SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Jim Willie CB who wrote (52428)7/30/2004 12:22:03 PM
From: Skywatcher  Respond to of 89467
 
The OIL Prez....WHAT A JOB!
Crude futures continue higher, tap $43.60 By Myra P. Saefong
SAN FRANCISCO (CBS.MW) -- September crude is up 65 cents at $43.40 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, after tapping a high of $43.60. It's trading at levels the exchange has never seen before. Debt woes at Russia's Yukos [s yukos], terrorist attacks, storms in the key oil and natural-gas producing region in the Gulf of Mexico, and an oil-workers strike in Norway helped fuel the output concerns. The September contracts for heating oil and unleaded gas will become the lead-month contracts at the session's end. The two contracts are up nearly 2 percent.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (52428)7/30/2004 12:41:50 PM
From: TigerPaw  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
Economic Growth Weaker Than Expected

washingtonpost.com

The Commerce Department said that the gross domestic product, the country's total output of goods and services, slowed sharply in the April-June quarter from a 4.5 percent growth rate in the first three months of the year.

All that borrowed stimulus has been wasted

TP



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (52428)7/30/2004 2:03:51 PM
From: BubbaFred  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Coup d'Etat in America?

(JW - Is this a possibility? An alternative is to assassinate Kerry?)

by Michel Chossudovsky July 29, 2004

Concluding Remarks

America is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in its history.

An Al Qaeda sponsored terrorist attack is being contemplated as a "trigger mechanism" for carrying out a Coup d'Etat.

Whether it is going to be carried out is another matter. The statements of the Bush administration regarding the possibility of a red code alert must, nonetheless, be taken seriously.

The coded terror alerts and "terror events" which have been announced by DHS are part of a disinformation campaign carried out by the CIA, the Pentagon, the State Department and Homeland Security.

US intelligence is not only involved in creating phony terror warnings, it is also firmly behind the terror groups, providing them with covert support.( See globalresearch.ca )

Documented by official police sources, at least two of the DHS's high profile post 9/11 terror alerts were fabricated. (http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO402A.html )

Media Disinformation

A Coup d'Etat which suspends civilian institutions is not only contemplated, it has become a talking point on network TV; it is openly debated as a "solution" to "protecting American democracy" which is said to be threatened by Islamic terrorists.

The implications of a red code alert are trivialised. Through media disinformation, citizens are being prepared and gradually conditioned for the unthinkable.

This ongoing militarisation of America is not a project of the Republicans.

The "war on terrorism" is part of a bipartisan agenda. Successive US administrations since Jimmy Carter have supported the Islamic brigades and have used them in covert intelligence operations.

"Triggering Civilian Casualties"

In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had envisaged a secret plan entitled "Operation Northwoods", to deliberately trigger civilian casualties to justify the invasion of Cuba:

"We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," "We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington" "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation." (See the declassified Top Secret 1962 document titled "Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba"16 (See Operation Northwoods at globalresearch.ca ).

Both "the war on terrorism" as well as the domestic war on terrorism are consistent, from the point of view of military planning, with the logic of Operation Northwoods, Civilian casualties are used as "a war pretext incident", to galvanize public support for a military intervention.

Mentioned time and again by DHS Secretary Tom Ridge, a "second 9/11 attack" is contemplated; Al Qaeda, we are told, is preparing

"...a large-scale attack in the United States in an effort to disrupt our democratic process."

What we are not told is that Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA. and that Al Qaeda remains a US sponsored "intelligence asset."

"Useful Crisis"

The assumptions and rhetoric behind Homeland Security are nothing new. They echo an earlier statements by David Rockefeller to the United Nations Business Council in 1994:

"We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

Similarly, in the words Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book, The Grand Chessboard:.

"…it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus [in America] on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."

It is worth mentioning that Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter was one of the key architects of the Islamic brigades, created by the CIA at the onslaught of the Soviet Afghan war (1979-1989). (See Brzezinski at globalresearch.ca )

More recently, General Franks, the CENTCOM general who led the military campaign into Iraq, pointed in an October 2003 interview to the role of what he called a "massive casualty-producing event". (See General Tommy Franks calls for Repeal of US Constitution, November 2003, globalresearch.ca , see also globalresearch.ca ).

Franks identifies with cynical accuracy the precise Homeland Security scenario whereby military rule might be established in America using, as in Operation Northwoods, civilian casualties as a trigger mechanism:

"a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world - it may be in the United States of America - that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event." (quoted in Ibid, emphasis added)

General Franks' statement seems to accurately reflect the mood within the US Military and Homeland Security as to how events ought to unfold. The "war on terrorism" is to provide a justification for repealing the Rule of Law, ultimately with a view to "preserving civil liberties."

