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: michael97123 who wrote (22598)	1/2/2004 3:11:13 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793689

Iran Doesn't Want Dole Visit for Now, U.S. Says Fri January 2, 2004 02:20 PM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iran does not want a U.S. humanitarian mission led by Sen. Elizabeth Dole to visit the country at the moment after last week's earthquake in Bam, the State Department said on Friday. "We have heard back today from the Iranians that given the current situation in Bam and all that is going on there now, it would be preferable to hold such a visit in abeyance. Therefore we are not pursuing it further at the moment," State Department spokesman Adam Ereli told reporters. A U.S. official said the Bush administration had been talking to Dole, a North Carolina Republican who headed the American Red Cross in the 1990s, about going to Iran after the earthquake in which up to 50,000 people may have perished. Speaking earlier, White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said the idea of sending the delegation was "one of several under consideration," and that the administration was waiting to see if the Iranians were receptive. The idea raised questions about whether Washington might be seeking to improve ties with Tehran, which were severed in 1980 during the 1979-81 hostage ordeal when Iranian students held 52 Americans for 444 days. The U.S. official appeared to scotch that notion. "It is not a diplomatic initiative. It is not a political opening," he said. "If you want to have a better relationship with the United States, you need to stop supporting terrorism, you need to make sure your nuclear program is peaceful." The United States lists Iran as a "state sponsor of terrorism," and U.S. officials accuse Iran of developing atomic weapons, a charge Tehran has denied. Earlier, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi was quoted by Iran's state television as saying, "Offering relief to survivors of the earthquake must continue without turning into a political issue because it's a humanitarian issue." © Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved. reuters.com

To: michael97123 who wrote (22598)	1/2/2004 5:29:14 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793689

I mentioned that I sent an Email to the "Los Angeles Times" about the NAFTA/Mexico story. Here is my Email and their reponse. Looks like I am being challenged to back up my complaint. Which I will do. Anybody who has a good source of NAFTA numbers give me a post, will ya? I was delighted with the fast, interested, response. -----Original Message----- From: William R. Millan [mailto:lindybill@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 4:58 AM To: readers.rep@latimes.com Subject: NAFTA 10 YEARS LATER Article The lead on this article is: NAFTA 10 YEARS LATER After Initial Boom, Mexico's Economy Goes Bust Supporters say the free-trade zone has been a success, but critics point to the loss of jobs, factories and investment. By Chris Kraul, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer The whole tenor of the article is that Mexico is going bust. Way after the "Jump" you find this sentence, and others like it. Mexico's non-oil exports rose to $146 billion in 2002 - three times the pre-NAFTA level. The article never does come out and state the truth, which is the opposite of the lead. All stats show that Mexico is better off with NAFTA. Running articles that are not factual, and trying to use the "Jump" to hide what few facts it does have, is obvious to descerning readers. Bill Millan 2450 Koa, Apt 34 Honolulu Hi 96815 _________________________________ Thanks for writing. In reading "After Initial Boom, Mexico's Economy Goes Bust," I believe some of the support for the headline of the article can be found in the these numbers: "Mexico has lost nearly half a million manufacturing jobs in the past three years to countries as far away as China and as near as Honduras. Last year, foreign investment -- an engine of job growth since NAFTA -- declined to its lowest level in 10 years. "Over the summer, China displaced Mexico as the No. 2 exporter to the U.S. (Canada is first.)" To help me pursue your point with editors, can you tell me the statistics you are referring to when you say: "All stats show that Mexico is better off with NAFTA"? Kent Zelas Assistant Readers' Representative

To: michael97123 who wrote (22598)	1/2/2004 6:50:14 PM
From: MSI	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793689

I come to the table with a leftist background as well. You're confused. I'm more in the "Patriot" mold, independent/libertarian, get gov't and gov't/business combines off our backs. We need freedom from the radicals in the WH who are building a larger, more dangerous all-powerful central gov't than we've ever seen, in secret deals with backroom buddies. Such deals violate public responsibilities of gov't office, and are the road to classic fascism. There's an endless list, from Cheney's energy and Afghan pipeline deals, Bush Sr. Carlyle contracts, bin Laden family deals etc. What you accurately describe is a minefield but you get out of a minefield one mine at a time, not by going back to Smoot-Hawley protectionism or anti-immigration Wait just a minute here - I'm not "anti-immigration". There's a lot of brain-damage out there in the media, confusing "immigration" and "illegal immigration". It's like the difference between "bank" and "bank robbery". It's the illegal crap that causes damage to our economy and culture by encouraging contempt for the law, and saddling average Americans with wage competition by illegals who often live in absolute servitude, sucking on the gov't teat for medical care. It is clear that corporations such as Wal-Mart encourage both illegal immigrants (not just Mexican, btw) and saddling the taxpayer even with their legal employees' medical expenses. This simply takes alert political leadership to shame these companies and people to respect America and Americans. No new laws are needed, sir. democrats need a progressive alternative to bush that involves homeland defense Absolutely. Bush has promoted the opposite of an American-oriented policy in nearly every case. What's needed is to beef up American borders - instead of broadcasting amnesty plans pandering to special voting blocks, (b) stop being drunk with power, stop the profiteering practice of spreading troops and warfare around the world without cause and without planning, causing worldwide disrespect and increased danger to Americans, (c)internationalize these efforts, rather than the Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld/Feith hostility. Yes regulate when necessary and arrest the crooks. But dont go back to Jimmy Carter Carter was an honest but ineffective micro manager who didn't know what hit him. He was beat by the same Reagan inside "fixers" in office today, including Rove, part of Nixon's dirty tricks team. We'll see if Dean can militate a large enough group to throw them out. Don't expect Dean to be a micromanaging "nice guy" like Carter. I don't think Hillary's in the cards. Re: the Global Village, if you heard Bill on stage with Dole last October, he's got the patois down pat, able to articulate inspiring messages on the world getting along together ... But it's the real results that count. A real statesman will keep the inspiration, and not lose freedoms for the average American. Bill had failures, but Bush failures are orders of magnitude greater.