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


To: steve harris who wrote (307085)10/20/2006 12:13:26 PM
From: Tenchusatsu  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1576615
 
Steve, > lefties are silent on this Walmart $4 drug prescription deal...

That evil Wal-mart. Small businesses can't hope to compete against them ...

But don't worry. "Help is on the way ..."

Tenchusatsu



To: steve harris who wrote (307085)10/20/2006 6:33:39 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1576615
 
In the poll, 45 percent said Democrats were more likely to make the right decision on Iraq, compared with 34 percent of Republicans.

Tables Turned for the G.O.P. Over Iraq Issue

By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JIM RUTENBERG
Published: October 19, 2006
WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 — Four months ago, the White House offered a set of clear political directions to Republicans heading into the midterm elections: embrace the war in Iraq as critical to the antiterrorism fight and belittle Democrats as advocates of a “cut and run” policy of weakness.

With three weeks until Election Day, Republican candidates are barely mentioning Iraq on the campaign trail and in their television advertisements.

Even President Bush, continuing to attack Democrats for opposing the war, has largely dropped his call of “stay the course” and replaced it with a more nuanced promise of flexibility.

It is the Democrats who have seized on Iraq as a central issue. In debates and in speeches, candidates are pummeling Republicans with accusations of a failed war.


Rather than avoiding confrontation on Iraq as they did in 2002 and 2004, they are spotlighting their opposition in new television advertisements that feature mayhem and violence in Iraq, denounce Republicans for supporting Mr. Bush and, in at least one case, demand the ouster of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

“I support our troops and I voted for the war, but we shouldn’t stay the course, as Mr. Corker wants,” Representative Harold E. Ford Jr., the Democratic candidate for Senate in Tennessee, says in one advertisement.

Mr. Ford’s Republican opponent, Bob Corker, is shown against a backdrop of wartime scenes, saying, “We should stay the course,” a phrase that Republicans once described as a rallying cry for the campaign.

Taken together, the discussion on the campaign trail suggests just how much of a problem the Iraq war has become for Republicans. It represents a startling contrast with the two national elections beginning in 2002 with the preparation for the Iraq invasion, in which Republicans used the issue to keep Democrats on the run on foreign policy and national security.

The development also suggests that what has been a classic strategy of Mr. Bush’s senior adviser, Karl Rove — to turn a weakness into a strength — is not working as well as the White House had hoped.

“As the Iraq war gets more unpopular, the environment for Republican candidates erodes,” said Mark Campbell, a Republican strategist who represents several Congressional candidates, including Representative Jim Gerlach of Pennsylvania, who is fighting for re-election in one of the toughest races.

“Only in an election year this complicated can Republicans be happy that Mark Foley knocked the Iraq war off the front page,” Mr. Campbell said.

A senior strategist familiar with Republican polling who insisted on anonymity to share internal data said that as of midsummer it was clear that “stay the course” was a self-defeating argument.

At that point, the strategist said, Republicans started trying to refine their oratory or refocus the debate back to discussing terrorism, where Republicans continue to say they wield the stronger hand and where candidates are running advertisements that Democrats describe as effective.

Democrats, seeing similar data in their polls, advised candidates to confront Republicans aggressively, in the view that accusations that Democrats would “cut and run” would not blunt Democrats’ efforts to mock Republicans as wanting to “stay the course.”

“For the first time in modern memory, Democrats are actually on the offensive when it comes to national security,” said Matt Bennett, a founder of Third Way, a moderate Democratic organization that has been briefing Democrats on discussing the war and national security. “It is really stunning.”

As of this week, party officials said, Democratic candidates in at least 17 of roughly 35 closely contested Congressional seats and at least six of eight Senate races considered close are running television advertisements against the Iraq war, presenting viewpoints that extend to calling for a troop withdrawal.

More broadly, Democrats in all parts of the country, in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio and New Mexico are embracing the war issue.