This statement from an individual, who was actively involved in military and intelligence planning at the highest levels, suggests that the "militarisation of our country" is an ongoing operational assumption. It has become part of the broader "Washington consensus". It is a "talking point" not only in the corridors of the Pentagon, Langley and Homeland Security, but also in the mainstream media.

Democrats and Republicans

Some people think that a change in direction will occur if the Democrats win the 2004 presidential elections. Yet the Democrats are not opposed to the illegal occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Nor are they opposed to the militarisation of civilian institutions, as evidenced by their initiative to repeal the Posse Comitatus Act.

While there are substantive differences between Republicans and Democrats, Bush's National Security doctrine is a continuation of that formulated under the Clinton Administration in 1995, which was based on a "strategy of containment of rogue states".

In Fall 2003, the Democrats released their own militarisation blueprint, entitled "Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy":

"This 19-page manifesto that calls for "the bold exercise of American power, not to dominate but to shape alliances and international institutions that share a common commitment to liberal values." (See Mark Hand, globalresearch.ca

The militarisation of America is a project of the US corporate elites, with significant divisions within the corporate establishment on how it is to be achieved.

The corporate establishment and its associated thinks tanks and semi-secret societies (The Bildeberg, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, etc.) is by no means monolithic.

Influential voices within the elites would prefer a "softer" police state apparatus, a "democratic dictatorship" which retains the external appearances of a functioning democracy.

The Democrats' "Progressive internationalism" is viewed by these sectors as a more effective way of imposing the US economic and military agenda Worldwide. For instance, the Kerry-Edwards ticket is supported by billionaire George Soros, who has waged a scathing denunciation of George W. Bush and the Neocons.

While the US Congress and the bi-partisan consensus constitutes the facade, the Military (and their Intelligence counterparts) are, from the point of view of the corporate elites, mere foreign policy "pawns", to use Henry Kissinger's expression, acting on behalf of dominant business interests.

The Wall Street financial establishment, the military-industrial complex, led by Lockheed Martin, the big five weapons and aerospace defense contractors, the Texas oil giants and energy conglomerates, the construction and engineering and public utility companies including, the biotechnology conglomerates, are indelibly behind the militarisation of America.

Elections or no Elections?

The "war on terrorism" is a war of conquest, which supports American (and British) economic and strategic interests. Its underpinnings are supported by both Democrats and Republicans.

While a Coup d'Etat triggered by a code red alert is a distinct possibility in the months ahead, we must understand that the militarisation of civilian institutions in America is an ongoing process.

The Coup d'Etat entrenches the militarisation process. It suspends civil liberties and the antiwar movement outright. It makes any form of reversal back to civilian forms of government much more difficult to achieve.

Militarisation, however, as distinct from an outright Military Coup d'Etat, does not exclude the electoral process.

Under a Kerry-Edwards administration, the military-intelligence apparatus --which constitutes the backbone of the "war on terrorism" and of the police state-- would remain functionally intact. So would Northern Command and the various Big Brother functions of the Department of Homeland Security.

One can indeed speculate on what might happen from now until the November presidential elections.

Whether the elections take place or not, the contours of a functioning police state under the facade of Constitutional government have already been defined:

*

the Big Brother surveillance apparatus,
*

the militarisation of justice and law enforcement,
*

the disinformation and propaganda network,
*

the support to terrorist organizations,
*

political assassinations and torture manuals,
*

concentration camps,
*

extensive war crimes and the blatant violation of international law,
*

etc.

On the economic front, we can expect militarisation to accelerate the gamut of neoliberal economic reforms both nationally and internationally (In the later case, they would be implemented under the auspices of the IMF, World Bank and World Trade Organisation).

Militarisation will be accompanied by a new deadly wave of privatization of public services, urban infrastructure would be transferred to private companies, local economies including small scale enterprises and agriculture would be further destabilized and deregulated, etc, leading to increased levels of unemployment and the impoverishment of millions of people.

Militarisation is an integral part of the neoliberal agenda.

fromthewilderness.com./free/ww3/072904_coup_detat...

Message 20361929



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (52428)7/31/2004 1:54:38 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
a few jokes...

