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.

Pastimes : ASK THE GITS -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sandintoes who wrote (1759)	11/16/2003 11:57:34 PM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4641

CAMPAIGN 2003 Gumbo, Zydeco and Jobs What I'll do for Louisiana. BY BOBBY JINDAL Saturday, November 15, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST BATON ROUGE, La.--Like all Americans, Louisianians are concerned about jobs and economic opportunity. For us, the focus on jobs isn't just a current phenomenon; it's a constant struggle about whether we will be able to earn a good living without leaving home. Louisiana--like West Virginia or Arkansas or North Dakota--has suffered from persistent out-migration. More people have been moving out of our state than in. Jobs are more plentiful elsewhere. Like many Southern states, Louisiana has suffered from poverty, populism and perception problems. But Louisiana is eager to turn itself into a modern-day economic powerhouse like Georgia or North Carolina. To do so will take political will and a sustained commitment to fiscal and tax reform. Nine months ago, I left the Bush administration to run for governor. I was born and raised right here in Louisiana. I met my wife in Louisiana and my daughter was born here. Most important, I found my Christian faith in Louisiana. My parents immigrated to this country 33 years ago from India, and my dad is the only one of nine siblings to graduate from high school. My mom attended LSU and has a degree in nuclear engineering, and my dad worked as an engineer in Baton Rouge for three decades. Their example proves that through hard work and education, anything is possible in this great country. The people of Louisiana are hungry for more economic opportunities. Why should our children have to pursue their dreams in Houston, Atlanta, Birmingham or Charlotte? Here's why: We've created a climate in Louisiana that's hostile to business, to progress, to taxpayers. New Orleans was once the capital of the South, but 75 years of demagogues ranting in Technicolor ways about government being the answer to all our problems has taken a toll. We'll eliminate the investment taxes unique to Louisiana that keep businesses away, reform our tort system so that we're no longer among the worst states in terms of frivolous lawsuits, and ease the regulatory burden so that small businesses can create jobs. This message is resonating with our voters. Louisianians want to build their own version of the American Dream, and the crying shame is that they don't have enough opportunities to do it here at home. The Louisiana they remember with pride hasn't changed altogether--there's gumbo on the stove, zydeco on the radio, and families with traditional values. We have the greatest culture and food, in the most beautiful state you can imagine. Now we must harness these cultural and emotional resources with better economic opportunity. When I'm elected governor, we will. There's a new day approaching in Louisiana--a day when businesses are drawn to our state and our people can fulfill their American dream. Mr. Jindal is the Republican candidate for governor in today's runoff election in Louisiana.

To: sandintoes who wrote (1759)	11/17/2003 12:04:07 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 4641

Blair and Bush Only leaders of small achievement avoid controversy. Monday, November 17, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST Nothing is more dangerous in wartime than to live in the temperamental atmosphere of a Gallup Poll, always feeling one's pulse and taking one's temperature."--Winston Churchill, 1941 You don't need an advanced degree in public relations to recognize that the timing of President George W. Bush's long-planned visit to London this week isn't exactly a PR gift for either him or Prime Minister Tony Blair. The visit comes at a particularly sensitive time in the political cycle for both leaders and so has become a venue for almost any grievance under the sun. Mr. Bush wouldn't win any popularity contests in Britain, it's fair to say. The latest polls show that some 60% of the British public has an unfavorable view of the President, and some of the invective that has appeared in the British media in the run-up to the visit would feel right at home in Le Monde. Widescale protests are planned. The chattering classes in Britain have, rather too gleefully, used this to all but declare the special relationship dead. It of course suits the political interests of Mr. Blair's and Mr. Bush's opponents to foment discord. The Labour left opposed the war in Iraq as well as many of Mr. Blair's public service reforms and it has nothing but contempt for what is often described in Britain simply as the "neo-con" cast in the White House. Many of the opposition Conservatives are reluctant internationalists and all are eager to capitalize on public discontent over Iraq if it will weaken the prime minister. Mr. Bush's detractors equally delight in the prospect of an embarrassing or at least strained visit with his closest ally. Fortunately, Mr. Blair appears to be having none of it. In a speech to the Lord Mayor's banquet last Monday, the Prime Minister defended both Mr. Bush and their joint policies: "I believe this is exactly the right time for him to come. Let us be clear what is happening in Iraq. Leave aside the rights and wrongs of the conflict, upon which I admit there can be legitimate disagreement. What is happening now is very simple. It is the battle of seminal importance for the early 21st century and it will define relations between the Muslim world and the West. It will have far-reaching implications for the future conduct of American and Western democracy." Nicely put, we'd say. The British and American leaders are so controversial because they are trying to achieve large things. To wit, a redefinition of the threats to Western security and how to deal with them. They are attempting to drain the swamp of terror nurtured for generations in a dictatorial Middle East. And they are trying to change the thinking of their own security and political establishments to help in the cause. Another word for this is leadership. Leaders who aim for little nearly always achieve it, while stirring much less opposition. As Churchill observed, this is especially dangerous in wartime because the polls will never tell a leader until it is too late the risks that need to be taken on behalf of long-term security or peace. If Ronald Reagan had been cowed by the millions of protesters in Europe who opposed the deployment of medium-range nuclear missiles in the 1980s, the Cold War might still be going on. Messrs. Blair and Bush of course have an obligation to communicate the importance of what they are attempting in Iraq and its relationship to the war on terror. Mr. Bush's visit is a chance to do that, media and opposition catcalls notwithstanding. As the White House no doubt realizes, this is not the time for Mr. Bush to start doubting Mr. Blair's judgment or intentions in his decisions to join a European defense force. Like it or not, the political fate of the two men is related. Those who favor the security status quo, on both the Mideast and terror, tried to topple Mr. Blair earlier this year. For the next 12 months those same forces will throw everything they have into defeating Mr. Bush. That's the one public poll of their leadership that will really count. opinionjournal.com