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: American Spirit who wrote (13321)	2/22/2003 3:07:39 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

here's an editorial worth considering... [btw, American Spirit it's great to see ya posting again...keep us updated on John Kerry] ____________________________________ Bush Knows the Jig Is Up: So Let's Hurry on to Baghdad By Bernard Weiner The Crisis Papers Friday 21 February 2003 One can almost sense a palpable shifting of momentum, from an unrestricted Bush war-juggernaut rolling to its bloody unfolding to an administration caught between Iraq and a hard place, condemned if it unleashes the dogs of war (imperial warmonger), condemned if it pulls back and bides its time (wimp). In a sense, what's transpiring reminds one of the delicious secret of "The Wizard of Oz": more and more people are beginning to sense, and sometimes even see, that the "all-powerful" governmental leader behind the curtain is just a flawed little man broadcasting to an overly-awed (and/or frightened) polity. Or, to shift fairytales: "The Emperor's New Clothes," where the leader, who has been nude all this while for all to see, suddenly finds that his subjects, heretofore willing to swallow the illusion of the emperor's new garments, realize that he's not wearing any. In short, Bush is just another leader -- not even an elected one at that -- who, to disguise his incompetency and true motives, has lived on propaganda and falsification, and now the jig is up. His citizens are beginning to see through the charade -- even many who once supported him, including a good many ordinary, moderate Republicans, appalled at the powers assumed by Big Government and its willingness to eviserate the Constitution in its push toward more and more authoritarian control. Certainly those outside the United States have seen through America's ostensible leader, and they, being more familiar with imperial arrogance, have not liked what they've seen. No, not at all. Even though they know they might pay a high price for telling the emperor to his face that he's full of bullbleep and that they refuse to have blood on their hands just because he says it's time to go to war, they have stood up. (Sad to say, there are some signs of wavering these days.) What's about to come down over the next several weeks doesn't look hopeful. Bush&Co. are pulling out all the stops -- threatening, bribing, cajoling, arm-twisting, bullying -- in an effort to smooth the path to war, to give fig-leaf cover to their rush to military onslaught devoid of overt evidence to justify the haste. There IS going to be a war, you know. Bush&Co. will not have it any other way. The Bush&Co. domestic and global agenda requires it. How can you get your extremist domestic agenda passed unless a frightened Congress and populace rallies around the flag being unfurled in a Mideast desert? How can the U.S. exercise its "benevolent hegemony" of the globe (and totally by coincidence, have effective control of the world's natural resources) unless would-be upstarts get bombed to smithereens, to demonstrate to others that they'd better not make the same mistake of getting in our way? So, it's full speed to Baghdad. Doesn't matter if the allies are opposed, doesn't matter if thousands of Iraqi citizens get slaughtered as the missiles rain down (no wonder "Guernica" was covered up when Powell arrived at the U.N.), doesn't matter if North Korea insanely is threatening nuclear war against the U.S., doesn't matter if the American citizenry doesn't want a pre-emptive war on its conscience, doesn't matter if America is torn apart by dissension and economic disaster, doesn't matter if millions are demonstrating in the streets of America even before bombing has begun -- none of that matters. (Reminiscent of what Bush once told an ordinary citizen when that man deigned to criticize him at some public event: "What do I care what you think?") But, let's clear up something right away. Iraq War #2 already has begun. U.S. special forces are currently operating in northern Iraq, moving to protect the oilfields from Saddam's orders to destroy them. U.S./British bombing of military targets is happening on a more frequent basis. Propaganda leaflets are already being released from U.S. planes over Iraq, warning soldiers not to follow the orders of their superiors to use biological or chemical armaments or risk "war crime" trials later. So the war is on. All that's missing is "Shock & Awe" -- the U.S. plan for the first several days of missile attacks (hundreds and hundreds of them) aimed at Baghdad and Basra and elsewhere -- this to break the back and morale of Iraq's defense forces and to keep civilians from wanting to fight when the U.S./British troops arrive in downtown Baghdad. There is little doubt that the U.S. onslaught will defeat the Iraqi forces -- ignoring for a moment what might happen if and when Saddam uncorks his biochem agents and aims them at the invaders. But, per usual when it comes to Bush foreign/military policy, little thought has been given to the consequences