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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (7275)	9/9/2003 2:24:35 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793782

Switching on steel? Robert Novak September 8, 2003 WASHINGTON -- George W. Bush must soon decide whether to reverse the biggest economic blunder of his presidency by ending his three-year imposition of steel tariffs halfway through that period. The issue that bitterly divided the administration when President Bush wandered down the protectionist path 18 months ago now has his entire economic team united in advocating a change. But high-level sources insist no discussions have been held, and the president has not signaled his intentions. Even Commerce Secretary Donald Evans, a leader in imposing tariffs, is reported by colleagues to support change. Seldom has a president's initiative backfired so completely as his adding of tariffs, from 8 percent to 30 percent, on steel products, effective March 20, 2002. Failing to save steel industry employment as claimed, the tariffs are killing U.S. auto parts production jobs and threatening to drive more manufacturers out of the country. Loyal administration officials, proud of their president for courageous tax reduction, were heartsick that he was talked into tariffs to build support in steel-producing states. The idea that it would yield labor union backing was a fantasy, and sanctions by the disapproving World Trade Organization were assured. Once again, protectionism has been exposed as an economic and political loser. The bigger lesson is that any administration that betrays its own principles does so at its own peril. First-year Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, experienced in national Republican politics, put the situation precisely in a July 16 Senate speech (cited favorably in private by Bush officials). "It is a story of an honest effort by our president to save jobs that has backfired," he began. Alexander pointed to a study finding that 200,000 Americans in the steel industry have lost their jobs since tariffs were imposed. He warned that auto parts suppliers, facing cost pressures on steel, will move to Mexico, South Korea, Japan and Germany -- any country where steel can be purchased at global market prices. Internal government documents make clear that the tariffs did not achieve their economic goals. Steel imports were not reduced as purchases were transferred to countries excluded from the tariffs. Instead of declining as intended, steel sector consolidation has increased (with Bethlehem Steel and National Steel taken over by competitors). The share of steel production by "minimills," which require fewer workers than traditional firms, has doubled. Over the last year, the Commerce Department has been battered by as many complaints against tariffs by steel-purchasing companies as support from steel-producing firms. Nevertheless, the steel makers have not given up. On the airport tarmac in Cleveland on Labor Day, Bush was lobbied by a steel executive who thanked him for the tariffs and told him of how they facilitated restructuring of the industry. Just how much the tariffs have helped the president's re-election prospects in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and other steel-producing states is debatable. Not debatable is the failure of this protectionist venture to further Bush's efforts for a foothold in blue-collar labor unions. At the high-water mark on March 5, 2002, when Bush announced the tariffs, United Steelworkers President Leo Gerard was grudging in his praise: "I'm not sure it will do all that needs to be done to save the industry, but at least we have a ray of hope." The White House had hoped the tariffs would impel the Steelworkers to join the Teamsters and other unions in supporting drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), with oil proceeds to help fund "legacy" payments for retired union members. Instead, Gerard opposed ANWR, and embarked on a fruitless effort to pay for legacy benefits out of the U.S. Treasury. When Gerard on Aug. 5 announced his union's support for Rep. Richard Gephardt for president, he bashed Bush for "reactionary policies." The long-term political cost of the steel tariffs is clearer than their benefit. Free market economist Stephen Moore told me the Bush administration had "lost its virginity" on the issue. He meant that the president is now vulnerable to protectionist lobbying on an endless succession of commodities. It is hard for a president even tacitly to admit a mistake, but that is what Bush's economic team wants him to do. ©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (7275)	9/9/2003 2:48:56 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793782

JAMES TARANTO EU Gets a Clue "European Union foreign ministers meeting in Italy on Saturday declared that the political wing of Hamas was a terrorist organization following the group's claim of responsibility for the bus bombing attack in Jerusalem in mid August which killed 22 Israelis," the Jerusalem Post reports. The Boston Globe, however, isn't sure if a group that murders civilians on buses deserves to be called "terrorist." The paper's ombudsman, Christine Chinlund, explains its position: To tag Hamas, for example, as a terrorist organization is to ignore its far more complex role in the Middle East drama. The word reflects not only a simplification, but a bias that runs counter to good journalism. To label any group in the Middle East as terrorist is to take sides, or at least appear to, and that is not acceptable. The same holds true in covering other far-flung conflicts. One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter; it's not for journalists to judge. The only "freedom" Hamas is pursuing, however, is freedom from Jews, whom it seeks to exterminate. By the Globe's lights, we suppose this would make Hitler a "freedom fighter" too. Hey, who's to judge? Speaking of Nazis, here's an Associated Press dispatch from Paris in which reporter John Leicester tries to out-Reuter Reuters: France will compensate thousands of people whose parents were victims of "Nazi barbarity" in World War II, including those killed in massacres or for resisting the German occupation, the government said Saturday. So we need scare quotes around "Nazi barbarity"?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (7275)	9/9/2003 9:00:16 AM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793782