__________________

"At the convention John Kerry showed up with all his Vietnam crewmates. And not to be outdone, next month at the Republican Convention George W. Bush is going to show up with all his college drinking buddies." —David Letterman

"Last night, wow, John Edwards delivered a positive message to America that hope is on the way, hope is on the way! And today, Dick Cheney replied, 'That is a lie. The world is a pit of misery and despair.'" —Craig Kilborn

"Now that the Democratic convention is over, the Republicans are getting ready for theirs. Their slogan for Bush: Four more wars, four more wars!" —Jay Leno

"Bill Clinton spoke at the Democratic Convention and some reporters loved his speech. They got all pumped up and started chanting Four More Whores." —Craig Kilborn

"Did you all hear former President Clinton's speech Monday night? It was great. ... You know it made me kind of nostalgic. It reminded me of a different time when presidents could actually talk." —Jay Leno

"We're learning more and more about potential first lady Teresa Heinz Kerry. Very well educated woman. Did you know that? In fact she can say 'shove it' in five different languages." —Jay Leno

"Teresa Heinz told a reporter to go 'shove it' the other day. When Hillary heard about it she said 'You go girl.' John Kerry said 'she acted appropriately.' Bill Clinton said 'he likes it when girls talk dirty.'" —Jay Leno

"Illinois senatorial candidate Barak Obama, he's the new rising star of the Democratic party. He gave the keynote address at the Democratic convention. When they told President Bush about Obama, Bush said, 'Isn't that the guy we can't find? Why don't we grab him? He was right there!'" —Jay Leno

"Former President Clinton did not give the keynote address. However, he did give a key, a note and his address to a waitress who was working the concession stand." —Jay Leno

"Democrats were reluctant to allow Al-Jazeera in their convention, because they thought their coverage would be biased and hostile. Then they realized it couldn't be any worse than Fox News." —Jay Leno



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (52428)7/31/2004 2:00:45 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Message 20366085



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (52428)7/31/2004 2:20:06 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
The Unbearable Costs of Empire
_____________________

By Mark Weisbrot
BusinessWeek.com
JULY 29, 2004

Establishment types are trumpeting America's role as global police force. Too bad the U.S. just can't afford the job

Since September 11, 2001, the phrases "American empire" and "America as an imperial power" are being heard a lot more.

But in contrast to the 1960s and 1970s, when such terms were brandished by an angry domestic anti-war movement or by developing nations in U.N. debates, the concept they represent has now at least partially entered the mainstream. However much it has incurred hostility throughout most of the world, including European and other countries usually allied with the U.S., the "new imperialism" has gained ground among the Establishment here.

The post-9/11 rationale is that America has terrorist enemies and rogue states that will do it serious harm -- maybe even with weapons of mass destruction -- if it doesn't police the world to stop them. "Being an imperial power is more than being the most powerful nation," writes Michael Ingatieff at Harvard's Kennedy Center. "It means enforcing such order as there is in the world and doing so in the American interest."

But what most analysts have missed –- whether or not they support the idea of an American empire -- is that the U.S. simply can't afford the role of global cop.

THE REAL DEBT.

First, the U.S. is entering this new age of empire with a gross federal debt that is the highest in more than 50 years as a percentage of gross domestic product. For fiscal 2005, which begins in October, the U.S. gross federal debt is projected to be $8.1 trillion, or 67.5% of GDP. By the time 100,000 U.S. troops were in Vietnam in 1965, it was 46.9% and falling.

One technical point that's vitally important here: It's the gross federal debt and deficits that matter, not the smaller "debt held by the public" and "unified budget deficit" that are generally cited in the press. For example, the most commonly reported estimate of the annual federal budget deficit is $478 billion for 2004. But this number is misleading, because it doesn't include borrowing from federal trust funds -- mostly Social Security and Medicare.

But the money the government is borrowing from Social Security and other trust funds will, with nearly 100% certainty, be paid back -- just like the money it borrows when it sells bonds to Bill Gates or the Chinese government. The annual federal budget deficit is, therefore, $639 billion, according to the numbers from the Congressional Budget Office. This is 5.6% of GDP, a near-record level for the post-World War II era.

BORROWING FROM ABROAD.

America can –- just barely -- afford this deficit right now, but that's about to change. First, the interest burden on the debt is currently manageable because of extremely low interest rates. But the Fed is expected to raise short-term rates to 2% by yearend. More important, long-term rates will almost certainly rise even more because inflation has accelerated to 4.9% over the last six months -- a big jump from 2003's 1.9%.

If Kerry wins and takes back the tax cut for households earning more than $200,000 a year, as promised, that won't even reduce the deficit by 1% of GDP. And if he keeps his spending promises, then the monies realized by repealing the tax cut would be canceled out. The Bush budget, which the conservative CATO Institute's Chairman Bill Niskanen recently described as "a fraud" put together by "borrow and spend Republicans," would make the deficit and debt problem even worse.