of what happens when the dogs of war are loosed on the world scene, especially on that ready-to-explode part of the world. (But this is in keeping with Bush&Co.'s we'll-deal-with-the-consequences-later domestic agenda -- for example, pushing for more tax cuts for the wealthy and corporate sectors in the face of an economy that already is in shambles because of earlier take-the-money-and-run policies.) So, here we are -- we liberals and progressives and radicals and moderates -- congratulating ourselves on our marvelous work of the past few months, building a stop-the-war coaliton here and abroad that culminated in those fantastically impressive marches and rallies and demonstrations around the world and throughout the U.S. last weekend (perhaps as many as 11 million! peacefully protesting). True, those demonstrations were effective morale boosters and put the fear of electoral defeat in the rulers of a number of countries as they saw millions of their normally passive, ordinary citizens marching in the streets. But Bush&Co. will have their war. So, what we in the opposition need to do now is to start reckoning with an overt, shooting-war situation: How can we throw sand into our government's war machine? How can we mobilize for peace candidates? How can we help the Democrats become a true party of opposition? How can we best help educate more of our fellow citizens -- the ordinary, somewhat-troubled middle-class ones sitting on the sidelines for now -- about the duplicity of our rulers and the dangerous policies being carried out in our names? How can we move toward impeachment for this incompetent, dangerous-to-American-interests Administration? In short, how can we use the energies displayed on the streets in the past few months to build a dynamic, unstoppable Movement for peace and justice and economic recovery? Those of us who were active in the civil rights/anti-Vietnam War Movement of the '60s and '70s know how much work is involved in building to critical mass. it took years and years of hard, slogging work to eduate and agitate and begin to change the way the great American muddle class saw the world and their political leaders devoid of illusion. That transition can be accomplished much faster in 2003 -- especially given the speed with which news and information and communications can be disseminated these days, via the Internet and television and cell phones. Don't get me wrong. It's not going to be easy. And it's going to come at a heavy price for many -- who will be persecuted, arrested, beaten, perhaps killed, censored, etc. -- as the forces of reaction fight tooth and nail to hang onto their greed-and-power agenda. But none of us doubts that the battle needs to be waged -- in as creative and life-affirming way as possible. Let's continue to try to stop the war from happening, but, if -- as seems likely -- we can't, let's get our nascent Movement in gear and revved-up for the fight ahead. If you love your country, and your Constitution, and the world, and your kids, we can do no less. Onward! ------- Bernard Weiner, Ph.D., has taught government & international relations at various universities, worked as an activist journalist during "The Sixties," was with the San Francisco Chronicle for nearly 20 years, and is co-editor of The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org). truthout.org

To: American Spirit who wrote (13321)	2/22/2003 3:37:54 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Don't Put The Blame On Clinton By Steve Ricchetti Editorial The Washington Post Saturday, February 22, 2003 Charles Krauthammer's column blaming all the world's problems on former president Bill Clinton [op-ed, Feb. 14] echoes attacks by ultraconservative writers and regurgitates their anti-Clinton bile to distort history. Krauthammer's allegations are wrong and misleading. At a time when our nation is preparing for war, we should be serious about serious things, rather than gathering debating points to please one extreme of the political spectrum. Consider: Iraq. In 1991 we had 500,000 troops in and around Iraq. President George H.W. Bush decided on a strategy of containment, not overthrow. During the Clinton years, military force was deployed against Iraq on four occasions, including an intensive four-day air campaign in 1998 that significantly set back Iraq's program of weapons of mass destruction. As a result of the Clinton administration's efforts -- the combination of sanctions, strong enforcement of the no-fly zone and military action -- the Iraq our troops face today is far weaker than it was a decade ago. North Korea. Pyongyang's nuclear program was built up during the 1970s and '80s, and the plutonium possibly used to make one or two nuclear weapons was created before Clinton took office. It was Clinton -- taking a firm stand, as opposed to the current confused posture of the United States -- who froze North Korea's plutonium production operation. Were it not for Clinton's leadership, North Korea would have enough plutonium to make at least 50 nuclear bombs today. Terrorism. Krauthammer, citing