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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JBTFD who wrote (127096)6/22/2008 3:18:23 PM
From: Brumar89  Respond to of 173976
 
I'd forgotten them. No one seems to know who or what mounted those.



To: JBTFD who wrote (127096)6/22/2008 3:58:24 PM
From: Skywatcher  Respond to of 173976
 
McCain could have a conflict brewing
His wife, Cindy McCain, owns a beer distribution company that has engaged in lobbying. As senator he's recused himself from alcohol issues, but as president he wouldn't be able to.
By Ralph Vartabedian
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

June 22, 2008

Hensley & Co., one of the nation's major beer wholesalers, has brought the family of Cindy McCain wealth, prestige and influence in Phoenix, but it could also create conflicts for her husband, Sen. John McCain, if he is elected president in November.

Hensley, founded by Cindy McCain's late father, holds federal and state licenses to distribute beer and lobbies regulatory agencies on alcohol issues that involve public health and safety.

The company has opposed such groups as Mothers Against Drunk Driving in fighting proposed federal rules requiring alcohol content information on every package of beer, wine and liquor.

Its executives, including John McCain's son Andrew, have written at least 10 letters in recent years to the Treasury Department, have contributed tens of thousands of dollars to a beer industry political action committee, and hold a seat on the board of the politically powerful National Beer Wholesalers Assn.


Hensley has run afoul of health advocacy groups that have tried to rein in appeals to young drinkers. For example, the company distributes caffeinated alcoholic drinks that public health groups say put young and underage consumers at risk by disguising the effects of intoxication.

The involvement of McCain's family in federal regulatory issues could create a conflict of interest for a future McCain administration, according to advocacy groups and political analysts. McCain has recused himself for many years on alcohol issues in the Senate. As president, however, McCain would face far more difficulty distancing himself from an issue with such broad scope.

Cindy McCain holds the title of company chairwoman and controls about 68% of the privately held company stock with her children and the senator's son, according to records at the Arizona Department of Liquor License and Control. Cindy and John McCain keep their finances separate, and he has no stake or role in Hensley.

In an interview in May, she said she knew "everything that is going on" and communicated with her executive team every day. She added that she did not need to be at headquarters to be in charge. So far, she has given no hint of what changes, if any, she envisions. "That's very premature," she said.

If her husband is elected president and she retains her role at Hensley, she will set a precedent for outside corporate activity by a first lady.


The McCain campaign issued a statement Friday about the issue, saying that "any decisions going forward will be made when John McCain wins the election and takes office, and not before." Hensley executives declined to comment.

Political analysts said they were astounded that the presumptive Republican nominee had not already addressed the issue.

"You can't run a beer company out of the White House," said Samuel L. Popkin, a political science professor at UC San Diego. "You can't run any company from the White House. McCain is leaving a live hand grenade on the table, a major embarrassment."

Public interest groups that lobby on alcohol issues say it will clearly be inappropriate for the McCain family to continue running or owning the company if McCain is elected.


"In a lot of government agencies, there is a concern about undue influence played by a regulated industry," said Chris Waldrop, director of the Food Policy Institute at the Consumer Federation of America. "But it has not been to the point that the president's wife owns a majority share of a company that is lobbying an agency."

Public disapproval

Indeed, apart from its potential to create a conflict of interest, the mere ownership of the beer distributor could turn off some social conservatives and those who object to alcohol use.

About a third of Americans abstain from alcohol, and half either abstain or consume less than a drink a month, according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

For some, abstinence -- and a disdain for the industry -- is religion-based. Leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention, which has more than 16 million members, expressed "total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing and consuming of alcoholic beverages" in the church's most recent resolution on the matter.


"I am sure for some individual Southern Baptists, [the McCain family's involvement in the beer business] would be a concern," said Roger S. Oldham, vice president of Southern Baptist Convention relations.

A close look at Hensley shows that the company has opposed changes that critics of the beer industry say were intended to help Americans drink responsibly.

Hensley's lobbying activities have put the company at the center of a battle that has raged between the beer and liquor industries since Prohibition ended. Under federal law, liquor is taxed more heavily than beer and must contain a label that discloses alcohol content by percentage or proof. Beer and wine containers have no such disclosure requirement, though alcohol content varies widely.

Public interest groups have petitioned the Treasury Department in recent years to require that every container of beer, wine or liquor carry a label disclosing the amount of alcohol in one standard serving.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Marin Institute, the Consumer Federation of America and Mothers Against Drunk Driving, among others, assert that such information would help Americans drink responsibly and avoid drunk driving. The label would also contain nutrition information such as calories.

But the beer industry has argued that such labels would confuse consumers. With backing from Hensley and others, it has persuaded the Treasury Department to withdraw the alcohol content disclosure from any future label requirement.

"We strongly oppose any proposal that would back a display of alcohol content in terms of fluid ounces or pure alcohol per 'standard serving,' " wrote Andrew McCain, the senator's son. The 2005 letter was sent to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, a unit of the Treasury Department. Andrew McCain is chief financial officer at Hensley and owns 6.8% of the stock, according to Arizona records.


Similar letters were written by Chief Executive Robert M. Delgado and other senior executives. Hensley executives have also contributed heavily to the National Beer Wholesalers Assn., which operates the nation's seventh-largest political action committee and has argued against the label. Delgado alone has donated more than $20,000 to the group since 2004.

'High-wire act'

McCain has avoided problems in the Senate by recusing himself on alcohol issues, according to executives at the Distilled Spirits Council, the liquor industry's trade association.

"Sen. McCain has been very, very fair to this industry," said Frank Coleman, senior vice president for the council. "He stays an arm's length away from issues that benefit the family business."

