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: Lazarus_Long who wrote (43966)	4/26/2004 10:51:10 PM
From: lurqer	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 89467

While the first six years of school were rather placid, seventh grade was a big change. Not only a different school and a different regimen (different rooms and teachers for different classes), but for me a different part of the country and different cultural norms. The eighth grade was again a several thousand mile shift, and a different belief set for the norm. By the time this was repeated in the ninth grade, most of my classmates seemed a bit provincial. I wasn't superior, I simply had the benefit of a broader set of experiences. But there was something else that was also becoming obvious by the ninth grade. Some grew up, and others just got older. There's always a nature/nuture argument in these matters. Perhaps some brains just don't develop, or don't develop as well. But it's also possible that a lot depends upon what you "feed" the brain. I got lucky. From an early age, I enjoyed reading. By the eighth grade I enjoyed adult books - particularly sci-fi. By the ninth grade, I was a Heinlein fan. Also, associated nonfiction like Astronomy books and the von Braun, Willy Ley space books. What I'm saying is if you want a conversation, you are going to have to do better than seventh grade taunting. All of my friends had outgrown that before the ninth grade. I know you're capable of more, or I wouldn't bother. I still enjoy Avocado's number as the amount in a guaca mole. Anyone that is capable of that, is better than your recent fare. Your choice. lurqer

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (43966)	4/26/2004 11:06:27 PM
From: American Spirit	Respond to of 89467

Kerry demands AWOL Bush prove he showed up for service: "If George Bush wants to ask me questions about that through his surrogates, he owes America an explanation about whether or not he showed up for duty in the National Guard. Prove it. That's what we ought to have," Kerry told NBC News in an interview. "I'm not going to stand around and let them play games."

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (43966)	4/27/2004 4:23:22 PM
From: Skywatcher	Respond to of 89467

A Vision of Power April 27, 2004 By PAUL KRUGMAN There's a deep mystery surrounding Dick Cheney's energy task force, but it's not about what happened back in 2001. Clearly, energy industry executives dictated the content of a report that served their interests. The real mystery is why the Bush administration has engaged in a three-year fight - which reaches the Supreme Court today - to hide the details of a story whose broad outline we already know. One possibility is that there is some kind of incriminating evidence in the task force's records. Another is that the administration fears that full disclosure will highlight its chummy relationship with the energy industry. But there's a third possibility: that the administration is really taking a stand on principle. And that's what scares me. Could there be a smoking gun in the records? Well, maybe Mr. Cheney was already divvying up Iraq's oil fields in 2001, but I'd be surprised to find anything that clear-cut. It's more likely that the administration fears that releasing the task force's records would alert the public to the obvious. Those of us who have been following such things know that the Bush administration is so deeply enmeshed in the energy industry that it's hard to know where one ends and the other begins. Campaign contributions are part of it, but it's also personal: George Bush and Dick Cheney are only two of the many members of the administration who grew rich by relying on the kindness of energy companies. Indeed, the day after the executive director of Mr. Cheney's task force left the government, he went into business as an energy industry lobbyist. In return, the Bush administration has given energy companies a lot to celebrate. One policy decision alone, effectively scrapping "new source review" in regulating power plant pollution, is worth billions of dollars to industry donors. But if we know all this, why does the release of the task force's records matter? The answer, I think, is that there's a big difference between compelling circumstantial evidence and a more or less official confirmation. Consider, as a parallel, the case of the nonexistent W.M.D. It was pretty clear by last summer that Saddam didn't have the weapons that were the ostensible reason for war. But it wasn't until January, when David Kay admitted that there was nothing there, that the absence of W.M.D. got traction with the broad public. The main public justification for the Cheney task force was the 2000-2001 electricity crisis in California. For at least two years, we've known that this crisis was largely the result of market manipulation by energy companies - and surmised that some of those same companies were advising Mr. Cheney on energy policy. But the public will pay a lot more attention if it turns out there is documentation that any energy executives were telling Mr. Cheney how to solve power shortages even as their traders were busily creating those shortages. Still, Mr. Cheney's determination to keep his secrets probably reflects more than an effort to avoid bad publicity. It's also a matter of principle, based on the administration's deep belief that it has the right to act as it pleases, and that the public has no right to know what it's doing. As Linda Greenhouse recently pointed out in The New York Times, the legal arguments the administration is making for the secrecy of the energy task force are "strikingly similar" to those it makes for its right to detain, without trial, anyone it deems an enemy combatant. In both cases, as Ms. Greenhouse puts it, the administration has put forward "a vision of presidential power . . . as far-reaching as any the court has seen." That same vision is apparent in many other actions. Just to mention one: we learn from Bob Woodward that the administration diverted funds earmarked for Afghanistan to preparations for an invasion of Iraq without asking or even notifying Congress. What Mr. Cheney is defending, in other words, is a doctrine that makes the United States a sort of elected dictatorship: a system in which the president, once in office, can do whatever he likes, and isn't obliged to consult or inform either Congress or the public. Not long ago I would have thought it inconceivable that the Supreme Court would endorse that doctrine. But I would also have thought it inconceivable that a president would propound such a vision in the first place. nytimes.com