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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (708461)	10/23/2005 2:53:02 PM
From: Mr. Palau	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

George Will, leftwing nutcase, LOL: "Defending The Indefensible By George F. Will Sunday, October 23, 2005; B07 Such is the perfect perversity of the nomination of Harriet Miers that it discredits, and even degrades, all who toil at justifying it. Many of their justifications cannot be dignified as arguments. Of those that can be, some reveal a deficit of constitutional understanding commensurate with that which it is, unfortunately, reasonable to impute to Miers. Other arguments betray a gross misunderstanding of conservatism on the part of persons masquerading as its defenders. Miers's advocates, sensing the poverty of other possibilities, began by cynically calling her critics sexist snobs who disdain women with less than Ivy League degrees. Her advocates certainly know that her critics revere Margaret Thatcher almost as much as they revere the memory of the president who was educated at Eureka College. Next, Miers's advocates managed, remarkably, to organize injurious testimonials. Sensible people cringed when one of the former Texas Supreme Court justices summoned to the White House offered this reason for putting her on the nation's highest tribunal: "I can vouch for her ability to analyze and to strategize." Another said: "When we were on the lottery commission together, a lot of the problems that we had there were legal in nature. And she was just very, very insistent that we always get all the facts together." Miers's advocates tried the incense defense: Miers is pious. But that is irrelevant to her aptitude for constitutional reasoning. The crude people who crudely invoked it probably were sending a crude signal to conservatives who, the invokers evidently believe, are so crudely obsessed with abortion that they have an anti-constitutional willingness to overturn Roe v. Wade with an unreasoned act of judicial willfulness as raw as the 1973 decision itself. In their unseemly eagerness to assure Miers's conservative detractors that she will reach the "right" results, her advocates betray complete incomprehension of this: Thoughtful conservatives' highest aim is not to achieve this or that particular outcome concerning this or that controversy. Rather, their aim for the Supreme Court is to replace semi-legislative reasoning with genuine constitutional reasoning about the Constitution's meaning as derived from close consideration of its text and structure. Such conservatives understand that how you get to a result is as important as the result. Indeed, in an important sense, the path that the Supreme Court takes to the result often is the result. As Miers's confirmation hearings draw near, her advocates will make an argument that is always false but that they, especially, must make, considering the unusual nature of their nominee. The argument is that it is somehow inappropriate for senators to ask a nominee -- a nominee for a lifetime position making unappealable decisions of enormous social impact -- searching questions about specific Supreme Court decisions and the principles of constitutional law that these decisions have propelled into America's present and future. To that argument, the obvious and sufficient refutation is: Why, then, have hearings? What, then, remains of the Senate's constitutional role in consenting to nominees? It is not merely permissible, it is imperative that senators give Miers ample opportunity to refute skeptics by demonstrating her analytic powers and jurisprudential inclinations by discussing recent cases concerning, for example, the scope of federal power under the commerce clause, the compatibility of the First Amendment with campaign regulations and privacy -- including Roe v. Wade . Can Miers's confirmation be blocked? It is easy to get a senatorial majority to take a stand in defense of this or that concrete interest, but it is surpassingly difficult to get a majority anywhere to rise in defense of mere excellence. Still, Miers must begin with 22 Democratic votes against her. Surely no Democrat can retain a shred of self-respect if, having voted against John Roberts, he or she then declares Miers fit for the court. All Democrats who so declare will forfeit a right and an issue -- their right to criticize the administration's cronyism. And Democrats, with their zest for gender politics, need this reminder: To give a woman a seat on a crowded bus because she is a woman is gallantry. To give a woman a seat on the Supreme Court because she is a woman is a dereliction of senatorial duty. It also is an affront to mature feminism, which may bridle at gallantry but should recoil from condescension. As for Republicans, any who vote for Miers will thereafter be ineligible to argue that it is important to elect Republicans because they are conscientious conservers of the judicial branch's invaluable dignity. Finally, any Republican senator who supinely acquiesces in President Bush's reckless abuse of presidential discretion -- or who does not recognize the Miers nomination as such -- can never be considered presidential material." georgewill@washpost.com washingtonpost.com

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (708461)	10/23/2005 3:18:59 PM
From: paret	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

N.Y. Times Earnings Fall by more than half in Third Quarter Oct 19 2005 By SETH SUTEL AP Business Writer The New York Times Co. said Wednesday its earnings fell by more than half in the third quarter, even as sales rose, because of higher costs and a charge related to staff reductions. The company, which publishes The Boston Globe and the International Herald Tribune in addition to its flagship newspaper, had net income of $23.1 million, or 16 cents a share, in the July-September period, down from $48.3 million, or 33 cents a share, in the comparable period a year ago. The results for the latest quarter include a pretax charge of $12.4 million, equivalent to 5 cents per share after tax, for costs related to staff reductions announced earlier this year. The company also said it would take an additional total charge of $35 million to $45 million over the next three quarters, beginning in the fourth quarter, for another staff reduction program it announced last month that will eliminate 500 jobs, or 4 percent of its payroll. Revenue rose 2.2 percent to $791.1 million in the quarter. Excluding the addition of About.com, an Internet company the Times acquired in March, revenue rose 0.4 percent. The results were higher than the company's previously reduced estimates for third-quarter earnings. Last month the Times said it expected earnings of 11 cents to 14 cents per share because of a tough advertising environment and higher-than-anticipated costs related to its previous round of job cuts. Janet Robinson, chief executive of the Times, said in a statement it saw improved advertising growth in September, but the market in the third quarter had been "challenging." Overall, the Times reported a 4.4 percent gain in advertising sales in September from the same month a year ago, or 1.6 percent excluding About.com. Total costs rose 8.2 percent in the quarter. Excluding costs related to staff reductions, its acquisition of About.com, and stock-based compensation, expenses at the Times increased 4.6 percent on higher distribution and printing expenses, higher costs for compensation and promotion. In September, the Times said it would slash about 500 jobs over the following six to nine months. About half of the cuts will be at the New York Times media group, including 45 newsroom positions at the Times newspaper. The Times' shares fell 21 cents to $27.54, below a 52-week low, in morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange. The shares have traded from $27.74 to $41.62 in the past year. ___