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: greenspirit who wrote (13588)	10/24/2003 12:46:25 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793963

Shall confessionals be secretly taped It's not clear to me if these tapes were made with his knowledge or not. Since he was making special appearance at these churches, it may have been openly done. Then someone passed them on. I just got back from Ala Moana Shopping Center here in town. I thought I knew how to miss the Prez's motorcade, but no such luck. I spent a couple of minutes stopped while he went by the other way. I never knew the HPD had that many motorcycles. Policecars galore, of course. I think every mother's son on the PD wanted to be in that motorcade. His fundraiser is for 600 locals. Costs a $1000 for one picture with him and $2000 for two. Well, at least he isn't selling overnights in the Lincoln bedroom.

To: greenspirit who wrote (13588)	10/24/2003 1:56:19 AM
From: KLP	Respond to of 793963

Call NBC News directly and tell them!! The number is here: Message 19429221 I did. They need to hear from us, and so do their sponsors! Perhaps General Electric does as well. Wonder what would happen if any news organization said they had taped ANY other Government employee, who happened to be talking in their own Mosque, Temple, or Church?? The ugly smell of blackmail possibilities could raise its ugly head, certainly with lesser men than General Boykin. This is a totally set up job, and we ALL need to be asking and doing something about it!

To: greenspirit who wrote (13588)	10/24/2003 5:01:26 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793963

Time to play "Hardball" in the Senate. Bring it to the floor and tell the Democrats to Filibuster it if they dare. It would be a winning issue with seniors, and the Democrats know it. ______________________________________ October 24, 2003 Democrats Say G.O.P. Endangers Medicare Drug Accord By ROBERT PEAR - NEW YORK TIMES WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 — A day after Republican negotiators said they had reached a tentative agreement on a prescription drug benefit for the elderly, Senate Democrats said on Thursday that the benefit could be in jeopardy if House Republicans insisted on a plan forcing the traditional Medicare program to compete directly with private health plans. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said the the drug benefit was "at grave risk at this time" because House Republicans were pushing the Medicare bill in a conservative direction. Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the Democratic leader, said, "the president can solve this problem," by using his influence with House Republicans. Forty-one senators — 39 Democrats, an independent and a Republican, Olympia J. Snowe of Maine — signed a letter to President Bush urging him to intervene in the Medicare negotiations, to ensure that the final bill could win bipartisan support. "A partisan conference report that jeopardizes Medicare and does not provide meaningful assistance to the elderly and disabled should not and will not pass," the letter said. Democrats complained about the work of a secretive panel hashing out the bill to revamp Medicare and add drug benefits, and said the Senate would not accept several proposals considered essential by House conservatives. Democratic senators did not object to the basic structure of drug benefits that would be offered to 40 million elderly and disabled people under a bill being hammered out by the House and Senate negotiators. But they said the proposed competition with private plans would undermine the traditional government-run Medicare program. They strenuously opposed House Republican demands for an enforceable limit on Medicare spending for new drug benefits. And they sought more incentives for employers to maintain drug benefits for retirees. Mr. Daschle said the competition proposal would lead to "the privatization of Medicare" and higher premiums for people in the traditional program. Conservatives have insisted that Congress restructure Medicare to provide a greater role for private health plans, competing with the original fee-for-service program. They say such competition would help slow the growth of Medicare spending. Under the proposal, if traditional Medicare had higher costs than private plans, its beneficiaries would have to pay higher premiums. Senator Daschle said, "That is virtually a showstopper." The Democrats' comments highlighted their differences with Republicans over the role of government and the private markets in delivering health care to the elderly. Representative Rahm Emanuel, Democrat of Illinois, said: "Members of Congress can agree on a Medicare drug benefit. But we cannot agree on larger questions about the future of Medicare. That's the fault line between the two parties." The anger of Senate Democrats also highlighted the challenge facing Republicans: to get a final bill through the House without destroying the bipartisan coalition that wrote the Senate bill. Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said the final legislation would not pass the House without some mechanism to inject market forces and competition into Medicare. But, he said, "if it's too far-reaching, it would prevent the bill from passing the Senate." With Republicans in control of the House, the Senate and the White House, it would be difficult for them to blame Democrats for a failure to deliver long-promised drug benefits to the elderly. "Republicans have to have a bill," said Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota. "That gives us lots of leverage." Forty-one senators would be enough to sustain a filibuster. But Mr. Daschle said, "It's not my intention today to say we're going to filibuster anything." Representative Billy Tauzin of Louisiana, a Republican on the conference committee, said it was seeking "a middle road to compromise" that would address the Democrats' concerns about competition. "They are not invalid concerns," Mr. Tauzin said. At the same time, he said, House Republicans are determined to inject market forces into Medicare because they believe that the elderly would get lower prices and higher quality as a result. In return for compromising on competition, Mr. Tauzin said, House Republicans would expect some concession from Democrats to control Medicare spending. nytimes.com

To: greenspirit who wrote (13588)	10/24/2003 5:50:58 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793963

