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: epicure who wrote (60950)	12/10/2002 6:42:12 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

if people want to live with a particular group, I think they have every right to do that. I totally agree, X. The problem is that the people who moved Heaven and Earth to stop segregation in the School system, and got laws passed so that it could not happen, are now the very same ones who are deliberately segregating the Dorms! I don't want to kick this around any more, it is OT, but it is such a classic case of Hypocrisy on the part of the Universities that I could not pass it by.

To: epicure who wrote (60950)	12/11/2002 1:54:24 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Keeping Dick Cheney's Secrets Lead Editorial The New York Times December 11, 2002 In a ringing victory for special-interest lobbyists, a federal court in Washington has thrown out a lawsuit seeking access to the records of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force. In reaching its conclusion the court dismissed the investigative authority of the General Accounting Office and, by extension, of Congress. The ruling is wrong on the law and a blow to the cause of ethics in government. It should be reversed on appeal. The General Accounting Office sued to force Mr. Cheney to release records identifying who met with his task force as it developed the Bush administration's energy policy. The accounting office is acting at the behest of members of Congress who charge that the task force met with Republican campaign contributors from big business, but with almost no environmentalists, when it drew up its package of industry-friendly energy proposals. Judge John Bates, who was named to the bench by President Bush, refused to consider the merits of the case, holding instead that the accounting office had no standing to sue. But his decision ignores the fact that the General Accounting Office was established by Congress for the express purpose of helping it to investigate and analyze matters like this. The law requires the executive branch to furnish its records when asked to do so. The Bush administration hailed the ruling as an endorsement of the president's right to "receive unvarnished advice." But the court did not say the administration had a right to withhold the information, only that the accounting office is not the proper party to raise the issue. From the beginning, the most troubling part of this case has been the administration's lack of appreciation for the concept of open government. This case is not about the advice the president receives from trusted advisers in the inner sanctums of the White House. It concerns access to basic information about a task force that took extensive testimony from members of the private sector. The public has a right to know what businesses and special interests it heard from, and whether Mr. Cheney was seeking information from every side of the issue. The dismissal of the accounting office's suit comes while another Washington court is considering a challenge to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. Both cases focus on the disturbing role campaign contributions play in setting government policies. The administration may choose to see this week's decision as a win, but it is a crushing loss for the public's right to know. nytimes.com