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


To: pompsander who wrote (754725)11/21/2006 5:51:11 AM
From: GROUND ZERO™  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769667
 
I would disagree here with you, there's a big difference between me and that guy... he was arrested on probably cause, which means he was caught with the goods or with enough evidence to file for the arrest warrant in the first place... if you don't have such suspicious ties with terrorists or have bomb making material in your garage, then you have absolutely nothing to worry about... your real issue here is with the rights of the criminal... I don't think criminals should have any rights, so I see nothing wrong with how that guy was treated... my concern is for the victims, the criminals themselves can go to hell... I don't see any of my rights taken away, despite liberals crying and whining about it... I continue to live my life with as many freedoms as I had before, the criminals have too many rights...

GZ



To: pompsander who wrote (754725)11/21/2006 1:46:59 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Respond to of 769667
 
Israeli Map Says West Bank Posts Sit on Arab Land

November 21, 2006
By STEVEN ERLANGER
nytimes.com

JERUSALEM, Nov. 20 — An Israeli advocacy group, using maps and figures leaked from inside the government, says that 39 percent of the land held by Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank is privately owned by Palestinians.

Israel has long asserted that it fully respects Palestinian private property in the West Bank and only takes land there legally or, for security reasons, temporarily.

If big sections of those settlements are indeed privately held Palestinian land, that is bound to create embarrassment for Israel and further complicate the already distant prospect of a negotiated peace. The data indicate that 40 percent of the land that Israel plans to keep in any future deal with the Palestinians is private.

The new claims regarding Palestinian property are said to come from the 2004 database of the Civil Administration, which controls the civilian aspects of Israel’s presence in the West Bank. Peace Now, an Israeli group that advocates Palestinian self-determination in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, plans to publish the information on Tuesday. An advance copy was made available to The New York Times.

The data — maps that show the government’s registry of the land by category — was given to Peace Now by someone who obtained it from an official inside the Civil Administration. The Times spoke to the person who received it from the Civil Administration official and agreed not to identify him because of the delicate nature of the material.

That person, who has frequent contact with the Civil Administration, said he and the official wanted to expose what they consider to be wide-scale violations of private Palestinian property rights by the government and settlers. The government has refused to give the material directly to Peace Now, which requested it under Israel’s freedom of information law.

Shlomo Dror, a spokesman for the Civil Administration, said he could not comment on the data without studying it.

He said there was a committee, called the blue line committee, that had been investigating these issues of land ownership for three years. “We haven’t finished checking everything,” he said.

Mr. Dror also said that sometimes Palestinians would sell land to Israelis but be unwilling to admit to the sale publicly because they feared retribution as collaborators.

Within prominent settlements that Israel has said it plans to keep in any final border agreement, the data show, for example, that some 86.4 percent of Maale Adumim, a large Jerusalem suburb, is private; and 35.1 percent of Ariel is.

The maps indicate that beyond the private land, 5.8 percent is so-called survey land, meaning of unclear ownership, and 1.3 percent private Jewish land. The rest, about 54 percent, is considered “state land” or has no designation, though Palestinians say that at least some of it represents agricultural land expropriated by the state.

The figures, together with detailed maps of the land distribution in every Israeli settlement in the West Bank, were put together by the Settlement Watch Project of Peace Now, led by Dror Etkes and Hagit Ofran, and has a record of careful and accurate reporting on settlement growth.

The report does not include Jerusalem, which Israel has annexed and does not consider part of the West Bank, although much of the world regards East Jerusalem as occupied. Much of the world also considers Israeli settlements on occupied land to be illegal under international law. International law requires an occupying power to protect private property, and Israel has always asserted that it does not take land without legal justification.

One case in a settlement Israel intends to keep is in Givat Zeev, barely five miles north of Jerusalem. At the southern edge is the Ayelet Hashachar synagogue. Rabah Abdellatif, a Palestinian who lives in the nearby village of Al Jib, says the land belongs to him.

Papers he has filed with the Israeli military court, which runs the West Bank, seem to favor Mr. Abdellatif. In 1999, Israeli officials confirmed, he was even granted a judgment ordering the demolition of the synagogue because it had been built without permits. But for the last seven years, the Israeli system has done little to enforce its legal judgments. The synagogue stands, and Mr. Abdellatif has no access to his land.

Ram Kovarsky, the town council secretary, said the synagogue was outside the boundaries of Givat Zeev, although there is no obvious separation. Israeli officials confirm that the land is privately owned, though they refuse to say by whom.

Mr. Abdellatif, 65, said: “I feel stuck, angry. Why would they do that? I don’t know who to go to anymore.”

He pointed to his corduroy trousers and said, in the English he learned in Paterson, N.J., where his son is a police detective: “These are my pants. And those are your pants. And you should not take my pants. This is mine, and that is yours! I never took anyone’s land.”

According to the Peace Now figures, 44.3 percent of Givat Zeev is on private Palestinian land.

Miri Eisin, a spokesperson for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, said that Israeli officials would have to see the data and the maps and added that ownership is complicated and delicate. Baruch Spiegel, a reserve general who just left the Ministry of Defense and dealt with the separation barrier being built near the boundary with the West Bank, also said he would have to see the data in detail in order to judge it.

