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


To: Dayuhan who wrote (9150)9/24/2003 4:03:57 AM
From: D. Long  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 794363
 
I don't think it's possible for the government to "provide liberty".

The argument, and I think it's fair to say we can agree on dismissing it, is that government can maximize individual liberty by providing minimal standards of welfare, etc. Freeing individuals from the "vaguaries of happenstance" through government largesse. The problem that the proponents of the argument fail to accept is that it usually devolves to tyranny.

The problem with government abstention is that government is not the only entity able to intrude on liberty.

And now you've found the problem with the far end of the other wing - the anarchists. The problem with maximally restricted government is that it usually devolves into tyranny.

I'm still not sure what pigeonhole this drops me into. I don't really care, either. It pretty clearly depends on who I ask.

Eh. If you don't care, who should?

Derek



To: Dayuhan who wrote (9150)9/24/2003 5:45:08 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 794363
 
Why did Bush go "off the reservation" with this issue? I suspect a Religious connection. He must have heard an earful recently from one of the Missionary groups he listens to.
------------------------------------------------------------------

washingtonpost.com
Bush Warns U.N. Assembly About Dangers of Trade in Sex Slaves

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 24, 2003; Page A23

Delegates to the U.N. General Assembly had heard President Bush condemn terrorism and nuclear proliferation in previous speeches, but at the end of yesterday's address, he added a new warning, about the dangers of the international trade in sex slaves.

The State Department estimates that at least 800,000 women, children and men are sold across borders each year, many for captivity in squalid brothels that foster the spread of AIDS. Bush condemned the "special evil in the abuse and exploitation of the most innocent and vulnerable." He said the young victims "see little of life before they see the very worst of life."

"We must show new energy in fighting back an old evil," Bush said. "Nearly two centuries after the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade, and more than a century after slavery was officially ended in its last strongholds, the trade in human beings for any purpose must not be allowed to thrive in our time."

Bush's aides said that the passage on slavery in yesterday's speech allowed him to close on a note on which he could find wider agreement than on his call to action on Iraq, and that he took care to note that the United States had contributed to the crisis by providing a market. A State Department report said that nearly 20,000 victims enter the United States each year.

"This problem has appeared in my own country, and we are working to stop it," Bush said. "The victims of this industry also need help from members of the United Nations. And this begins with clear standards and the certainty of punishment under laws of every country."

With little public attention, the White House, the State Department and the Justice Department have begun acting to deter human trafficking, which has become a focus of Christian conservative groups as they increasingly turn to international issues.

Scott Reed, a Republican consultant, said the international sex trade is the rare issue that "covers the Christian conservatives and the soccer moms at the same time."

"It's an issue that moderate, independent women can warm to because it shows the softer side of Bush," Reed said. "These are the women in the suburbs of the Midwest who will help decide the 2004 election."

Administration officials said the slave trade helps underwrite international organized crime and, by providing money for weapons, fosters terrorism. But Republican officials said Bush is equally interested in the moral dimension of the issue.

Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.), who wrote legislation against human trafficking that President Bill Clinton signed into law, said that he has discussed the issue with Bush and that the president's attention to it springs from his Christian faith. "You can see it in his eyes when he talks about it," Smith said. "He has compassion for the victims, and outrage about the international pimps and exploiters."

During an interview Sunday with Fox News, Bush talked frankly about his faith. "I pray daily, and I pray in all kinds of places," he told interviewer Brit Hume. "I pray in bed, I pray in the Oval Office. I pray a lot . . . as the spirit moves me. And faith is an integral part of my life."

Asked about his faith and Iraq, Bush said: "I would never use God to promote foreign policy decisions. I recognize that in the eyes of an Almighty, I am a lowly sinner, and I ask for strength and wisdom, and I pray for calmness when the seas are storming."

Clinton signed the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Prevention Act of 2000, which established sanctions for countries that the State Department determines are making too little progress toward the goals of reducing human slavery, including those involving education and prosecution.

On Sept. 10, Bush imposed the first sanctions under the act, on Burma, Cuba and North Korea. The United States already has sanctions on those countries, but an administration official said the designation could curtail educational and cultural exchanges.

Bush also named war-ravaged Liberia and Sudan as chronic offenders in the State Department's third annual "Trafficking in Persons" report. He said 10 other countries had avoided penalties by taking steps to fight human trafficking.

washingtonpost.com



To: Dayuhan who wrote (9150)9/24/2003 6:41:20 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 794363
 
What a racket! The Indians are running ads in California backing McClintock in order to pull down the vote for Arnold and let Cruz win. Shades of what Grey Davis did in the primaries last year. The Indian Money is about to take over the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Indian Givers--II
Tribes that run California casinos aim to run the whole state.
John Fund - WSJ.com

Wednesday, September 24, 2003 12:01 a.m.

