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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (23130)7/23/2003 10:44:34 PM
From: laura_bush  Respond to of 89467
 
Well, Mr. Willie CB, I'm sure that you might imagine that George might react that way.

But he would have to somehow get uptown in preparation.

Would you not agree?

lb



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (23130)7/23/2003 10:55:22 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd has a wonderful take on Dick Cheney's role in the Bush administration and its over the top penchant for secrecy and unwillingness to accept responsibility for its mistakes.

Unfortunately, the blank out symbols in the original text won't translate into an SI post. If you wish to see it in its original form, check out the url.

Weapons of Mass Redaction
By MAUREEN DOWD
OP-ED COLUMNIST
THE NEW YORK TIMES
July 23, 2003

nytimes.com

This correspondence from the Office of the Vice President to the ambassador to the U.S. was redacted by the Office of the Vice President for national and electoral security reasons:

Dear Prince bin ,

Thank you, my friend, for the falcon. It survived the trip on your Gulfstream. It is now eating small endangered woodland creatures at my Jackson Hole ranch.

We are pumped about the double rubout of the Hussein boys. We really needed that win. It could be a game-changer for us. The stock market killed on the killings. And the timing will help cover your royal , too.

When the 9/11 commission report comes out tomorrow, I think you will be well satisfied with our efforts to keep you guys out of it.

We have almost as much experience as you at keeping private matters veiled. It's not good to overburden the American people with too much complicated information.

We didn't let a thing slip on our private energy meetings where we took care of our mutual friends in the industry; we kept the bidding closed on the Halliburton contracts to rebuild Iraq, and we set up our own C.I.A. within the Pentagon to produce the intelligence we wanted to link Al Qaeda to Saddam rather than to your country.

We've classified the entire section of the 9/11 report that deals with the family's support of charitable groups that benefit terrorists, including mentions of your wife's checks inexplicably winding up in the bank accounts of two of the hijackers. (Lynn says to tell Princess we have four tickets for the ballet at the Kennedy Center.)

We're not even letting Bob Graham mention the name of your country. We threatened to throw him in the federal slammer if he calls anything but "a foreign government."

Not to worry that the report will shed any light on the ties between the hijackers and your government agent al- .

I know you're worried that the whiny widows of 9/11 will throw another hissy-fit when they see all the blacked-out material, like they did when you whisked Osama's family out of the U.S. on a private jet right after the attacks. But we didn't go this far down the road of pushing aside incriminating evidence about you guys and blaming 9/11 on Saddam to turn back now because a few thousand families can't get their darn closure.

Buddy, we go back a long way. You've been a great host to the Bushes and you've been generous with rides on your Airbus and Gulfstream and with invites to your beautiful estates in and and .

But now you have to throw us a bone. Al Qaeda cells are crawling all over your kingdom, planning attacks around the world. They've gotten even stronger since the May bombing of Western compounds in . We need a little more than lip service about quelling anti-American fervor over there and cracking down on phony charities. You've got to at least give the F.B.I. something to work with. Don't worry. They'll screw it up anyway.

Rest assured that the F.B.I.'s taking the heat for 9/11 in the report tomorrow, not you.

I hear you want to behead that ex-spook Robert Baer, who's been all over TV talking about the way you lavish money to influence U.S. politics, donating millions to presidential libraries and the like. But after all, every million spent on a congressman's favorite charity is one less million for a terrorist's fake charity.

Here in the House, we've mastered the art of moving beyond what people once thought was important to look for. First, we switched from looking for Osama to looking for Saddam. Then we switched from looking for "weapons" to looking for "weapons programs." Now Wolfie has informed the public that we need to worry less about finding weapons in Iraq than building democracy.

The trick is to keep moving. Just yesterday, we shifted the blame for the uranium debacle in the president's State of the speech from George Tenet at the C.I.A. to Stephen Hadley at the N.S.C.

I'd like to return your many acts of generosity. Why not come to dinner at my Secret Undisclosed Location? Here's the address: in .

All the best, Dick.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (23130)7/24/2003 1:30:54 PM
From: Kip518  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
Piece on strong silver prices ahead

John Roque, Shining Patterns Among Silver Stocks

thestreet.com



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (23130)7/27/2003 7:59:54 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Let's cut our losses in Iraq

_________________________________________

By HUBERT G. LOCKE
SPECIAL TO THE POST-INTELLIGENCER
Friday, July 25, 2003

Since it started, I've avoided trying to write anything about our nation's war in Iraq, primarily because I find it immensely difficult to make much sense of what has taken place. But the nation's secretary of defense, I'm told, has written a book titled "Rumsfeld's Rules." I've not found occasion (or reason) to read it but, apparently, it contains such gems as "It's easier to get into a situation than to get out of one" or words to that effect. Clearly, it's a piece of advice he didn't share with his commander in chief before they decided to invade Iraq. It also goes a long way in helping me understand what has happened.