“It’s not just the Northeast and the West Coast,” Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said. “It’s places like Virginia and Tennessee. Iraq and foreign policy are to a large extent albatrosses around the Republicans’ neck this year. And they don’t know what to do about it.”

Republicans and Democrats said the White House effort to turn the war into an affirmative Republican issue was undercut by the increasing violence there, along with more American deaths that have brought the war home in the form of mournful articles in local newspapers.

That complicated the White House effort to present the Iraq war as part of the antiterrorism effort, and it has contributed to support for the war reaching record or near-record lows.

In the New York Times/CBS News Poll taken from Oct. 5 to Oct. 8, two-thirds of respondents said they disapproved of Mr. Bush’s handling of the war and 66 percent said the war was going somewhat or very badly.

In the poll, 45 percent said Democrats were more likely to make the right decision on Iraq, compared with 34 percent of Republicans.

1 2

nytimes.com



To: steve harris who wrote (307085)10/20/2006 6:35:06 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1576615
 
U.N. says number of ocean "dead zones" rising fast

By Daniel Wallis
Thu Oct 19, 9:19 AM ET


NAIROBI (Reuters) - The number of "dead zones" in the world's oceans may have increased by a third in just two years, threatening fish stocks and the people who depend on them, the U.N. Environment Program said on Thursday.

Fertilizers, sewage, fossil fuel burning and other pollutants have led to a doubling in the number of oxygen-deficient coastal areas every decade since the 1960s.

Now experts estimate there are 200 so-called ocean dead zones, compared with 150 two years ago.

"Some successes are being scored but in other areas -- like sewage, nutrients from fertilizer run off, animal wastes and atmospheric pollution; sediment mobilization and marine litter -- the problems are intensifying," UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner said in a statement.

The first "dead zones" -- where pollution-fed algae remove oxygen from the water -- were found in northern latitudes like the Chesapeake Bay on the U.S. East Coast and the Scandinavian fjords.

Today, the best known is in the Gulf of Mexico, where fertilizers and other algae-multiplying nutrients are dumped by the Mississippi River.

Others have been appearing off South America, Ghana, China, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Portugal and Britain.

The UNEP said in a statement that experts warn "these areas are fast becoming major threats to fish stocks and thus to the people who depend upon fisheries for food and livelihoods."

The full list is expected to be published early next year, but the preliminary findings were released on Thursday at an international marine pollution conference in Beijing, China, which gathered delegates from more than 100 nations.

The meeting also heard some good news from scientists studying the recovery rates of coral reefs damaged by bleaching in the late 1990s by high sea temperatures.

Coral reefs get bleached when warm water forces out tiny algae that live in the coral, providing nutrients and giving reefs their vivid colors. Without the algae, corals whiten and eventually die.

"The new studies indicate healthy ecosystems exposed to minimal contamination are likely to recover and survive better than those stressed by pollution, dredging and other human-made impacts," Steiner said.

UNEP said the overall findings were given even more urgency by new modeling that shows up to 90 percent of the world's tropical coasts may be developed by 2030.

"Climate change, and the need to build resilience into habitats and ecosystems so they can cope with the anticipated increase in temperatures likely to come, now represents a further urgent reason to act," Steiner added

Thursday's meeting came just over two weeks before the start of global warming talks under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change due to begin in Nairobi, Kenya on November 6.

news.yahoo.com



To: steve harris who wrote (307085)10/20/2006 6:38:19 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1576615
 
Greasing the Skids
___________________________________________________________

How the Republicans Can Manipulate Oil Prices for Political Gain

by Nomi Prins*

Plummeting gas prices have been good news for the motoring public. They also raise the questions: Why? How? Since their August highs, oil prices dropped from $77 to $60 per barrel. Gas prices have fallen from an average of $3.04 to $2.25 per gallon. In a September USA Today poll 42 percent of Americans thought there was a direct connection between the Republicans wanting to keep control of Congress and gas prices falling.

