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: combjelly who wrote (288314)	5/17/2006 12:19:53 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573927

Down to the Fourth Estate By Jonathan Turley Wed May 17, 6:56 AM ET news.yahoo.com This month, Congress is faced with a most inconvenient crime. With the recent disclosure of a massive secret database program run by the National Security Agency involving tens of millions of innocent Americans, members are confronted with a second intelligence operation that not only lacks congressional authorization but also appears patently unlawful. In December, the public learned that the NSA was engaging in warrantless domestic surveillance of overseas communications - an operation many experts believe is a clear federal crime ordered by the president more than 30 times. What is most striking about these programs is that they were revealed not by members of Congress but by members of the Fourth Estate: Journalists who confronted Congress with evidence of potentially illegal conduct by this president that was known to various congressional leaders. In response, President Bush has demanded to know who will rid him of these meddlesome whistle-blowers, and various devout members have rushed forth with cudgels and codes in hand. Now, it appears Congress is finally acting - not to end alleged criminal acts by the administration, mind you, but to stop the public from learning about such alleged crimes in the future. Members are seeking to give the president the authority to continue to engage in warrantless domestic surveillance as they call for whistle-blowers to be routed out. They also want new penalties to deter both reporters and their sources. The debate has taken on a hopeful Zen-like quality for besieged politicians: If a crime occurs and no one is around to reveal it or to report it, does it really exist? The plain fact is that neither party wants to acknowledge that the president might have ordered the commission of federal crimes in the name of national security. Thus, while there have been calls for another feeble hearing (possibly with telecom executives), Congress would prefer to investigate steroids in baseball and the selling of horses to France for gourmet dinners. Nothing here to cheer Congress has become a sad parody of itself. In his State of the Union address in January, Bush proudly said he had repeatedly ordered the domestic surveillance operation and would continue to do so. In perhaps the most bizarre moment in modern congressional history, members from both houses proceeded to give him a standing ovation - cheering their own institutional irrelevancy. Willful blindness, however, will only go so far when newspapers continually put these acts on the front pages. In addition to new possible penalties for whistle-blowers, members of Congress are blocking the enactment of a long-overdue federal shield law to protect journalists from having to disclose their sources to prosecutors - despite the fact that the majority of states have passed such laws as an essential component to good government. In the meantime, the Bush administration has carried out a scorched-earth campaign against whistle-blowers, including demanding that employees sign waivers of any confidentiality agreements with reporters and using polygraphs designed to uncover anyone speaking with the media. It has also sought to convince a federal court in Virginia to radically extend the reach of the 1917 Espionage Act to cover anyone who even hears classified information while researching or reporting on government policy. In a case involving two lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the government is seeking stiff jail terms based on their receipt of classified information orally from a Pentagon employee on policy issues in the Middle East. (The Pentagon official has been sentenced to more than 12 years in prison.) Under the interpretation of the Bush administration, if a lobbyist or a reporter or a researcher is given such information, he can be charged with unlawful possession of classified information. If successful in the AIPAC case, the Bush administration would make it a crime for a reporter to disclose classified information, even if the story reveals a criminal operation. Thus, even if the NSA program is a criminal enterprise, it is a classified criminal enterprise that cannot be disclosed. It would have been mob boss John Gotti's dream: Commit a crime and then stamp it classified. What must change It is time to separate true patriots from cringing politicians. The assertion of unchecked power by this president has created a danger to our constitutional system. Congress must demand an independent investigation of these programs. It must also pass a federal shield law and strengthen whistle-blower protections to preserve the only current check on governmental abuse. It should change the federal law to prevent the abusive use of the Espionage Act, such as in the AIPAC case. Finally, it should revamp the intelligence oversight system, which has long been viewed as a pathetic paper tiger with either little interest or ability in checking abuses. The Framers gave us a free press as the final safety net if all other checks and balances in the three branches of government should fail. With the failure of both parties in Congress to exercise oversight responsibilities, the importance of a free press has been vividly demonstrated. The public now has a choice. It can live in self-imposed ignorance, or it can fight for an open society. Not hearing about alleged crimes by your government is certainly a comfort, but not having crimes occur would be an even greater one. Jonathan Turley is a law professor at George Washington University who has testified before Congress on both the NSA's surveillance operations and the need for a federal shield law to protect journalists. He is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.

