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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Suma who wrote (43263)	4/20/2004 4:53:26 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 89467

theunionleader.com Sen. Dodd's gaffe: Exposing double standard in big media DO AMERICA'S big media outlets have a double standard when it comes to covering Republicans vs. Democrats? You bet, and last week gave us another good example. Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., cast his 17,000th Senate vote last week. In praising him, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said that Sen. Byrd would have made a great senator at any point in history, even the Civil War. Dodd made a point of mentioning the Civil War, which is interesting because Byrd is a former Ku Klux Klansman who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. You can tell both senators involved in this gaffe are Democrats because the comment has raised nary a remark from the nation's elite liberal media. Contrast this to Sen. Trent Lott's 2002 remarks praising Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., at Thurmond's 100th birthday party. The media had a field day bashing Lott for saying that if Thurmond had become President in 1948, America would have fewer problems today. Thurmond ran on a segregationist platform in 1948. We don't think Lott was longing for segregation when he made those remarks, and we don't think Dodd was longing for slavery when he said Byrd would have made a great senator during the Civil War. We do think the big media overplayed Lott's gaffe because he was a Republican and are downplaying Dodd's because he isn't.

To: Suma who wrote (43263)	4/20/2004 6:11:06 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

If you think that MoveOn.org reports accurate, factual & unbiased news, you are in deep denial. They are all about hate Bush with an anti-war, anti-America agenda. Facts & reality are not part of their agenda.... <font size=4> Revised U.S. overtime rules draw mixed reviews<font size=3> Reuters, 04.20.04, 2:40 PM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration, under election-year pressure, announced Tuesday a big change in its new rules for <font size=4>white-collar workers that would let employees earning up to $100,000 a year remain eligible for overtime pay<font size=3>. The administration also said its revised <font size=4>regulations would increase by 1.3 million the number of low-income employees guaranteed overtime protection even if they are classified as previously exempted administrators. In addition, it said the rules specifically declare that blue-collar workers, police officers, firefighters and other so-called first responders are entitled to overtime protection, which had earlier been a point of contention. <font size=5> "Today workers win because the Department of Labor is issuing new rules that guarantee and strengthen overtime rights for more American workers than ever before," declared Elaine Chao, the department's secretary. <font size=4> The regulations, set to take effect in 120 days following publication in the Federal Register, likely on Friday, drew mixed reviews. <font size=3> The Labor Department proposed regulations last year, and revised them after public comment and opposition in Congress mostly from Democrats who charged the initial proposal could cost more than 8 million Americans overtime pay, and vowed to make it an issue in the November election. Backers contended the regulations would update and clarify antiquated work rules. On Tuesday, organized labor and some Democrats challenged Chao's claims, fearing the new rules could be manipulated. Yet Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, a South Dakota Democrat, said while he had not examined the new regulations, "I am hopeful that there has been some reason for optimism." AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, whose labor group has said it may challenge the regulations in court, said, "The president (George W. Bush) has a credibility gap when it comes to overtime." "Americans should demand immediate repeal of any part of the president's plan that cuts overtime pay," Sweeney said. The business community and leading Republican lawmakers praised the new regulations even though some in industry were disappointed the department preserved overtime pay for white-collar workers earning up to $100,000, having boosted the figure from a previously proposed $65,000. "For 25 years, every administration has made reform of these regulations a priority, but none has been successful until now," said Randel Johnson, a vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. <font size=4> In addition to raising the ceiling for protected overtime workers, the new regulations would boost the floor. Under them, white-collar workers earning less than $23,660 a year would be guaranteed overtime protection, up from the current $8,060. More than a half century ago, the Fair Labor Standards Act created the 40-hour work week by guaranteeing overtime pay for each additional hour on the job. (White collar) Administrative, professional and executive employees were exempted. <font size=3> The Labor Department last year proposed allowing more employees to be reclassified as administrators, professionals or executives, provided they met certain criteria. A top Republican lawmaker said he would hold a hearing on the new regulations next week. "I'm pleased that the department has listened to public comments ... in updating its final regulations," said Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee. "I look forward to ... hearing more specifics." Copyright 2004, Reuters News Service forbes.com

To: Suma who wrote (43263)	4/20/2004 8:20:41 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

Armitage on charge of targeting civilians: "Shame on you" By Robert - Jihad Watch <font size=4> One of the main things that makes the global jihad network morally reprehensible is that it targets civilians - chiefly in Israel but also all over the world. It justifies the attacks by a provision of Islamic law that prohibits the killing of women and children "unless they are fighting against the Muslims"<font size=3> ('Umdat al-Salik o9.10, cf. al-Mawardi, al-Akham as-Sultaniyyah, 4.2). <font size=4>This has been interpreted as allowing civilians to be killed if they are somehow aiding the war effort - hence the common assertion that "there are no civilians in Israel." Aware of this and media-savvy as ever, the jihadis and their allies have tried to make much of the U.S. forces supposedly targeting civilians in Iraq. And the mujahedin themselves have used women and children as shields to try to make sure the U.S. would target civilians - the easier to discredit American claims of the moral high ground. And of course the Kerryite Left, following their leader's example of hysterical claims of American soldiers running amok in Vietnam, piles on happily. But in an interview with Iraq Coalition and Pan-Arab print reporters, Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage was having none of it, and spoke with rare and refreshing candor. From the State Department website, with thanks to Ruth King: QUESTION: One follow-up, sir, very quickly -- DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: Sure. QUESTION: -- about human rights in Iraq. There have been civilian casualties, women and children, in Fallujah. How can you promote democracy in the Middle East when you're sending out a message that it's okay to shoot at children and -- DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: Oh, stop. Stop. Shame on you. I hope you were screaming about human rights during the time of Saddam Hussein. I didn't hear many in the region. We are the most humane military in the world. We punish our people when they exceed bounds, and we do it transparently. We regret every single civilian life which is lost, and we do our utmost, even putting our soldiers at risk, to prevent those. It is true that there are civilian casualties and it is true that these scenes are shown over and over, particularly on our Arab friends' television networks. Now we spend enormous amounts of time and put our soldiers and Marines at risk in order to try to prevent it. War is dangerous and it is difficult times, but when you ask that question, I would hope that you'd reflect on your own writing over the past, say, 30 years and see what you've said about human rights in Iraq. Thank you all very much.