002 3:49:37 PM
From: Yousef  Respond to of 1579785
 
Ted,

Re: "It is an important axiom of the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein has
used weapons of mass destruction "against his own people"; but the concept of "own people"
in Arabia needs footnoting, as the Hama massacre illustrates. When Assad sent
his army into Hama he was not moving against his "own people" so much as
attacking his traditional enemies, whose base lay within his territorial jurisdiction."

ROTFLMAO ... Maybe Bush can use this "excuse" when he uses WMD against the
Democrats ??!! <ggg>

Make It So,
Yousef