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: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (761640)	4/26/2007 5:30:39 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769670

U.S. may lose bet against gambling Sallie James, Financial Post Published: Thursday, April 26, 2007 canada.com On March 30, a World Trade Organization tribunal handed down a potentially significant finding against U.S. restrictions on Internet gambling. The smart money now thinks that online betting could soon be liberated. The panel was set up at the request of Antigua and Barbuda, who complained that the United States had not complied with the WTO's earlier decision that it must change the way it regulates gambling over the Internet. The previous ruling, in April, 2005, found that while the United States was within its rights to restrict the import of goods and services on "public morals" grounds, as it had argued in its defence, those rules must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner. If the United States finds online gambling offensive, it must be consistent in its restrictions and apply them equally to domestic and foreign providers. And therein lies the rub: the United States allows interstate online betting on horse racing. The United States had also agreed during the Uruguay Round to open its markets to foreign suppliers of gambling and betting services, although the United States Trade Representative (through a spokesman) claimed in 2004 that the previous administration "clearly intended to exclude gambling from U.S. service commitments" when they signed the deal. Both of those inconsistencies lost it the original case. The United States Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act in October, 2006, ostensibly to bring its laws into conformity with the April, 2005, ruling. But the compliance panel ruled that the United States has taken no satisfactory remedial action that would bring its laws into conformity with its previously established obligations. Moreover, it appears that the United States applies its laws in a discriminatory manner, by prosecuting foreign gambling entities more than it does U.S. gaming firms. Game, set and match: Antigua and Barbuda. There is still no official word from the USTR about whether the United States will appeal this latest decision. If they do not, though, the United States would need to change its federal law either by closing the loopholes allowing domestic online gambling, or by freely allowing gambling online without any restrictions. Of course, the United States could also choose to ignore the ruling, although it has a good record of complying with previous rulings against it. Antigua and Barbuda would in that case be entitled to retaliate against the United States. However, their options appear limited. As a tiny island nation of 80,000 people, the normal recourse of WTO members who have had their rights infringed -- the ability to increase tariffs on the perpetrating country's exports -- will probably be ineffectual, not to mention economically damaging to Antiguans themselves. One option that has been suggested is for Antigua and Barbuda to ask for permission from the WTO to "cross-retaliate": to suspend its obligations to protect the intellectual property rights of U.S. companies. Establishing a haven for software, music and movie piracy would presumably get the attention of the United States, although it may be an undesirable industry for Antigua and Barbuda to encourage if it leads to other more nefarious activities such as money-laundering, and may threaten Antigua and Barbuda's preferential access to the United States market under the Caribbean Basin Initiative. Presumably, though, the access granted to the United States under the CBI is less lucrative than would be a resolution to the gambling dispute in Antigua and Barbuda's favour.

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (761640)	4/26/2007 8:49:38 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Demrats' Dead End By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY \| Posted Wednesday, April 25, 2007 4:20 PM PT Iraq: The Democrat-led Congress will hand President Bush a bill that requires troop withdrawals to begin this fall. Bush has said he'll veto it. Good. Now it's time for the rest of the GOP to denounce this charade. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said Bush is in a "state of denial" over the surge in Iraq. In fact, it's the Democrats who are in denial. The $124 billion pork-filled bill was scheduled for a vote late Wednesday. Whenever it's passed, the bill they present Bush will be vetoed. Though it's possible they'll be able to override the veto, it's not likely. So what we have left is pure politics. "On Iraq, the American people want a new direction, and we are providing it," said Sen. Patty Murray, the Washington Democrat and one of the lead congressional negotiators on the legislation. She's right — they do have a new direction. It's called reverse. Or in military parlance, retreat. But what's truly amazing is that the Democrats can't understand just how bad they look right now. Consider that this is the week that Gen. David Petraeus, who was only recently put in place to head our war effort, is scheduled to update Congress on the progress in Iraq. You'd think that Democrats would want to hear that before casting a hasty vote to begin withdrawing our 140,000 troops on Oct. 1 of this year. But you'd be wrong. As far as Reid is concerned, it doesn't matter what Petraeus says. If Petraeus presents anything other than the gloomy, defeatist picture that Democrats have staked their political futures on, Reid says, "I don't believe him, because it's not happening." But Reid isn't the only one. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who three weeks ago found ample time to gallivant to Damascus to meet with Baathist Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, said she had a "scheduling conflict" that would prevent her from listening to Petraeus' presentation. Lots of time for terror-supporting dictators, no time for heroes. Again, this underscores how unserious the Democrats are about national security and the war on terror. They have, by their own admission, a policy based on raw politics — not on moral right, winning the war, what's best for the troops. Just sheer, raw politics. The president has made clear the danger in such a strategy. "An artificial timetable of withdrawal would say to an enemy, 'Just wait them out,' " he said Monday. "It would say to the Iraqis, 'Don't do hard things necessary to achieve our objectives,' and it would be discouraging for our troops." The logic of each of those statements is airtight. Not so the Democratic leaders' own logic in saying if Bush vetoes the bill, "He will be the one who has failed to provide our troops and our veterans with the resources they need." No, it will be the Democrats, who are openly, cynically sabotaging the war effort for short-term political gain. Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani made some rather tough, but completely deserved, comments about his political foes on Wednesday, saying "The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us." Amen to that. But maybe those words weren't harsh enough. Playing politics with a war, as the Democrats have done, is despicable. It's a good thing Bush will veto their surrender bill. It will make the deadly serious choices we face in the coming two years all the clearer.