The definitions of private and state land are complicated, given different administrations of the West Bank going back to the Ottoman Empire, the British mandate, Jordan and now Israel. During the Ottoman Empire, only small areas of the West Bank were registered to specific owners, and often villagers would hold land in common to avoid taxes. The British began a more formal land registry based on land use, taxation or house ownership that continued through the Jordanian period.

Large areas of agricultural land are registered as state land; other areas were requisitioned or seized by the Israeli military after 1967 for security purposes, but such requisitions are meant to be temporary and must be renewed, and do not change the legal ownership of the land, Mr. Dror, the Civil Administration spokesman, said.

But the issue of property is one that Israeli officials are familiar with, even if the percentages here may come as a surprise and may be challenged after the publication of the report.

Asked about Israeli seizure of private Palestinian land in an interview with The Times last summer, before these figures were available, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said: “Now I don’t deny anything, I don’t ignore anything. I’m just ready to sit down and talk. And resolve it. And resolve it in a generous manner for all sides.”

He said the 1967 war was a one of self-defense. Later, he said: “Many things happened. Life is not frozen. Things occur. So many things happened, and as a result of this many innocent individuals on both sides suffered, were killed, lost their lives, became crippled for life, lost their family members, their loved ones, thousands of them. And also private property suffered. By the way, on all sides.”

Mr. Olmert says Israel will keep some 10 percent of the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, possibly in a swap for land elsewhere. The area Israel intends to keep is roughly marked by the route of the unfinished separation barrier, which cuts through the West Bank and is intended, Israel says, to stop suicide bombers. Mr. Olmert, however, describes it as a putative border. Nearly 80,000 Jews live in settlements beyond the route of the barrier, but some 180,000 live in settlements within the barrier, while another 200,000 live in East Jerusalem.

But these land-ownership figures show that even in the settlements that Israel intends to keep, there will be a considerable problem of restitution that goes beyond the issue of refugee return.

Mr. Olmert was elected on a pledge to withdraw Israeli settlers living east of the barrier. But after the war with Hezbollah and with fighting ongoing in Gaza, from which Israel withdrew its settlers in the summer of 2005, his withdrawal plan has been suspended.

In March 2005, a report requested by the government found a number of illegal Israeli outposts built on private Palestinian land, and officials promised to destroy them. But only nine houses of only one outpost, Amona, were dismantled after a court case brought by Peace Now.

There is a court case pending over Migron, which began as a group of trailers on a windy hilltop around a set of cellphone antennas in May 1999 and is now a flourishing community of 50 families, said Avi Teksler, an official of the Migron council. But Migron, too, according to the data, is built on private Palestinian land.

Mr. Teksler said that the land was deserted, and that its ownership would be settled in court. Migron, where some children of noted settlement leaders live, has had “the support of every Israeli government,” he said. “The government has been a partner to every single move we’ve made.”

Mr. Teksler added: “This is how the state of Israel was created. And this is all the land of Israel. We’re like the kibbutzim. The only real difference is that we’re after 1967, not before.”

But in the Palestinian village of Burqa, Youssef Moussa Abdel Raziq Nabboud, 85, says that some of the land of Migron, and the land on which Israel built a road for settlers, belongs to him and his family, who once grew wheat and beans there. He said he had tax documents from the pre-1967 authorities.

“They have the power to put the settlement there and we can do nothing,” he said. “They have a fence around the settlement and dogs there.”

Mr. Nabboud went to the Israeli authorities with the mayor, Abu Maher, but they were told he needed an Israeli lawyer and surveyor. “I have no money for that,” he said. What began as an outpost taking 5 acres has now taken 125, the mayor said.

Mr. Nabboud wears a traditional head covering; his grandson, Khaled, 27, wears a Yankees cap. “The land is my inheritance,” he said. “I feel sad I can’t go there. And angry. The army protects them.”

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company



To: pompsander who wrote (754725)11/21/2006 1:48:22 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
Flaws Seen in Markets for Utilities

November 21, 2006
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
nytimes.com

A growing chorus of large industrial power users, municipal utilities and consumer groups say there is a reason the price of electricity has not fallen since the federal government opened the heavily regulated utility industry to competition a decade ago. The new markets, they argue, do not work right.

They point to a variety of reasons.

For one thing, when electricity producers offer to supply power for use the next day, utilities pay everyone the highest price accepted.
One study in Texas, where electricity bills have been rising sharply, found that because of this auction system, consumers pay a lot more than they would have under the old system where the state regulated prices.

They also contend that producers can withhold power or limit production, with little risk of penalty, even when demand is at its highest, meaning prices soar.

“Shutting down a power plant in July is like the mall closing on the weekend before Christmas, but in July last year, 20 percent of generating capacity was shut down in California,” said Robert McCullough, an economist whose Oregon consulting business is advising some of those contending in lawsuits that prices are being manipulated.

The government agency that oversees the electricity market — the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission — set the rules before allowing market prices for electricity to replace regulated prices. A coalition of large industrial companies filed a complaint in September, arguing that the energy commission had failed to ensure proper competition and that it had stymied efforts by others to investigate allegations of improper conduct by withholding some of the data it collects.