You think Hillary will jump in sometime in February depending on the situation abroad and in the US?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (7275)	9/9/2003 10:21:10 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793782

Hi Nadine, I ran across this today and thought you would find it interesting. Funny, I missed the story being reported when it happened. The Photo that Started it All honestreporting.com On the day the Intafada broke out, Tuvia Grossman was riding a taxi to visit the Western Wall. He was unwittingly thrust into the international limelight -- and nearly killed in the process. Updated May 2002 On September 30, 2000, The New York Times, Associated Press and other major media outlets published a photo of a young man -- bloodied and battered -- crouching beneath a club-wielding Israeli policeman. The caption identified him as a Palestinian victim of the recent riots -- with the clear implication that the Israeli soldier is the one who beat him. The victim's true identity was revealed when Dr. Aaron Grossman of Chicago sent the following letter to the Times: Regarding your picture on page A5 of the Israeli soldier and the Palestinian on the Temple Mount -- that Palestinian is actually my son, Tuvia Grossman, a Jewish student from Chicago. He, and two of his friends, were pulled from their taxicab while traveling in Jerusalem, by a mob of Palestinian Arabs, and were severely beaten and stabbed. That picture could not have been taken on the Temple Mount because there are no gas stations on the Temple Mount and certainly none with Hebrew lettering, like the one clearly seen behind the Israeli soldier attempting to protect my son from the mob. In response, the New York Times published a half-hearted correction which identified Tuvia Grossman as "an American student in Israel" -- not as a Jew who was beaten by Arabs. The "correction" also noted that "Mr. Grossman was wounded" in "Jerusalem's Old City" -- although the beating actually occurred in the Arab neighborhood of Wadi al Joz, not in the Old City. In response to public outrage at the original error and the inadequate correction, The New York Times reprinted Tuvia Grossman's picture -- this time with the proper caption -- along with a full article detailing his near-lynching at the hands of Palestinians rioters. Read Tuvia Grossman's in-depth, first-person account of his ordeal, entitled Victim of the Media War. aish.com The photo of a bloodied Tuvia Grossman became a symbol in the struggle to ensure that Israel receives the fair media coverage that every nation deserves. In April 2002, a District Court in Paris ordered the French daily newspaper "Liberation" and the Associated Press to pay damages to Grossman in the amount of 4,500 Euro. The Court condemned the Associated Press for "mispresenting [Grossman] as a member of the Palestinian community," while the court censured "Liberation" for "publishing the litigious picture with a comment edited the same faulty way, giving the picture a meaning and a scope it could not have." ===== ARAB ABUSE ===== Even more remarkable is that Arab groups have adopted Grossman's photo to use in their own propaganda campaigns, cynically using a bloodied Jew as a symbol of the Palestinian struggle. An official Egyptian government website is using the Grossman photo on its "Photo Gallery". sis.gov.eg And the Palestinian Information Center, islam.net, incorporated Tuvia's photo onto its homepage banner, (The graphic was recently removed from the site, but is reprinted here:) Additionally, some Arab groups have called for a boycott of Coca-Cola, for doing business with Israel, and have circulated a series of posters to state their case. One poster shows Grossman's bleeding face juxtaposed with the Coca-Cola logo, and the tag line: "By supporting American products, you're supporting Israel." Snopes.com reports that, ironically, since Ramallah is home to a Coca-Cola bottling facility that employs about 400 local residents (and indirectly creates employment for hundreds more), and Coca-Cola industries throughout the Middle East are operated as local businesses, any boycott of Coca-Cola in Middle Eastern countries is likely to cause more monetary harm to Arabs and Palestinians than it is to Americans or Israelis. Snopes.com notes another irony: Pepsi is also on the Arab boycott list, with claims that the name "Pepsi" is an acronym for 'Pay Every Penny to Save Israel' or 'Pay Every Penny to the State of Israel.' As the Associated Press once noted, "Calling Pepsi a 'Jewish product' is ironic, given that Pepsi was one of many multinationals that wouldn't do business in Israel during the 40-year Arab commercial boycott of the Jewish state." And of course the biggest irony of all is that the image chosen in the poster to represent Palestinian suffering was none other than Tuvia Grossman who nearly beaten to death by a Palestinian mob. Click here to see the Grossman poster. honestreporting.com