California state judge Loren McMaster ruled this week that Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante violated campaign laws by paying for a TV ad campaign with more than $3 million from Indian casinos and unions, donated in violation of state contribution limits. Richie Ross, Mr. Bustamante's campaign manager, says the campaign has already spent the money and thus can't comply with the judge's order to return it to the donors. The controversy will dog Mr. Bustamante's campaign as well as raise questions about the disproportionate influence that Indian casinos now exercise in California government.
When Californians voted in 2000 to give Indian tribes a monopoly on casino-style gambling in the state it was in part out of guilt for the exploitation and poverty that are part of the tragic history of indigenous Americans. But now the tables have turned, and massive political contributions from Indian tribes may determine who the state's governor will be and give the Indians unassailable political clout. Mr. Bustamante, the Democrat who is leading in the polls for the Oct. 7 recall election, is totally supportive of tribal interests. His own brother manages an Indian casino.

Key Indian tribes aren't satisfied with pumping more than $5 million into Mr. Bustamante's campaign. Polls suggest that Mr. Bustamante has stalled, so the only way to prevent a surge from Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger may be to shift some of his conservative support to maverick State Sen. Tom McClintock, who is running between 14% and 18% in the latest surveys. Last Friday the Morongo Band of Mission Indians began airing independent-expenditure ads in support of Mr. McClintock. The Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation has also ponied up a large sum for a similar independent expenditure.
John Stoos, Mr. McClintock's campaign manager, told me that his boss has nothing to do with the ad campaigns but welcomes them as appropriate support given the senator's longtime backing of tribal sovereignty. Jon Fleischman, a former president of the conservative California Republican Assembly, says "it makes sense that Bustamante would have his Indian tribe allies 'use' McClintock's candidacy to plow into Schwarzenegger from the right, and pull down his numbers."

The Indians apparently agree. The Morongo TV ad touts the news that "independent polls show that McClintock has the momentum to win." Sources tell me they have seen a memo from David Quintana, the legal counsel for the California Nations Indian Gaming Association, that was sent to tribal leaders. In it Mr. Quintana raised a warning flag about Mr. Schwarzenegger's positions and his reliance on several aides to former governor Pete Wilson, a skeptic on the expansion of Indian gambling. "This is war, we're going after Arnold Schwarzenegger," the memo concluded. The decision to invest in an effort to stop Mr. Schwarzenegger was made at a private strategy meeting last month, from which several more-moderate tribes were excluded. Participants discussed the need to keep Mr. McClintock in the race on "life support."

In an interview, Mr. Quintana complained that Mr. Schwarzenegger has directly attacked Indian tribes as "a special interest" but added that "any internal memo written by me about him should not be viewed as representative of the position of the tribes." But since that memo was written, millions in Indian casino money has flowed to promote Mr. Bustamante and Mr. McClintock at the expense of the Republican front-runner--at least until Judge McMaster's order halted some of the most brazen expenditures.

The irony is that Mr. Quintana is a Republican who previously served as tribal liaison for Senate Republican leader Jim Brulte. Worried that Indian tribes were giving exclusively to Democrats, Mr. Brulte had Mr. Quintana organize a summit with Indian leaders in 2001 to make a pitch for them to back Republicans also. Mr. Brulte remains a strong supporter of tribal sovereignty but admits he now has concerns about Indian interference in politics.

Indeed, Republicans are in danger of becoming as addicted as Democrats to Indian money. This summer, GOP state Sen. Jim Battin sent sales pitches to three Indian tribes offering them the services of his consulting firm in public relations and advertising. Mr. Battin sits on a committee that oversees gambling issues and represents a San Diego district with several Indian casinos. At first he defended his solicitations and noted that California law permits lawmakers to have outside business interests. Then mounting criticism from fellow senators, including Mr. Brulte, prompted him to drop his effort at rustling up business from the tribes.

But savvy Republicans say they can never compete with Democrats in pandering for Indian support. Last year Indian tribes made a large independent expenditure on behalf of the Libertarian candidate in a key state Senate race in an unsuccessful effort to steer votes away from the Republican nominee. That political play resembles the one the Indians are now making to keep Mr. McClintock in the race for governor.

The Indians' tactics are reminiscent of Gov. Gray Davis's intervention in the GOP primary for governor last year, when he spent some $10 million on TV ads attacking former Los Angeles mayor Richard Riordan in a successful effort to derail his candidacy and in favor of conservative Bill Simon. Mr. Davis went on to defeat Mr. Simon narrowly, only to face a recall effort this year after he was accused of covering up the severity of the state's fiscal crisis.
The Indians have also used their clout to punish Democrats. In 2001, Antonio Villaraigosa was on the verge of becoming the first Latino mayor of Los Angeles. But the Indian tribes recalled that in 1998, when Mr. Villaraigosa was Assembly speaker, he backed a bill to force the tribes to grant collective-bargaining rights to their employees, most of whom are non-Indian. The tribes plowed $350,000 into an effort to defeat Mr. Villaraigosa, who narrowly lost. This year they also contributed heavily to an effort to deny him a seat on the Los Angeles City Council. He won nonetheless. "Even the dimmest politicians in this state are fully aware of the Indians' ability to put them out of a job," concluded the Los Angeles Times.