It is now more than four months since that ill-fated adventure was launched and almost three since the announcement by President Bush that the military phase of the conquest was at an end. As the cover of the July 14 issue of Time magazine bluntly puts it: "Americans are still struggling to bring order out of chaos." An inside comment is even more candid: "Iraq is a mess" ... 146,000 U.S. soldiers, alongside the 600 civilians working for the Coalition Provisional Authority -- the United States' interim government for the country -- are "still struggling to police Iraq's streets, restore electricity, fix the economy, rebuild schools." All this in a nation that seems, for some strange reason, disinclined to show much gratitude for our having "liberated" it.

The latest report from the Pentagon indicates the cost of this effort has doubled from its initial estimates -- to $3.9 billion a month. This sum, we are told, is only for military operations. It does not include the costs of reconstruction from the wreckage left by the military campaign. It also does not include the $950 million per month we're having to pay for operations in Afghanistan where, incidentally, conditions -- with the exception of those in that nation's capital -- seem to be about the same as they were before we went in there 18 months ago.

So, while state and local governments across the nation totter on the verge of bankruptcy, vital federal programs from AmeriCorps to the National Weather Service have their budgets slashed and unemployment is at a new high, we're approaching a monthly outlay of close to $5 billion for two wars, neither of which seem to have accomplished their principal objectives.

Now it seems we want to lessen the military burden on our country by persuading our allies to support the rebuilding effort in Iraq. Having gone out of our way to tick off a goodly number of other nations that might have come to our aid, it will be a remarkable achievement if this happens. According to Rumsfeld, 19 nations now have soldiers in Iraq and another 19 have promised to send troops. Rumsfeld states that the allied troops already committed together with those promised totals 30,000; if my math is correct, that averages less than 800 troops per country. That is hardly a display of hearty allied support.

All of this might not be so disturbing were it not for another cost that these wars are incurring. Every day now the morning news brings word of another U.S. soldier's death -- one and sometimes two or more at a time our young men and women in uniform are having to make the ultimate sacrifice while in the prime of their lives for a cause that remains unclear to vast numbers of Americans, not to mention the rest of the world.

This tragic situation is not likely to change anytime soon -- even the Pentagon acknowledges as much. Yet at some point, we will have to turn Iraq back to its citizens and, given the demographics of the country, inevitably this will mean a nation in which a Shiite majority holds the reins of political power. That reality likely will give us a nation that looks politically, and perhaps religiously, very much like its next-door neighbor -- Iran.

We should get out of Iraq sooner rather than later. Why not admit that we've accomplished little of what was our announced intent -- we haven't found any weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein is more likely alive than dead and "democracy" in Iraq is likely to cause as many headaches for the United States as Saddam ostensibly did. Let's cut our losses, really support our troops and bring them home from the quagmire in Iraq.
_______________________________________

Hubert G. Locke, Seattle, is a retired professor and former dean of the Daniel J. Evans Graduate School of Public Affairs at the University of Washington.

seattlepi.nwsource.com



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (23130)7/27/2003 8:18:03 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Venture Capital: Fuel cells pique investor interest
_________________________

By JOHN COOK
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER
Friday, July 25, 2003

Hydrogen fuel cells have been touted as a revolutionary energy source that could eventually power everything from cellular phones to fighter jets.

So it should not be a big surprise that venture capitalists, always on the prowl for the next big thing, are trying to figure out how this emerging sector will play out in the next decade.

There's a lot at stake. After all, portable fuel cells alone -- tiny devices embedded in laptops, cell phones and other hand-held devices -- are expected to top $2 billion in sales in the next seven years, according to the U.S. Fuel Cell Council. Global demand for all fuel cells -- including those that would power buses and cars -- is projected to reach $46 billion by 2011.

Fuel cells also received a big boost earlier this year when President Bush called for $1.7 billion to study how they could be used in automobiles.

Those developments should wake up most VCs.

But fuel cells -- which generate electricity through an electrochemical reaction using hydrogen and oxygen -- have not been on the radar screens of many venture capital firms. Part of the reason is that venture capitalists have been cleaning up their existing portfolio companies, leaving little room for new investments in nascent markets. Furthermore, many venture capitalists emerged from the software, biotechnology and semiconductor industries and therefore do not have expertise in fuel cells.