When I first read this, I thought it was a gag. It reads like something out of "The Omen." But it's on "BBC". I guess God didn't want this movie made. :>) _________________________________________ Jesus actor struck by lightning Actor Jim Caviezel has been struck by lightning while playing Jesus in Mel Gibson's controversial film The Passion Of Christ. The lightning bolt hit Caviezel and the film's assistant director Jan Michelini while they were filming in a remote location a few hours from Rome. It was the second time Michelini had been hit by lightning during the shoot. Neither of them was badly hurt, according to the film's producer Steve McEveety. Michelini had previously been struck during filming in Matera, Italy, when he suffered light burns to his fingers after lightning hit his umbrella. Describing the second lightning strike, McEveety told VLife, a supplement of the trade paper Variety: "I'm about a hundred feet away from them when I glance over and see smoke coming out of Caviezel's ears." The Passion Of Christ, which was filmed in the ancient languages of Latin and Aramaic, is directed and co-written by actor Mel Gibson and focuses on the last 12 hours in the life of Jesus. Although it is not due for release until early next year, it has already hit headlines after Jewish figures in the United States slated it for being "dangerous" and portraying Jews in a negative way. Originally titled The Passion, the film changed its title last week after Miramax claimed the rights to the title for one of its own projects, a historical epic based on a Jeanette Winterson novel. The film now looks set to be released in the States by independent distributors Newmarket Films, who released Memento and Whale Rider in the US. Story from BBC NEWS: news.bbc.co.uk

To: greenspirit who wrote (13588)	10/24/2003 7:47:39 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793963

It's a sad day in America when our privacy in church is so egregiously assaulted, and so many otherwise thoughtful Americans cheer it on. Yes, that's a good point. There are a number of good points in this and that is one of them. My impression of Bill's issue with this is the dirty-tricks aspect of obtaining the story. That's a valid issue. I can acknowledge them yet still assert that the general was wrong. As a retired Fed, I recognize the special responsibilities Feds have. We do not have the same freedom to express ourselves that ordinary citizens do, not while on active duty. Every department has specific rules. Whether or not the general broke any of his explicit ones, I don't know. But I do know that he clearly broke the general rule about not doing anything to negatively affect public confidence in the government. There is to be no appearance of a conflict of interest. Not just a conflict of interest but an appearance of a conflict of interest. I was careful about that despite the cost to me. The general should have been as well. Often hereabouts I see people fussing about leakers. Often I see the loyal opposition called traitors. Yet here we have a general who publicly contradicted his commander and chief and put his country at risk and yet there's no mention of the t-word, no recognition of the wrong he did. You and I have had discussions in the past about "black and white." Well, here's a perfect example where the situation is complex and there could be multiple wrongs. That the guy may have been ambushed or that his words may have been distorted can be wrong without giving the general a pass on his wrongs. That is my point and has been all along. The general was wrong, whether or not anyone else was wrong, in addition. Well, we have left wing newspaper reporters for major newspapers manipulate his church speeches with phony quotes, then provide small snipits of the rest of his speech in order to denigrate his career and call on him to be fired. This General has probably risked his life for the freedoms we enjoy more often then we can imagine. He's probably worked long hours, under many arduous conditions for decades for little reward, except the knowledge that he was doing his duty to America. Since when does having risked one's life and worked long hours give one a pass for life? We have cops who do that yet get prosecuted when in one instance they abuse a suspect. The guy can be both devoted and wrong in this instance. That's my point. I do wish you could acknowledge it. Shall confessionals be secretly taped and snippets of them broadcast to the world as major news events? Go ahead and finish up with a dash of hyperbole. I take your point on that, I really do. I just don't think that one's distaste for the methods of the press, even the leftie press, excuses the actions that the press reports, although I acknowledge that hyperbole and misdirection like that tend to obscure it. And he was still wrong no matter his distinguished career. One can acknowledge his distinguished career and still find him wrong on this count. You attribute this all to a scheme to discredit a distinguished general's career. Maybe people sit around in news rooms around the country dreaming of opportunities to find some general they can denigrate but that seems far fetched to me. It could have been that they heard about a general who was behaving inappropriately and found it newsworthy. That the general was a religious rightie may have sweetened that discovery and it may have triggered this effusive piling on, but I seriously doubt that the intent of the story was to discredit anyone's distinguished career. Ill intent may make us angry or sympathetic but it does not change the facts. Others judge him instantly in the most negative way, even going so far as to call into question his patriotism. I am not questioning his patriotism in the sense that he loves his country and wouldn't intentionally do anything to hurt it but I sure am questioning his judgment and his loyalty as an officer in this instance, which is a component of patriotism. In summary, this is a complex issue with the potential for multiple wrongs. Some people just see the wrongs done by the "other side." Some see all of them and assess each objectively. Some see all of them but focus on the one or two highest in their hierarchy of values. I think that disloyalty in a general is more important than the privacy of a giving a speech in a church. Others may differ and I have no problem with that. That is not the case, though for blindness to or excusing what the general did. But what's even more astounding is to witness how quickly people are willing to by the entire story hook-line-and sinker, when all we've seen is a few snippets from a known manipulator of news. If the Times and NBC were wrong on the facts, then they have a lot to answer for and owe a monster apology, and a lot of bucks, to the general and they should lose their jobs. In the meantime, I'm assuming that the news reports are more or less true.