To: combjelly who wrote (288314)	5/20/2006 4:41:16 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573927

Thanks for the article. There's a new bubble in town Oil at $70 a barrel. Gold topping $700. Copper through the roof. Where will it end? Morgan Stanley's Stephen Roach takes a look at the commodities boom today, and flat out calls it a bubble. As evidence, he points out that in comparison to the last four periods of strong global growth, commodity prices have disproportionately skyrocketed. That's because China didn't weigh into the global picture until this latest period of global growth. There is huge demand coming out of China which is fueling these bubblish prices. And that demand is likely to remain in place at least for another year IMO. Roach isn't alone in wondering whether the laws of supply and demand have gotten out of whack in commodities. But his most interesting point is rhetorical. Drawing on Robert Shiller's "Irrational Exuberance," he notes that bubbles are usually accompanied by a "new story": a compelling explanation of why current trends are likely to continue ... so get in now and buy! In this case, the "new story" that has commodity investors and traders all excited is China. China is gobbling up all the cement, oil, steel, copper and chromium the world has to offer -- and shows no signs of slowing down. So all over the world, traders are betting that commodity prices will continue to go up. Roach demurs. China's new five-year plan, he says, indicates that China's leaders are intent on "rebalancing" the economy, and moving toward lower growth. I am unclear how Roach comes to that conclusion. China does from time to time redirect growth but I have not heard them say they are lowering growth. Betting that China's next 27 years will be like the last 27 is a loser's proposition. And higher prices for commodities will also, all by themselves, result in lowered demand -- something that already appears to be happening in oil markets. Its my understanding that the Chinese economy did not 'wake up' until the last 1990s. Oil usage is fairly inelastic. Higher prices may force some people to use another energy source such as coal but in most cases, its fairly difficult for most users to substitute one energy source for another. Roach's analyses veer toward the dour (although he did shock his regular readers recently by declaring that the global economy wasn't due for a horrible implosion). He appears to enjoy the contrarian path -- and predicting that China's impact on global commodity prices will not persist is a pretty sharp detour from conventional wisdom. Given how much pent-up demand for the "good life" there still is in China (and let's not forget India), it still seems possible that we are witnessing a fundamental event in global history -- the reemergence of two great civilizations, India and China, as major global economic powers. While I think the latter comment is true......that the BRIC nations are experiencing unprecedented growth.....I do believe that eventually there will be "a bursting of the bubble". However, I don't see it happening in the immediate future......next 9 months.........mainly because the US economy has just started to show some strength. When the US economy weakens which the way the stock market is behaving in the past two weeks could be as soon as 6-9 months away, then I think we'll see commodity prices start to fall. I think the important thing to remember about commodities like gold and oil is that for decades their prices have remained in a very slow growth mode and that the current move is playing catchup. And I also think the concern about Peak Oil is not some scifi scare theory. I do think we are reaching the limits of oil production based on current technology. Here's an article about the gold market: "Thus, we were not at all surprised to see the spot future Gold price come back to those September 1980 highs by the close of the week's trading on May 12. Even though Gold hasn't been this high in almost 26 years in US Dollar terms, there are always people around who want to "get out even" no matter how long they've waited to do it. Sadly, anybody who bought Gold at $US 710 in September 1980 is not REALLY getting out even by selling it at $US 710 in May 2006. In 2006, $US 710 buys a LOT less than it did in 1980. That, of course, is the problem. The reason why Gold has been going up so precipitously over the past month and has accelerated its bull market so much since last last year is that the problem has begun to be realised by many more people, both inside and especially OUTSIDE the US. In nominal terms, about the only prices which are still below where they were in 1980 in $US terms are Gold and Silver prices. They are only now BEGINNING to "catch up" with everything else." the-privateer.com