terrorist attacks during the 1990s, claims we were on a "holiday from history" in our response. He should look a little farther back in the history books. Nearly 500 of our citizens died at the hands of foreign terrorists during the Reagan administration, including 241 Marines at barracks in Lebanon, to which that administration's response was promptly to withdraw. The 1980s were the most ravaging decade of terrorism against Americans before Sept. 11, 2001. Except for a single bombing run against Libya one day in April 1986, there was no significant military response. Under the Clinton administration, fighting terrorism became a national priority. Counterterrorism funding doubled. Force was used against Osama bin Laden and Iraq. Multiple terrorist plots were stopped, including plans to blow up tunnels and the United Nations headquarters and to strike U.S. targets during our millennium celebrations. Al Qaeda cells were rolled up in more than 20 countries. Dozens of important terrorist fugitives were apprehended. Where were Republican leaders then? Some were busy opposing key efforts to strengthen laws designed to combat terrorists. Others criticized significant counterterrorism funding requests. Perhaps I missed Krauthammer's column at the time chiding his Republican friends for "kicking the can" down the road. By the way, if any leading Republicans were calling for military action against Afghanistan during the Clinton administration, it is hard to find evidence of it in the public record of that time. Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush certainly did not. As for the allegation that Sudan "offered up" Osama bin Laden to us in 1996, it's a right-wing lie. It didn't happen. If a more robust strategy for combating international terrorism was obvious before 9/11, President Bush had nine months to initiate it. He did not. The Balkans. Krauthammer's dismissive description of America's successful efforts to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide in the Balkans as "teacup wars" will come as a shock to the hundreds of thousands of people saved by American action and to the thousands of families who lost loved ones to Serbian aggression. His swipe at those conflicts also insults the courage of the U.S. soldiers who risked their lives in combat in Bosnia and Kosovo and grossly ignores the strategic threat that war in Western Europe's back yard represented. Every president inherits a world full of problems. From the first President Bush, Clinton inherited a brewing genocide in the Balkans, growing tension in the Middle East, a standoff in Northern Ireland, unrest in Haiti, an unstable situation in Russia, a healthy and dangerous Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and an emerging terrorist threat. It's not former president Bush's fault that these crises carried over, and Clinton certainly didn't spend the next two years blaming his predecessor for them. America and the world were better prepared and able to meet each of these challenges at the end of the Clinton administration than at the beginning. We should work together to confront the threats to our nation today. But by giving Bill Clinton no credit for his achievements and all the blame for our present problems, Krauthammer's "Holiday From History" column is one long holiday from reality. The writer was President Clinton's deputy chief of staff. © 2003 The Washington Post Company washingtonpost.com

To: American Spirit who wrote (13321)	2/22/2003 3:56:20 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Dot-coms' reemergence Focus on profitability boosts many decimated stocks By Deborah Adamson, CBS.MarketWatch.com Last Update: 12:01 AM ET Feb. 21, 2003 In the past six months, dot-com stocks rose almost 32 percent, the top performer of all industries, according to the Dow Jones Internet Services Index. That compares with a 9 percent drop for the S&P 500 and a 2 percent fall in the Nasdaq Composite. The top performer in the Dow Index -- Hartville Group, Inc. (HTVL: news, chart, profile) -- has soared by 650 percent. But the gains also have been widespread -- 10 of the 59 stocks in the index are up 124 percent or more over the past six months. Why have investors started to flock to Net stocks again? "A lot of those surviving have been able to cut expenses dramatically and increase revenue," said Greg Kyle, president of Pegasus Research International, whose study on dot-com cash burns made waves, warning investors about a key vulnerability in the industry. The result? Profitability. In report released this week, 41 percent of 209 surviving publicly traded Internet companies were profitable in the fourth quarter, he said. A year ago, only 17 percent had earnings. AskJeeves.com soars Remember AskJeeves.com? It's an Internet search Web site whose cartoon butler would remind you of Richie Rich's Cadbury. In the fourth quarter, the company (ASKJ: news, chart, profile) became profitable and cash flow positive for the first time in its history as sales rose by 48 percent. Pro forma operating expenses for fiscal 2002, meanwhile, have