“The ‘markets’ that are rolling off the commission’s production line are not fit for their public purpose,” wrote Robert A. Weishaar Jr., the lawyer for the industrial companies.

The commission dismisses the critics, saying that where it has determined that a market for electricity exists, the prices in that market are assumed to be “just and reasonable,” the standard set in federal law. The commission’s rules seek to curb monopoly power, but not oligopoly power, in which a few firms control the market. The commission says that anyone manipulating markets will be discovered either by the monitors in each regional market, by competitors or utilities that buy power, by the commission or even by the public.

Allowing producers of electricity to compete for utility customers should assure the lowest possible price, the commission says.

But the opposite has sometimes been true.

For eight hours last May, for example, the price of a megawatt of power in New England leaped from about $50 to almost $1,000. The region’s electricity exchange attributes the spike to congested transmission lines, but has kept the identities of the high bidders secret.

Its own studies say that the exchange’s rules make it possible to inflate prices artificially during periods of high demand and that at least one producer has manipulated prices in the past, though its identity was not disclosed.

Officials of other exchanges all said they had strict rules to ensure that capacity is not withheld from the market to inflate prices artificially.

But critics of the current system have found ammunition in a study at Carnegie Mellon University by Sarosh N. Talukdar, who used computer models to simulate a market in which 10 utilities bought electricity and 10 producers sold it.

In that experiment, the buyers and sellers learned to manipulate the price within 100 rounds of bidding, capturing from 50 percent to 90 percent of the prices an unregulated monopoly would have charged. Instead of falling, prices soared.

Earlier experiments at Cornell University and George Mason University found the same thing, with simulated trading by students, professors and even members of Congress.

Such high prices suggest collusion, which is illegal in real markets, but collusion was impossible in Professor Talukdar’s experiments because the trades were made by simple computer programs, not humans.

“My studies show it is easy to learn from the signals given by others how to get the benefits of colluding without breaking the law,” Professor Talukdar said.

“Economists have this faith in markets, this blind faith that markets are always a good thing,” the professor said, “but the design of markets matters a great deal and the design must be verified to see if it really works as a free market.”

Professor Frank A. Wolak, a Stanford University economist who favors competitive pricing, said the current mix of markets for wholesale power and regulated utilities to deliver them cannot produce the benefits of competition. And he warned that “even small flaws in the design of markets can cause enormous harm to consumers in very little time.”

Why have prices not fallen in the electricity market, when prices dropped sharply after competition was introduced in other previously regulated industries?

Rising fuel costs are one major reason. But the electricity market also turns out to be different in some fundamental ways from other kinds of markets. Efforts to induce competition, the critics say, have failed to properly take that into account.

In the markets for everything from stocks and commodities to real estate, airline trips and trucking services, for example, buyers always have the option to walk away from a deal — whether the purchase be company shares, frozen pork bellies, houses, plane tickets or space in a tractor-trailer.

But many utilities in about half the states, including New York, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland and Texas, must buy power every day — usually because they were encouraged or forced by regulators to sell their own generating plants and no longer produce electricity themselves.

And every utility must buy power at some point, to meet peak demand on hot summer days.

Unlike the stock market, where vast numbers of strangers buy and sell, the electricity markets involve a relative handful of buyers and sellers. In New Jersey, for example, just 10 generators won bids this year to supply a third of the state’s base load of power for the next three years at prices 55 percent higher than the previous year’s three-year bid.

Similarly, California has 1,400 power plants, but ownership of those plants is so concentrated that just six generating companies in that state can set an artificially high price of electricity virtually all the time, research by Carnegie Mellon University shows.

Moreover, in many markets some buyers and sellers are related, a corporate parent owning generating plants that sell to a sister utility. Often the bidders are brokers, including Wall Street investment houses like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, and that arrangement hides the identity of the real power generators.

Trades also repeat each day, which means that those that generate power learn from not just what the weather report says about demand for power, but from the trading patterns of their competitors in producing power and the utilities that buy it.

Another important aspect is secrecy. Individual stock investors can make sure they got a fair price by checking the prices paid just before and after their trade. But the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the electricity exchanges stamp many trading records confidential.

The federal commission’s spokesman, like those for several of the exchanges on which electricity is bought and sold, said that market monitors employed by the electricity exchanges ensure the integrity of the trades. But utility customers have challenged whether the monitors are blind to price rigging and errors.

Another factor is the very nature of electricity, which must be produced, transmitted and consumed in an instant. Car makers can cut production when vehicles do not sell. Investors who hold too much of a particular stock can sell it in blocks over time to get the best price. But electricity cannot be held in inventory.

Finally, the electricity market appears to be particularly balanced on a fine edge. The Chadbourne Park law firm, in a newsletter for investors in electricity generating stations, cautioned that tiny changes in generating capacity could make them rich or wipe them out. It concluded that having 2 percent more generating capacity than a market needed to meet demand would mean “very low electricity prices,” while a 2 percent shortage of electricity would cause “significant price spikes,” which means outsize profits for power plant owners.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company