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: unclewest who wrote (18727)	12/5/2003 5:41:01 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793677

Kerry Withdrawal Contest Help him drop out now and avoid humiliation. By Mickey Kaus Updated Friday, Dec. 5, 2003, at 12:30 AM PT Kerry Withdrawal Contest: In part for reasons described in the preceding item, Democratic Senator John Kerry, once proclaimed the frontrunner in the press, faces not just defeat but utter humiliation in the New Hampshire primary. Is he really going to soldier on to finish in the single digits and get clobbered by both Howard Dean and Wesley Clark, if not one or more other candidates? Shouldn't he save his pride (and possible national political future, if only as a VP candidate) by withdrawing from the race before this harsh popular verdict is rendered? ... But what can Kerry say that isn't even more humiliating than seeing it through? "I realize my wife Teresa needs me more than my country needs me"? That won't cut it. "I've decided to take time out to learn the Web so I can compete in future campaigns" and "I'm entering rehab at an undisclosed location to recover from my vicious Ibogaine habit. I make no excuses" are too trendy. ... Let's harness the power of the Web and help Kerry speechwriter Robert Shrum with the dirty job that lies ahead for him. A copy of John Glenn: A Memoir to the reader who submits the best cover excuse that will let Sen. Kerry drop out of the presidential race before the voting actually starts while preserving his viability within the system. ... Void where prohibited.... My entry: "Because Howard Dean chose not to abide by the campaign finance law's limits, it's now clear to me that in order to compete I would have to spend unconcsionable amounts of my own money and jeapordize my family's and my children's future. This I will not do. I put my family before any personal ambition. I will dedicate the remainder of my Senate term to promoting a new, better campaign finance system to insure that no serious candidate is ever faced with this choice again." OK, so Kerry's wife Teresa is fabulously wealthy and the family would be in fine economic shape whatever happens (especially since Teresa can't waste her own assets on his campaign). Come up with a better excuse, then. ... 2:48 A.M. Dean, Clark, Hope for Sparks: The more I think about it, a turning point in the Democratic presidential campaign has to come with the first N.H. poll showing Clark ahead of Kerry and in second place. It could come any day now. Clark's only three points behind in one poll and only two in another. And Kerry's fading while Clark is rising. ... When the lines cross, several things will happen: 1) The main surviving rationale of Kerry's campaign--"I'm the electable alternative to Dean"--evaporates. It turns out there's a more electable alternative. Kerry's vote asymptotically approaches zero. 2) The #1 versus #2, Dean versus Clark match up will get lots of play in the press because Clark's strengths are Dean's weaknesses, yielding a story line that is simple and compelling: "Peacenik McGgovern II versus Electable Military Man. Which will the Democrats Choose?" ... 3) Clark will get a lot of favorable treatment in this new round of coverage--in part because the press feels guilty about giving Dean (as The Note notes) a relatively easy time so far, in part because the press wants a close race. If Clark's ready with an appealing message when the spotlight turns to him, he could give Dean a scare and at least come close enough to winning to get a boost for the post-N.H. primaries. ... P.S.: I flew this scenario by a number of knowledgeable political reporters at a party I was just at, and none of them bought it. So it's not the CW! It's quirky and contrarian! I want big points if it pans out. ... 2:21 A.M Article URL: slate.msn.com

To: unclewest who wrote (18727)	12/5/2003 7:38:53 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793677