fallen by 16 percent vs. a year ago. Investors noticed. The stock is up a whopping 465 percent over the last six months, from $1.20 a share to $6.78 on Wednesday. Other Internet stocks whose profit and sales dramatically improved in their fiscal fourth quarters, in some cases more than doubling from 2001: Overstock.com (OSTK: news, chart, profile), EBay (EBAY: news, chart, profile), Expedia (EXPE: news, chart, profile) and WebSense (WBSN: news, chart, profile). But profitability is not the only thing behind the recent ascent of Internet stocks. Valuation is a factor too, with several names trading near or below the level of cash they hold (measured as cash per share for an apples-to-apples comparison with the stock price). "Many of these companies have been orphaned by the market," said Ryan Jacob, manager of the Jacob Internet Fund (JAMFX: news, chart, profile). "We're seeing values that are extremely distressed." At the end of September last year, AskJeeves.com had 98 cents a share in cash but was trading at 97 cents. It has no long-term debt. Nicholas-Applegate Global Select I (NACHX: news, chart, profile) and Growth Discovery I (NAMCX: news, chart, profile), as well as DFA Tax-Managed U.S. Small Cap (DFTSX: news, chart, profile) snapped up shares of AskJeeves, as disclosed in their Dec. 31 portfolio data, according to Morningstar. WebMD (HLTH: news, chart, profile) also attracted big investors recently, such as Putnam Voyager II A (PVIIX: news, chart, profile), Pimco PEA Innovation A (PIVAX: news, chart, profile) and Vanguard Windsor II (VWNFX: news, chart, profile). Fidelity Magellan (FMAGX: news, chart, profile) bought 5.7 million shares of Yahoo (YHOO: news, chart, profile) last year, according to its most recently disclosed data. The fund owns 1.04 percent of the Net company. Even Magellan's renowned fund manager, Peter Lynch, admitted to buying Internet stocks. In an interview with Money magazine last month, Lynch noted that many Net stocks are deeply discounted. Since the peak of the bull market in March 2000, the average price of Internet stocks have fallen to $4.50 from $48, according to Pegasus. Back then, there were 475 public Internet companies. But don't look for value among the top tier Internet names, said Jacob, whose fund is up 60 percent in the fourth quarter after losing nearly 29 percent and 26 percent in the third and second quarters. EBay, for instance, is trading at around 90 times 2002 earnings and 58 times the 2003 consensus EPS forecast. Despite being beaten down, Yahoo (YHOO: news, chart, profile) recently traded at more than 110 times its trailing 12-month earnings and 67 times 2003 profits. "Small to mid-sized companies seem to be better values," Jacob said. One stock he likes, and his fund owns, is TMP Worldwide (TMPW: news, chart, profile), the parent of jobs Web site Monster.com. The company plans to spin out Monster.com, which Jacob said has been hampered by a struggling parent. Monster.com has been taking market share away from offline rivals, such as newspapers, and an economic recovery should boost its fortunes, he added. Other fund managers wary Despite the recent resurgence of Net stocks, other fund managers remain wary of an industry that has produced some shaky business models. (The failed Kozmo.com delivered anything from movies to ice cream to your door within an hour by bike messengers.) "We're looking for a proven business model" that will last, said Bill DeRosa, manager of the Badgley Growth fund (BMFGX: news, chart, profile). The Internet "is still so new" and businesses are "still changing." He also wants a track record of consistent profitability -- problematic for an industry famously rewarded for sales, not earnings, in the past. Internet stocks have logged robust gains, but that's partly because they're coming off a low base," DeRosa said. For instance, a $50 stock that fell to $1 and recovered to $5 is still way off its highs but would show a big gain from its low. Another skeptical manager is Warren Isabelle, who handles the ICM/Isabelle Small Cap Value fund (IZZYX: news, chart, profile). The problem with these companies is that many of them mistake the tool -- the Internet -- for the business itself, he said. Thus, they start with the idea of being online and then tack on a product or service. "The question is, what is their purpose? If they sell merchandise, are they an Internet company or a merchandising company?" Isabelle asked. Internet businesses "still have to make a case" to investors. Investing tip: Internet stocks that are trading below cash, as compiled by Multex.com, include Chinadotcom (CHINA: news, chart, profile), an Asian Web portal, Onvia.com (ONVI: news, chart, profile), which hooks business suppliers up with government agencies online, and Euroweb (EWEB: news, chart, profile), an Internet service provider. Non-dot-coms, deeply discounted but still in technology, include Gateway (GTW: news, chart, profile), Commerce One (CMRC: news, chart, profile), Corel (CORL: news, chart, profile) and Applied Micro Circuits (AMCC: news, chart, profile).