Then there's the problem of the U.S. –- both the government and the private sector –- borrowing from foreign countries. Most government borrowing is now being financed from overseas -- especially the central banks of China, Japan, and other countries. These institutions are deliberately buying dollars in order to keep their currencies from rising against the greenback. But they won't keep doing this indefinitely. The U.S. is borrowing more than $600 billion a year from the rest of the world, and it can't go on much longer.

THE BIG BANG.

Sometime within a decade, and most likely in the next couple of years, foreign investors will see that a steep decline of the dollar is unavoidable and will begin to unload them and U.S. Treasury securities. As with any bubble, it will be better if this one bursts sooner rather than later, when it would be even bigger. But adjustment and pain will still occur, including higher interest rates and consequently slower growth.

Slower growth will also mean larger federal budget deficits. And one event that will certainly slow growth and increase federal government borrowing well beyond current projections is the bursting of the housing bubble. Housing prices have seen an unprecedented run-up since 1995 of more than 35 percentage points above the rate of inflation. That has created more than $3 trillion in paper wealth that –- just like the illusory wealth of the stock-market bubble -- is programmed to disappear. This, too, is almost certain to happen in the next few years.

The economic impact will be at least equivalent to that of equities popping in 2000-02, which caused the last recession. Another slump is, therefore, likely in the near future, and with it a further ballooning of the federal budget deficit, as tax revenues fall and automatic countercyclical spending rises.

CHINA RISING.

The combination of unsustainable public debt and foreign debt is a deadly and explosive mix by itself. Rising real interest rates and a looming housing bubble bursting make it all the more dangerous. Financial markets will exert the necessary discipline if politicians refuse to do so, but either way the U.S. can't afford even the $486 billion a year that it's currently spending annually on the military and homeland security.

And even these spending levels are a lot less than would be necessary to maintain America's power in the world. Over the next decade or so, the Chinese economy will actually surpass the U.S. in size. America has 100,000 troops in East Asia. If the U.S. were to try to maintain its current dominance of the region -- something that will probably prove impossible -- it would boost our military spending even further.

The bottom line is that the American empire just isn't affordable. Within a decade or so, the U.S. will be forced to be much less preemptive and outward-looking and to engage in scaled-back foreign policy -- even if the foreign-policy Establishment never changes its views or ambitions.

REALITY CHECK.

In the meantime, the segment of American society that would like to see advances in health care, education, poverty alleviation, or any other positive economic or social goals will get bad news. The foreseeable future is a lot different from most of the post-World War II era, during which the U.S. added such programs as Medicare and Medicaid while spending literally trillions of dollars on cold and hot wars.

This time, little or no federal money will be available for any of these things until U.S. foreign policy changes. The most likely scenario is that most areas of nonmilitary discretionary spending will be squeezed relentlessly before anything gives in the realm of superpower ambitions.

The post-9/11 age of American empire will close not with a bang but a whimper, suffocated by the laws of arithmetic, the constraints of public financing, and the limits of foreign borrowing. What remains to be determined is how much the U.S. will pay -- in lost and ruined lives, as well as bills for future generations -- and how many enemies it will make throughout the world, before coming to grips with reality.
____________________

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic & Policy Research, in Washington, D.C.

businessweek.com



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (52428)7/31/2004 2:49:24 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
The Outsourcing Debate

pbs.org



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (52428)7/31/2004 4:15:50 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
NEWSWEEK POLL: DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION 2004 -- Kerry/Edwards Leads Bush/Cheney 52 to 44 Percent; Dems Receive Two-Point Margin Bounce in Two-Way Race, Four-Point Bounce in Three-Way Race

