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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (270047)	1/26/2006 6:47:47 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573682

re: Brian Williams reported tonite that people are starting to complain about the Katrina reporting NBC I saw that and had to say good for NBC to continue. Katrina and one more soldier dying in Iraq have become "old news", not worth our attention.

To: tejek who wrote (270047)	1/26/2006 6:52:00 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1573682

This should be interesting... Hamas in upset Palestinian election win The Islamic militant group Hamas has swept to victory over the long-dominant Fatah faction in the Palestinian parliamentary election, a political earthquake that could bury chances for peacemaking with Israel. The shock outcome, acknowledged by Fatah ahead of official results, would not automatically unseat President Mahmoud Abbas, who was elected last year. But he has said he might resign if unable to pursue a peace policy. Hamas's win could lead to further unilateral moves by Israel, following a Gaza pullout last year, to shape its final border on occupied land Palestinians want for a state. Peace talks have been stalled for five years. "Hamas has won more than 70 seats in Gaza and the West Bank, which gives it more than 50 per cent of the vote," said Ismail Haniyeh, a leader of the group. Within hours of the statement, which Haniyeh based on results supplied by Hamas representatives at polling stations, Prime Minister Ahmed Qurie of Fatah and his cabinet quit. Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev declined comment on what one Fatah official described as a tsunami. Interim Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said Israel would not negotiate peace under a US-backed "road map" with a Palestinian government that does not "fight terror" and disarm militants. Israel, the United States and the European Union have classified Hamas, which has carried out nearly 60 suicide bombings in the Jewish state since a Palestinian uprising began in 2000, as a terrorist organisation. Hamas's charter commits it to Israel's eventual destruction, but its armed wing has largely respected a truce negotiated by Abbas and Egypt nearly a year ago. A senior Fatah official said it appeared Hamas was propelled to victory by a protest vote against years of corruption in the mainstream faction and the Palestinian Authority it controls. The Islamic group's charity network in the impoverished Gaza Strip and in the West Bank has also boosted its popularity. "Hamas did not win because people loved Hamas, but because people were taking revenge against the past years of Fatah rule," said Adel al-Helo, 41, a Gaza shopkeeper. Hamas officials held out the possibility of a coalition with Fatah and other parties - and reaffirmed its commitment to what it calls armed resistance against Israeli occupation, as wellas its opposition to negotiations with the Jewish state. "We do not see it necessary to squeeze ourselves and our people into this dark corner which will achieve nothing," said one Hamas official, referring to peace talks. Three exit polls had forecast a slim Fatah victory in the contest for parliament's 132 seats. Turnout was 78 per cent of the 1.3 million voters. US President George W. Bush said on Wednesday he would not deal with Hamas unless it accepted Israel's existence. "A political party, in order to be viable, is one that professes peace, in my judgment, in order that it will keep the peace," Bush told the Wall Street Journal in an interview. "And so you're getting a sense of how I'm going to deal with Hamas if they end up in positions of responsibility. And the answer is: 'Not until you renounce your desire to destroy Israel will we deal with you'." Abbas, elected a year ago after the death of Yasser Arafat, has said the Palestinian Authority was ready to resume talks with Israel even if Hamas joined his government. Abbas had also voiced hopes that once Hamas entered parliament it might be prepared to relinquish its weapons. Despite signals this week that it might be open to indirect talks with Israel, Hamas said on Wednesday it would not change its charter or give up its weapons but would consider joining a coalition government with Fatah. Late on Wednesday, Gaza Strip and West Bank towns filled with the sound of car horns and bursts of gunfire poured into the night sky as Hamas and Fatah supporters claimed victory. "Our choice is Islam and we want change as soon as possible," Hamas backer Nidal al-Jaberi said in Hebron. A few streets away, a Fatah gunman, Mohammed Amr, said: "This result shows that Fatah will always be on top." Voting was orderly despite weeks of armed chaos. More than 400 candidates ran locally in the first parliamentary elections since 1996. About 900 foreign observers, led by former US President Jimmy Carter, were present. Israeli troops had pulled back from West Bank population centres to avoid any accusations of interfering in the polls. © 2006 AAP

To: tejek who wrote (270047)	1/26/2006 7:15:38 AM
From: Road Walker	Respond to of 1573682

Senators in Need of a Spine Judge Samuel Alito Jr., whose entire history suggests that he holds extreme views about the expansive powers of the presidency and the limited role of Congress, will almost certainly be a Supreme Court justice soon. His elevation will come courtesy of a president whose grandiose vision of his own powers threatens to undermine the nation's basic philosophy of government — and a Senate that seems eager to cooperate by rolling over and playing dead. It is hard to imagine a moment when it would be more appropriate for senators to fight for a principle. Even a losing battle would draw the public's attention to the import of this nomination. At the Judiciary Committee hearings, the judge followed the well-worn path to confirmation, which has the nominee offer up only the most boring statements and unarguable truisms: the president is not above the law; diversity in college student bodies is a good thing. But in what he has said in the past, and what he refused to say in the hearings, Judge Alito raised warning flags that, in the current political context, cannot simply be shrugged away with a promise to fight again another day. The Alito nomination has been discussed largely in the context of his opposition to abortion rights, and if the hearings provided any serious insight at all into the nominee's intentions, it was that he has never changed his early convictions on that point. The judge — who long maintained that Roe v. Wade should be overturned — ignored all the efforts by the Judiciary Committee's chairman, Arlen Specter, to get him to provide some cover for pro-choice senators who wanted to support the nomination. As it stands, it is indefensible for Mr. Specter or any other senator who has promised constituents to protect a woman's right to an abortion to turn around and hand Judge Alito a potent vote to undermine or even end it. But portraying the Alito nomination as just another volley in the culture wars vastly underestimates its significance. The judge's record strongly suggests that he is an eager lieutenant in the ranks of the conservative theorists who ignore our system of checks and balances, elevating the presidency over everything else. He has expressed little enthusiasm for restrictions on presidential power and has espoused the peculiar argument that a president's intent in signing a bill is just as important as the intent of Congress in writing it. This would be worrisome at any time, but it takes on far more significance now, when the Bush administration seems determined to use the cover of the "war on terror" and presidential privilege to ignore every restraint, from the Constitution to Congressional demands for information. There was nothing that Judge Alito said in his hearings that gave any comfort to those of us who wonder whether the new Roberts court will follow precedent and continue to affirm, for instance, that a man the president labels an "unlawful enemy combatant" has the basic right to challenge the government's ability to hold him in detention forever without explanation. His much-quoted statement that the president is not above the law is meaningless unless he also believes that the law requires the chief executive to defer to Congress and the courts. Judge Alito's refusal to even pretend to sound like a moderate was telling because it would have cost him so little. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., who was far more skillful at appearing mainstream at the hearings, has already given indications that whatever he said about the limits of executive power when he was questioned by the Senate has little practical impact on how he will rule now that he has a lifetime appointment. Senate Democrats, who presented a united front against the nomination of Judge Alito in the Judiciary Committee, seem unwilling to risk the public criticism that might come with a filibuster — particularly since there is very little chance it would work. Judge Alito's supporters would almost certainly be able to muster the 60 senators necessary to put the nomination to a final vote. A filibuster is a radical tool. It's easy to see why Democrats are frightened of it. But from our perspective, there are some things far more frightening. One of them is Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court. Copyright 2006The New York Times Company