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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Suma who wrote (147432)	10/9/2004 5:15:30 AM
From: Ron	Respond to of 281500

Chaos as boycott hits Afghan vote Afghanistan's first democratic presidential election has been thrown into confusion with most of the 18 candidates boycotting it. The move follows allegations of fraud over the use of indelible ink to prevent people voting more than once. The boycott was agreed by 15 candidates opposed to the favourite, the interim President Hamid Karzai. The poll has been widely seen as a chance for Mr Karzai to extend his authority beyond the capital, Kabul. He has led the country since the fall of the hard-line Islamic Taleban nearly three years ago. Security is tight across the country to counter threats by Taleban militants to disrupt the election. 'Call it off' The allegations of voter fraud arose after complaints that the indelible ink used to mark voters' fingers can be washed off. Polling was briefly suspended in some areas of the capital, Kabul, and the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif while the complaints investigated. When asked if the voting was free and fair, one of the 18 presidential candidates, Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai, told the BBC: "Absolutely not, it should be called off." Apart from Mr Karzai, only two other candidates have not signed up to the boycott, reports say. The BBC's Andrew North in Kabul says it is not clear how the election organisers will respond to the boycott. Earlier they had insisted that voting would continue. Farook Wardak, head of the Joint Election Management Board, told BBC News Online: "The problem with the ink appears to be with the application of the ink and not the ink itself." He said marker pens were being used in some cases instead of the indelible ink, while in other cases, the correct ink was being applied to the wrong part of the finger. "Where the correct ink is applied it stays on." 'Optimistic' President Karzai was chosen as interim leader of the country at a meeting of Afghan groups following the fall of the Taleban. He is now seeking a popular mandate for his rule. As he cast his vote at a polling station in Kabul he said it was a great day for the Afghan people. When asked whom he had voted for, he only smiled. The first vote was cast by an Afghan refugee in neighbouring Pakistan, where voting opened slightly earlier. "I am very happy," said 19-year-old Moqadasa Sidiqi, after she voted in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad. The Taleban has vowed to disrupt the polls, in which more than 10 million names have been registered to vote. More than 100,000 Afghan and international security personnel have been put on high alert for the poll. Many Afghans hope the election will bring an end to the rule of the gun, provide national unity and encourage the flow of further international aid. In Kabul, there were queues outside polling stations before voting began at 0700 (0230GMT). Security has been the leading concern in the run-up to the election, and there are reports of an explosion at a polling station in Mazar-e-Sharif. UN officials also voiced concern in the run-up to the polls that many voters may have been registered more than once. Extension possible In addition to high security, human rights groups have warned that voters may be intimidated. There will be few independent observers at polling stations. Voting is scheduled to finish at 1600 local time (1130GMT), but could be extended if there is a large turnout and people still wish to vote. Ballot boxes will then be sealed and transported to eight regional counting centres. In this mountainous country, some will have to be taken by helicopter. Initial results are expected in the coming days but it may take a couple of weeks for all the votes to be counted. Mr Karzai is widely tipped to win, although Uzbek General Abdul Rashid Dostum and Tajik former education minister Yunus Qanuni have fought high-profile campaigns. Correspondents say much will depend on how the country's various power brokers react to the result and how far the victor is prepared to challenge the political status quo in a country sometimes described as a series of mini-fiefdoms. Story from BBC NEWS: news.bbc.co.uk

To: Suma who wrote (147432)	10/9/2004 10:07:56 PM
From: Bruce L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Anconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil? "When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears not all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor—your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money, Is this what you consider evil? "ATLAS SHRUGGED" by Ayn Rand Re: IMPORTATION OF DRUGS FROM CANADA Mary Lou: A. The National Health Service (NHS) A friend of mine, Larry, served a summer stint as an intern at the NHS some 40 years ago. He tells a story of working for a GS-16 NHS "executive" who had as his principal regular function the preparation of a statistical report read only by NHS executives higher up. In preparation, this man would laboriously make his own graph paper with pen and ruler! Yes, it was 40 years ago, but nothing has changed. Recently (within the last 2 months) the WSJ had a story about 2 democratic (!) U.S. Senators who complained that taxpayers were not getting their money's worth from the NHS, that the NHS budget had doubled in the last 4 -5 years, and they were not able to see what if anything the NHS had accomplished with the extra money. The long and the short: government is a moocher, not a producer. B. The Cost of Bringing Forth New Drugs Of every 5000 potential new drugs - that reach the stage where they are used in animal trials - only 5 make it to clinical human trials. Of these 5, only 1 will be given final approval by the FDA. <http://www.thelabrat.com/review/drugsimportcanada.shtml> In 2001, the average cost of bringing out a new drug was $802 million. This cost, adjusted for inflation, had risen by 250% since 1987. In the 1990s, research costs had risen each year by 7.4%, but the cost of clinical trials had risen 12% per year. <http://www.ncpa.org/iss/hea/pd120301b.html> C. International Stealing From Drug Companies THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT U.S. CONSUMERS PAY FOR NEARLY ALL NEW DRUG DEVELOPMENT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE COMPANY IS U.S. OR FOREIGN The marginal cost of manufacturing a particular "pill" - apart from development costs - may only be a few cents. There is a clause in the Uruguay Round of the World Trade Agreement - agreed to by the U.S. - that arguably allows countries to violate (i.e., steal) the patent of a pharmaceutical company which "unreasonably" refuses to sell its patent to them. The most aggressive country in the world in using this clause is Brazil, followed closely by CANADA and Germany. Companies are forced to sell their drugs in these countries for only slightly more than the marginal cost of production. It hardly needs mentioning that the prices pharmaceutical companies receive in Canada comes nowhere close to allowing these companies to recover their development costs, let alone a profit. If drugs from Canada - and elsewhere - can be freely imported into the U.S., the flow of miracle drugs will surely dry up. Bruce