In 2001, only three start-up fuel-cell companies attracted $8.7 million in venture capital financing, according to VentureWire. So far this year the floodgates haven't really opened. Spokane-based Avista Labs raised $7.5 million this week, bringing the grand total to $24.9 million.

To put that in perspective, consider that biotechnology companies received $563 million and semiconductor start-ups attracted $324 million in the first quarter.

But some who follow the fuel-cell industry say venture capitalists are starting to awaken to the opportunity.

Cascadia Capital's Kirk Van Alstyne, who helped Avista Labs secure the $7.5 million round, said there have always been a few venture capital firms that specialize in energy deals.

But in the past year, large Silicon Valley venture capital firms such as Technology Partners, Mayfield, Draper Fisher Jurvetson and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers have started exploring fuel-cell deals.

"A lot of these firms are looking at areas where they can start to diversify, especially given that some segments where they used to be very active like telecommunications have dried up," Van Alstyne said. "The overall interest level is up remarkably, and I think it is going to be a very active space."

While the larger venture firms are showing interest, Van Alstyne said they can be reluctant to pull the trigger because partners do not posses the expertise. That is leading some of the big firms to take a more cautious approach by looking at later stage deals or partnering with energy specific firms such as Nth Power or Chrysalix Energy. Avista Labs, whose fuel cells work as an emergency power source for universities and other facilities, received its financing from a diverse syndicate that included Chrysalix, Buerk Craig Victor and Wall Street Technology Partners.

Jesse Berst, co-founder of The Athena Institute, a Redmond research organization that recently completed a study on fuel cells, said it may take a while for venture capitalists to get involved. Investment dollars flowed into the sector in the late 1990s as the economy soared and the promise of the technology was hyped. But fuel cells, like other parts of the technology economy, have been stuck in a downward cycle ever since.

"It is not the flavor of the month amongst investors," Berst said. "... We are just starting to come out of the bottom, but it is still going to be a ways until we hit some equilibrium."

He said valuations are way below 1999 levels and many companies are struggling to find financing.

Neah Power Systems, a Bothell company that is developing micro-fuel cells for hand-held computer devices, is one of the fortunate companies that received financing this year. Backed by Alta Partners, Intel Capital and Frazier Technology Ventures, Neah Power is still two years away from commercializing its technology.

That's not unusual in the fuel-cell industry, where most start-ups are still in the research and development stage. David Dorheim, president and CEO of Neah Power, admits that the long-term horizon can test the mettle of venture capitalists who want quicker paths to profitability. But he also said venture capitalists -- who have watched the growth of the laptop computers over the past decade -- are intrigued with a new energy source that could provide longer-lasting power to portable devices.

"Generally there is a receptive audience to discussing fuel cells as an alternative," said Dorheim. "As a result of that we have good discussions with many people when we talk to venture capitalists."

Nu Element, a seven-person start-up that is working on a hydrogen fuel processor to power instruments on military aircraft, hasn't received any venture capital backing. But the 4-year-old Tacoma company, which received a $1.8 million contract from the Navy, has noticed a surge in enthusiasm in the sector in the past year. The Boeing Co. recently joined Chrysalix Energy, a Vancouver, B.C., venture capital consortium backed by Ballard Power, Duke Energy, Mitsubishi Corp. and others.

"We are starting to see some signs of life and certainly interest from VCs about fuel cells and where that is going," said Karen Fleckner, president and chief executive of Nu Element. "Energy is an issue and the president's position on the hydrogen economy has definitely been a forward push for fuel cells."

That could be a good sign for the Pacific Northwest. While there are only a handful of fuel-cell start-ups in the Puget Sound region, Washington state is located next door to the world's leading research hub for hydrogen fuel cells: Vancouver, B.C.

"If you look at the Northwest as a whole, it is a very vibrant area from a fuel-cell perspective," said Berst, pointing to the leadership of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland and Ballard Power in Vancouver. "I think there will continue to be interesting opportunities because you have an installed base and infrastructure of skill set around that particular science."

Other states are trying to participate as well. Michigan -- through its NextEnergy program -- has devoted $79 million and a 700 acre research zone for alternative energy projects. Ohio plans to spend $162 million on fuel-cell initiatives over three years.

But some believe the Pacific Northwest is still well-positioned.

Jack Robertson, the former head of the Bonneville Power Administration, thinks there is an opportunity. At a conference last month in Seattle, he said the Pacific Northwest has the opportunity to be "the Saudi Arabia of hydrogen."

seattlepi.nwsource.com