prnewswire.com

58 Percent Dissatisfied With Direction of Country;

57 Percent Say War With Iraq Has Not Made U.S. Safer

NEW YORK, July 31 /PRNewswire/ -- In a two-way trial heat between the
Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates, among registered voters,
Sen. John Kerry/Sen. John Edwards lead President George Bush/Vice-President
Dick Cheney 52-44 percent, according to the latest Newsweek Poll, conducted
Thursday and Friday. In a three-way race with the Ralph Nader/Peter Camejo
ticket added, Kerry/Edwards receives 49 percent of the vote; Bush/Cheney, 42
percent and Nader/Camejo, 3 percent, the poll shows.
In the two-way heat in the July 8-9 Newsweek Poll, Kerry led Bush by six
points, 51 to 45 percent. In the three-way heat from that week, Kerry led Bush
by 3 points, 47 to 44 percent, and Nader received 3 percent of the vote, the
poll shows. Therefore, coming out of the final two days of the Democratic
National Convention, the poll shows a four-point margin "bounce" in the three-
way heat and a two-point margin "bounce" in the two-way heat.
In interviews on Thursday, July 29-before the Kerry nomination acceptance
speech-Kerry/Edwards received the support of 47 percent of registered voters,
Bush/Cheney 45 percent and Nader/Camejo 2 percent, according to the Newsweek
Poll. In Friday interviews after the speech, Kerry/Edwards received 50
percent, Bush/Cheney 40 percent and Nader/Camejo 3 percent. In the two-way
race, in interviews on July 29, Kerry/Edwards received 49 percent and
Bush/Cheney 47 percent. On July 30, Kerry/Edwards got 54 percent and
Bush/Cheney 41 percent, the poll shows.
Reflecting the DNC's themes, 27 percent of registered voters say Kerry's
war record makes them more likely to vote for him (15% say less likely); five
percent say Bush's war record makes them more likely to vote for him (22% say
less likely). And overall, 51 percent of registered voters say Bush has done
more to divide Americans than unite them (39 percent say he has done more to
unite them).
Looking at crossover voters from the 2000 election, 92 percent of Gore
voters in 2000 support Kerry (5 percent say they will vote for Bush and 3
percent is undecided); 84 percent of Bush voters say they plan to vote for the
president again (four percent of Bush 2000 voters are undecided, 10 percent
say they will vote for Kerry and 2 percent for Nader).
Only 19 percent of registered voters say they paid a great deal of
attention to the Democratic convention, 29 percent said some. Fifty-one
percent paid very little (26%) or no attention (25%) to the convention. And 55
percent of registered voters say from what they've seen or heard about the
convention Kerry and Edwards would provide the kind of leadership that would
unite Americans (33% say they would not), the poll shows.
As for who will handle issues better, among registered voters, Bush and
Kerry are even at 46 percent on handling the situation in Iraq, but Bush
scores better on handling terrorism and homeland security (48% vs. 43%). And
46 percent say Bush is closer to the their view on gay marriage (33% say
Kerry). But Kerry scores better on handling health care, including Medicare
(55% vs. 32%), American jobs and foreign competition (53% vs. 36%), and
education (48% vs. 40%), the environment (59% vs. 29%) and stem cell research
(53% vs. 26%), the poll shows. Bush's job-approval rating dropped to 45
percent among all those polled.
Regarding foreign policy issues, among registered voters, 43 percent say
the Bush administration has not done enough to involve major allies and
international organizations; 38 percent say they've done the right amount. But
60 percent say the administration's policies and diplomatic efforts have led
to more anti-Americanism around the world; just 9 percent say they've improved
America's image around the world, the poll shows. And 71 percent of registered
voters say the way people in other countries feel about the United States
should matter at least somewhat (38% say a lot) to our political leaders in
Washington.
Fifty-seven percent of registered voters say going to war with Iraq has
not made America safer from terrorism and 58 percent say they are not
satisfied with the way things are going in the U.S., the poll shows.
Sixty-seven percent of registered voters say Kerry is personally likable
(compared to 62 percent who say the same of President Bush), an increase for
Kerry from 60 percent in the July 8-9 Newsweek Poll; 58 percent say he has
strong leadership qualities (compared to 60 percent who say the same for
Bush). Fifty-seven percent of registered voters say he cares about people like
them (vs. 44% for Bush) and 58 percent say he is honest and ethical (vs. 54%
for Bush), the poll shows. Fifty-three percent say they would trust him to
make the right decisions during an international crisis (48% say they would
trust Bush) and 49 percent say he says what he believes, not just what people
want to hear, compared to 58 percent for Bush.
Regardless of which presidential candidate they support, 43 percent of
registered voters think Bush is more likely to win in November, 44 percent say
Kerry. An increase for Kerry in the July 8-9 Newsweek Poll, which found 47
percent said Bush and 38 percent said Kerry. When asked who they would vote
for if they could vote for vice president separately, registered voters chose
Edwards over Cheney, 55-36 percent.
For this Newsweek Poll, Princeton Survey Research Associates International
interviewed 1,190 adults aged 18 and older on July 29-30, 2004. The margin of
error is plus or minus 3 percentage points. This poll is part of the August 9
issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, August 2).

SOURCE Newsweek
Web Site: newsweek.msnbc.com