So too are regulators. John Hensley had a long career in law enforcement and retired in 2000 as the No. 2 man at the U.S. Customs Service, where he had specialized in money-laundering investigations. A member of the Comanche tribe of Oklahoma, he was tapped in 2000 by Gov. Davis to chair the state's new five-member Gambling Control Commission, which theoretically has oversight responsibilities over Indian casinos. He told me the state body is especially needed because the National Indian Gaming Commission has a grand total of only 65 employees, including only two investigators and one auditor for the entire West Coast. But Mr. Hensley's commission was starved of both funds and cooperation. It never had more than four members, and the office of Attorney General Bill Lockyer said that enforcement of Indian gambling was the responsibility of local sheriffs rather than the AG's office.

After two years of unrelenting attacks, a frustrated Mr. Hensley announced he was leaving last year. He reluctantly stayed on until May of this year in hopes that Mr. Davis would name a suitable replacement. When he didn't, Mr. Hensley left. He is appalled that the governor has now promised the tribes that if he isn't recalled from office he would allow them to name two of the members on the Gambling Control Commission.

Gov. Davis has gone further and also promised to sign a bill that would give Indian tribes the power to stop development on private land within five miles of a sacred tribal site. The Indians would themselves be allowed to select the sacred sites and then keep their location secret. The potential for abusive shakedowns of developers is obvious to anyone. The bill failed at the 11th hour in the state Legislature this month, but even its opponents say it will likely pass and become law if either Mr. Davis or Mr. Bustamante is the governor.

The Indians are seeking all these additional advantages at a time when they are already sitting pretty. The Los Angeles Times calls them "California's principal growth industry." Because they enjoy tribal sovereignty and pay no property, sales or corporate taxes, the state's 54 Indian casinos rake in over $5 billion a year, a sum bigger than the take in Atlantic City and more than half that of neighboring Nevada. Indian slot machines can legally offer a payout of only 70 cents on the dollar, compared with 90 cents at Las Vegas casinos. They can allow gamblers under 21, and they also make a pretty penny selling tax-free cigarettes.
To protect all that loot, the tribes have become the biggest political givers in the state by spending $125 million on California politics since 1998. Untold millions that can't be traced have been contributed by individual tribal members who are flush with cash from payouts of casino profits. Indian tribes are also exempt from the contribution and issue-advocacy bans in the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law.

Of course, only a small minority of Indians benefit from any casino bounty. The New Republic reports that of 300,000 Californians who identify themselves as Indians only 32,000 are members of federally recognized tribes who can offer gambling. Less than a third of that number belong to the tribes that now operate casinos. Some of the wealthiest casino tribes have very few members: Rumsey has 42, Cabazon has 25, and the Augustine tribe has only one adult member. The tribes with casinos do contribute to a fund that doles out some money to other tribes, but Indians from unrecognized tribes don't benefit at all.

Opponents say that nationwide gambling has developed problems that call into question its claims as economic self-sufficiency program. Leo McCarthy, a former Democratic lieutenant governor, worries that the Indians are on the verge of winning approval for new gambling palaces that are much closer to cities. He fears that the number of problem gamblers in California could double to 1.4 million, a tremendous social burden the tribes will do little to pay for. "If gambling isn't properly regulated it attracts loan sharking, money laundering, drugs and organized crime," says Mr. Hensley. "Groups of dubious Indian descent often act as front-men for powerful non-Indian investors hoping to reap gambling riches," says journalist Micah Morrison. "They often influence politicians into looking the other way at whatever they do."

Jill Stewart, a syndicated columnist, says that Indians should be concerned that their image is quickly changing from that of people who deserve a helping hand to become self-sufficient to one of "sneaky, backroom players in politics who are increasingly viewed as bad neighbors." Most Indians don't benefit from gambling, but all are tarred by the tactics of the casino owners. Neal McCaleb, the head of the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs, also is concerned about the hardball tactics he sees in California. "It makes me wonder what's next."

An ever more powerful Indian gambling lobby, it would appear. Just last week the Pauma Indian Band, which has 176 members, announced it had inked a $250 million deal to build a giant Caesar's Palace casino and 500-room hotel on tribal land in San Diego. Should Mr. Davis survive or Mr. Bustamante succeed him, the betting is that the Indian casino owners would become the lobbying kingpins of state government. "In Sacramento, the tribes never lose," says Dan Walters, a columnist for the Sacramento Bee and the dean of the Capitol press corps. "They always get their way. That may be even more true after the election in October."

opinionjournal.com