While that has worked for McCain as senator, a president can not recuse himself or his administration from public policy issues as broad as alcohol, which is regulated by agencies including Treasury, the Federal Trade Commission, Health and Human Services, and Transportation.

"It is going to be a very difficult high-wire act for the McCain family," said Bruce Lee Livingston, executive director of the Marin Institute, a nonprofit alcohol industry watchdog group in San Rafael. "The big question is how much access the beer industry is going to have to the White House. You would expect the president and first lady to be concerned about alcohol abuse and alcoholism. The first lady and the president need to have a bright line between the White House and the alcohol industry."

Aside from the labeling issue, Hensley has begun distributing controversial products known as flavored malt beverages, which critics call "alcopops" because of their similarity to soda pop.

The beer industry, including Hensley, tried unsuccessfully to block liquor makers from getting into the market for the drinks.


Douglas Yonko, a Hensley vice president, wrote to the Treasury Department on that issue in 2003, asking the agency to avoid dealing "a severe blow to beer wholesalers" by blurring the line between the beer and liquor industries.

In 2006, the Treasury Department issued rules classifying the flavored drinks as beer, though up to 49% of the alcohol in them can be from distilled spirits.

The beer industry, including Hensley, responded by also moving into the market with such products as Tilt, a caffeinated alcoholic drink made by Anheuser-Busch.

Critics say the product is directed mainly at youth and can leave them wide awake without knowing they are intoxicated. Other flavored malt beverages contain sweet fruit flavors that block the taste of alcohol.

"These products are starter beverages, intended to introduce consumers to alcohol and alcohol brands,"
said George Hacker, director of the Alcohol Policies Project at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

It is not clear exactly how Cindy McCain could avoid such controversy, but a range of public interest groups say she should separate herself and her husband from Hensley -- no doubt a difficult and emotional issue for any heir to a family business.

Charles A. Hurley, chief executive of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, said his organization would be watching carefully if a future McCain administration exercised influence on any alcohol issues.

"I believe she would have to put that stuff in a blind trust of some kind," Hurley said, "where she would not be involved."

Other experts, however, question whether a blind trust would go far enough to insulate a McCain administration, since the ownership would still benefit the family.

ralph.vartabedian @latimes.com

Times staff writer Maeve Reston contributed to this report.



To: JBTFD who wrote (127096)6/22/2008 5:47:14 PM
From: Skywatcher  Respond to of 173976
 
The face of terror is no archetype
By Susan Ann Darley
Article Launched: 06/21/2008 09:32:17 PM PDT

THE concept of good and bad has been around as long as we've inhabited this planet. The U.S. deciphers good and bad through the Wild-West analogy. The cowboys in white hats are the good guys, and the cowboys with black hats are the bad guys.

Oh, if it were only that simple.

What if, at birth, across each baby's forehead it read: "Good Person" or "Bad Person." With a little forewarning, we could plan ahead. Have Aunt Jane raise little Timmy. Slip out of the hospital with one of the "good" babies while assuring ourselves there are others more equipped to raise the "bad" kids.

Wouldn't life be easier? Definitely black and white. When Aunt Jane burns out, she could ship Timmy to a state-run farm where bad people go forever. This would deter the likes of future Hitlers, Stalins and Bin Ladens. Devil babies who are potential evildoers.

The above scenario does seem a bit primitive. As a sophisticated society, we know that "bad" comes in varying degrees. We are far too advanced to lump a group of people together and label them "bad." Or are we?

President Bush with his declaration of war on terror has personalized the term "evildoer," putting a name and face on it. In order to destroy the face of terror we have now killed well over 84,000 Iraqi civilians according to the IBC (Iraq Body Count), which documents violent civilian deaths.

Don't get alarmed. It's OK because we, as Americans, wear the white hats. And if we wear the white
Advertisement
hats, then we are the good guys. And even though the Iraq war has taken the lives of over 4,000 Americans, wounded over 30,000 and caused thousands of young men and women physical injuries and to suffer from major depression and posttraumatic stress, the good guys always win.

And what about the bad guys? Did over 84,000 innocent Iraqi civilians die with black hats on?

This war on terror has reminded me of lump, lump gravy. Every Thanksgiving my mom served it. The table set with soft candlelight flickering on the polished sterling, china and crystal was elegant. The turkey and accompanying side dishes were delectable. Such a lovely setting until the gravy entered my mouth.

It tasted like congealed lumps of glue and that bumped its way down my throat and landed with a thud in my inner being — sort of like the war on terror feels.

I ask myself, where is the enemy lurking? Because we have no state farm to lump the bad people together, so that means they're everywhere.

But I never see them.

The majority of people I meet are kind, personable and genuinely good. They basically want to live their lives in peace. I found this to be true in the United States as well as other countries.

A friend and talented artist, Robin Rector Krupp, authored and illustrated a delightful gem of a book called "Sticky Rice & Motor Bikes" after traveling to Vietnam.

When I picked up a copy I met Steve Lopez, who served in the armed forces in Germany in 1967. He was so touched by her book that he passed along a copy to fellow veteran, Vick Chavez, who served in Vietnam.

Vick and his war buddy, George Burrows revisited Vietnam together a couple of years ago — returning to the places they had fought in. No longer a war zone, they were overtaken by the gentleness of the people they met and mingled with.

President Bush, you and your administration have inferred that if we do not support the war in Iraq then we are aiding and abetting the enemy. I ask you, "Who is the enemy? Who is the bad guy? Who is the face of terror?"

Over 84,000 Iraqi mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, grandparents and grandchildren, friends and lovers? Is this the healing for 9/11?

Perhaps the face of terror is a two-way mirror and when we no longer mirror terror, then we will be the true victors. We will then be the good guys no matter the color of our hats.

Susan Ann Darley is a creativity coach and freelance writer who lives in Sierra Madre.