Free-market types went to town. Oil is set by market forces, not Washington, rang the unified voice of analysts. "If only Bush had that kind of control," mused White House spokesman Tony Snow. But subtle manipulation is a form of control.

Let's back up. In July, legendary investor Jim Rogers--who got his start with George Soros--and other Wall Street analysts were saying that within the scope of the bull market, oil prices would head over $100. This would translate to roughly $4.00 to $4.50 per gallon at the gas pumps.

Meanwhile, the White House was evading blame for gas prices having doubled like Olympian dodgeball champions. It's not us. It's unrest in Iraq. Nuclear threats from Iran. Growth in China. Economists said, It's supply and demand, stupid.

Following their logic, and given the second-fastest drop in gas prices ever, we'd expect a noticeable reversal of those factors: an end to the war in Iraq, perhaps; India and China halting production; the Iranian president warmly embracing Bush and the home team. None of this happened. As far as supply goes, this spring US crude oil inventories were at their highest point since May 1998.

Manipulation can be physical or psychological. No, Bush wasn't calling his broker to short the market and Cheney probably wasn't conversing with oil execs to back it up. But long-term mutual back-scratching relationships are potent. An overly speculated market like oil (the most traded commodity in the world) picks up on subtle signs. Just as traders push the market up, they can take it down, depending on those signs.

If detectives from CSI were investigating the plummet in oil prices, they'd look for motive and method. Motive's obvious: strategically important midterm elections. With Iraq and swarming allegations that the Administration has created more terrorism than before, there's not a lot the GOP can control. According to Doug Henwood's Left Business Observer study, there's a 78 percent correlation between the direction of gas prices and approval for the GOP.

Republicans have been pleased to focus on what they can manipulate, if not overtly control. Big Oil gave the GOP 81 percent of its $63 million in campaign contributions since Bush took office. Republicans are giving Big Oil a $5 billion helping of tax breaks. Last November the Republican-led Senate Commerce Committee, headed by Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, gave oil companies a post-Katrina break to keep their exorbitant profits. Democrats called for windfall profits. Republicans didn't.

After Katrina oil companies like Exxon, which also happen to own the major oil refineries in the country, increased their refining profits, which had direct implications on the price of gas at the pumps--that made them higher than the rising price of crude oil would dictate.

In September the difference between the cost of crude oil and the price of gas after the refining process (called the "crack spread" in the markets) has narrowed substantially, meaning oil refiners are extracting less profit because they're charging proportionately less at the independent gas station pumps.

Just as Enron and others could manipulate, if not directly control, California prices by closing power plants at will, so can oil companies reduce refining profit margins (which were gigantic) to keep their friends in power. That's easier to control than futures where other players are in the market, and it's something retailers pass on to drivers. This is not conspiracy, but self-preservation.

Other strong messages came from Washington. My favorite is the one that came directly from the Federal Reserve. For two years, the Fed has been raising interest rates due to inflationary pressures (such as the high cost of gas). Then, it stopped--the day after gas prices reached their August 7 peak of an average $3.04 per gallon. The next day, the Fed said that despite high energy prices, inflationary pressures would "moderate."

The market slide started that day, not a sudden change in supply or demand. On September 20, the Fed again left rates unchanged, saying energy prices were in check, causing a further slide. Global crude oil prices fell, but gas prices fell faster.

Wall Street analysts, traders and hedge funds don't care about any of these reasons. They just don't want to be caught behind the ball, so they sell the market, causing further price drops. Yes, those are market forces--but they are market forces with a lot of push from Washington-related signals. Why now? To say the election has nothing to do with it would be naïve. To say gas prices won't be up again afterward would be wrong.

*Nomi Prins is a senior fellow at Demos, a nonpartisan public policy think tank. Before becoming a journalist, she served as a managing director for Goldman Sachs in New York. She is the author of Other People's Money: The Corporate Mugging of America and Jacked: How "Conservatives" Are Picking Your
Pocket. She is a frequent commentator on CNBC and the BBC.

thenation.com