The Military World Turned Upside Down By Ed Offley DefenseWatch "The Voice of the Grunt" Goodbye “Little America,” hello, Sao Tome Obscured by news coverage of the guerilla war in Iraq and the early fulminations of the 2004 presidential election campaign, the Bush administration over the past week has formally begun a yearlong process to review the “footprint” of overseas U.S. military bases. Two days before he visited with U.S. troops in Iraq, President Bush on Nov. 25 released a one-page statement announcing, in the dry language of government, an “ongoing review of our overseas [military] force posture.” The statement noted: “Since the end of the Cold War, the once-familiar threats facing our nation, our friends, and our allies have given way to the less predictable dangers associated with rogue nations, global terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction. We have been actively transforming our defenses to address these changes. While we continue to make progress in the transformation of our uniformed military, it remains for us to realign the global posture of our forces to better address these new challenges.” Pentagon officials note that in the two years since 9/11, operations in the war against terrorism have taken U.S. military units to a growing list of new locations ranging from the Horn of Africa to Central Asia. The European Command has significantly expanded its presence missions in Africa and experts point to obscure nations such as Sao Tome off the coast of Nigeria as potential new alliances. The men and women serving in the U.S. armed services and their families know exactly what this portends: The world in which they serve and fight is about to be upended in a scale that no one serving today can imagine. Within the next year, we can expect announcements of major overseas base closings, unit transfers and the shift of military bases from “little America” enclaves to sparse remote facilities such as Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo or Entebbe Airport in Uganda. That such a review is vastly overdue is beyond debate. It has been more than a decade since the collapse of the Soviet Union, yet a majority of U.S. forces in Europe still occupy the bases and kasernes that they seized during the conquest of Germany in 1945. The same applies to South Korea and Japan. Speaking to a conference in Washington, D.C., earlier this week, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith said, “We are aiming to achieve the most basic and comprehensive review of the nation’s global defense posture since the United States became a world power.” Driving what appears to be a genuine sense of urgency among the top military leadership is recognition that the Cold War-era military infrastructure and organization is too static and rigid – and in many cases, in the wrong location – to meet the new threat from transnational terrorist groups such as al Qaeda. In a speech to a different Washington conference this week, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers said the war on terrorism is unlike any war the United States has fought before, and this demands new thinking, tactics and capabilities. “I would say transforming our armed forces is not optional. We have to focus on the near-, the mid- and the long-term capabilities all at the same time. That task is every bit as difficult as it sounds.” Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld were scheduled to confer with our NATO allies on the plan this week. Feith said on Wednesday that he and Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman will visit 13 other countries next week to brief their governments on U.S. ideas for repositioning military forces to better respond to future threats. This includes addressing long-term security implications from the anticipated increase in military power by China, India and other nations. While administration officials say no decisions have yet been made, the outlines of a new overseas military “footprint” are beginning to emerge: * The Pentagon will substantially reduce the number of major fixed bases in Europe and Northeast Asia, while leaving a number of major hubs such as Ramstein Airbase in Germany and Rota Naval Station in Spain as they are. * A sizable but indeterminate number of U.S. military units now based overseas will be relocated to the continental United States for future rotational deployments abroad. * The Pentagon will rely more on two other types of bases: Spartan but semi-permanent “forward operating bases” with some permanent structures such as Kosovo’s Camp Bondsteel; and even more austere “forward operating locations” such as Cairo West airfield in Egypt or Entabbe Airport, Uganda, which have scant infrastructure but a usable airstrip. * New forward operating bases will be constructed along major global transportation routes to position U.S. military forces for rapid response to crises. These facilities will possibly include pre-positioned military equipment such as the brigade sets the Pentagon stored in Southwest Asia prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom. * The Navy and Marine Corps will accelerate research into developing a permanent mobile force capability using redesigned or new designs of cargo and combat ships that will enable them to launch combat operations directly from the sea. * The reshaped overseas base “footprint” will be selected in time to dovetail with the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure hearings mandated to identify excess military infrastructure here at home. Still absent from the briefings and interview transcripts are any signs of recognition by Pentagon leaders that the changes will add major new stresses and strains to military people and their families. One hopes this omission is unintentional. Throughout this controversial but necessary process, it will be the responsibility of the DoD leadership to ensure that the unavoidable disruption to the lives of our military people and their families is kept to a minimum. sftt.org

To: unclewest who wrote (18727)	12/5/2003 10:30:35 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 793677

I would invite those who care not for what this country stands for to cut off their balls, commit suicide, and join the group of California atheists who did the same to catch a ride on a comet. They can all get together there and start their own country based on atheism An odd conclusion, uw. Those Californians may have been nutty as fruitcakes, but it's really hard to make out they didn't have faith.

To: unclewest who wrote (18727)	12/5/2003 11:00:04 PM
From: kumar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793677

UW, somewhere between 'athiest' and 'believer' (of whatever religious faith), there is a gray line. Its called Agnostic. I subscribe to that. Heres how I define it : - the 'believer' believes in organized religion, and the fact that "God" as a concept exists. - The athiest believes there is no evidence that "God" as a concept exits. - The Agnostic believes "there is not enough evidence that God exists, at the same time there is not enough evidence that God does not exist". Re your comment on '10 commandments', let me ask you a couple questions : - It is commonly accepted that the US was founded on Judeo-Christian Philosophy (not theology). - Please help me understand where in Judeo-Chritian philosophy, it says that slavery is OK, and a woman has less rights than a man (eg. voting rights). Both of these aspects have been part of US history, well after the Declaration of Independance, and the adoption of our Constitution.