November 2004 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: China's wealthy bypass the banks
by Tyler Durden 10 Nov '04

10 Nov '04

Fascinating. And typical of the unusual Chinese seesaw that has occurred throuout the aeons between hyper-strict centralized control and something approaching a lite version of anarchy. There's no good mapping of this into Western ideas of fascism, marxism, and economics. Interesting too that there's a ganster base in Wenzhou. This is precisely where the young Chiang Kai Shek consolidated his power early on as a local gangster/warlord. -TD >From: "R.A. Hettinga" <rah(a)shipwright.com> >To: cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net >Subject: China's wealthy bypass the banks >Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:10:52 -0500 > ><http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2004/11/09/business/yu…> > > > > > >China's wealthy bypass the banks > >By Keith Bradsher The New York Times > Wednesday, November 10, 2004 > > >WENZHOU, China The Wenzhou "stir-fry" is not a dish you eat. But it is >giving indigestion to Chinese regulators and could prove troublesome to >many investors worldwide, from New York money managers, Pennsylvania >steelworkers and Midwestern farmers to Australian miners. > > Here in this freewheeling city at the forefront of capitalism in China, >the dish is prepared when a group of wealthy friends pool millions of >dollars' worth of Chinese yuan and put them into a hot investment like >Shanghai real estate, where they are stirred and flipped for a hefty >profit. The friends often lend each other large amounts on the strength of >a handshake and a handwritten IOU. > > Both sides then go to an automated teller machine or bank branch to >transfer the money, which is then withdrawn from the bank. Or sometimes >they do it the old-fashioned way: exchanging burlap sacks stuffed with >cash. > > The worry for Chinese regulators is that everyone in China will start >cooking the Wenzhou stir-fry and do it outside the banking system. > > In the last few months, borrowing and lending across the rest of China is >looking more and more like what is taking place in Wenzhou. The growth of >this shadow banking system poses a stiff challenge to China's state-owned >banks, already burdened with bad debt, and makes it harder for the nation's >leaders to steer a fast-growing economy. > > The problem starts with China's low interest rates. More and more >families >with savings have been snubbing 2 percent interest on bank deposits for the >double-digit returns from lending large amounts on their own. > > They lend to real estate speculators or to small businesses without the >political connections to obtain loans from the banks. > > Not only is the informal lending rate higher, but the income from that >lending, because it is semilegal at best, is not taxed. For fear of shame, >ostracism and the occasional threat from thugs, borrowers are more likely >to pay back these loans than those from the big banks. > > Tao Dong, chief China economist at Credit Suisse First Boston, calculates >that Chinese citizens withdrew $12 billion to $17 billion from their bank >deposits in August and September. > > The outflow turned into a flood last month, reaching an estimated $120 >billion, or more than 3 percent of all deposits at the country's financial >institutions. > > If the bank withdrawals are not stemmed in the months ahead, Tao warned, >"this potentially could be a huge risk for financial stability and even >social stability." > > And with China now accounting for more than a quarter of the world's >steel >production and nearly a fifth of soybean production, as well as some of the >largest initial public offerings of stock, any shaking of financial >confidence here could ripple quickly through markets in the United States >and elsewhere. > > For instance, if the steel girders now being lifted into place by >hundreds >of tower cranes in big cities across China are no longer needed, that would >produce a worldwide glut of steel and push down prices. > > On Oct. 28, when China's central bank raised interest rates for one-year >loans and deposits by a little more than a quarter of a percentage point, >it cited a need to keep money in the banking system. Higher official rates >should "reduce external cycling of credit funds," the bank said in a >statement. > > Eswar Prasad, the chief of the China division of the International >Monetary Fund, expressed concern about bank withdrawals in a speech in Hong >Kong three days before the central bank acted. > > The main Chinese banks have fairly substantial reserves, but they need >those reserves to cover huge write-offs of bad debts some day. > > The hub of informal lending in China is here in Wenzhou, 370 kilometers, >or 230 miles, south of Shanghai. Some of China's first experiments with the >free market began here in the late 1970s, and the result has been a >flourishing economy together with sometimes questionable business dealings. > > Depending on how raw they like their capitalism, people elsewhere in >China >describe Wenzhou as either a center of financial innovation or a den of >loan sharks. But increasingly, Wenzhou is also a microcosm of the kind of >large-scale yet informal financial dealings now going on across the >country. > > The withdrawals by depositors and the informal money lending has spread >so >swiftly here that it is only in Wenzhou that the Chinese central bank >releases monthly statistics on average rates for direct loans between >individuals or companies. The rate hovered at 1 percent a month for years >until April, when the authorities began limiting the volume of bank loans. > > Borrowers default on nearly half the loans issued by the state-owned >banks, but seldom do so here on money that is usually borrowed from >relatives, neighbors or people in the same industry. > > Residents insist that the risk of ostracism for failing to repay a loan >is >penalty enough to ensure repayment of most loans. > > Although judges have ruled that handwritten IOUs are legally binding, >creditors seldom go to court to collect. "If it is a really good friend, I >would lose face if I sued them in court," said Tu Shangyun, the owner of a >local copper smelter and a part-time "silver bearer," a broker who puts >lenders and borrowers in touch with each other, "and if it weren't a good >friend, I wouldn't lend the money in the first place." > > > > Violence is extremely rare, but the threat of it does exist as the >ultimate guarantor that people make every effort to repay debts. > > "Someone can hire a killer who will chase you down, beat you up and maybe >even kill you," said Ma Jinlong, who oversaw market-driven financial >changes in the 1990s in Wenzhou as director of the municipal economic >reform committee and is now an economics professor at Wenzhou University. > > An austerity policy was invoked, its goal to slow rapid economic growth >in >the hope of stopping a spiral in the inflation rate. With consumer prices >rising at 5.2 percent a year despite price controls on many goods and >services, and with less-regulated prices for goods traded between companies >climbing nearly twice as fast, people lose buying power while their money >is on deposit at a bank. > > The interest rate for informal loans jumped last spring to 1.2 percent a >month, or 15.4 percent compounded over a year, and has stayed there ever >since. According to the nation's central bank, total bank deposits in >Wenzhou have been dropping by $250 million a month since April as companies >and individuals withdraw money, either because they can no longer obtain >bank loans for their investments or because they want to lend the money at >higher rates to each other. > > For lenders, these interest rates are much more attractive than earning a >meager 2.25 percent a year, even after the recent rate increase, on a >deposit at a government-owned bank. And while Beijing assesses a 20 percent >tax on all interest from bank deposits, nobody pays tax on the income they >receive from lending money on their own, Ma said. > > Most informal loans have traditionally gone to relatives or neighbors to >finance the starting of small local businesses. Wenzhou is now one of the >world's largest producers of no-brand sunglasses; Dong Ganming, the owner >of a 350-employee sunglasses factory here, said that his plant was just one >of almost 1,000 here involved in making glasses. > > Fierce competition has prompted local residents to borrow money to >exploit >every possible niche in the industry, with some factories making nothing >but bridges for sunglasses so that they will not slide down customers' >noses, other factories making only the lenses, and so forth. Any government >crackdown on informal loans would carry the risk of stifling highly >efficient small and medium-size businesses that have little hope of >obtaining loans from the state-owned banks, which still allocate credit >based partly on political connections. > > Dong said that loans from friends and family allowed him to start his >sunglasses company with 10 employees a decade ago; he quickly paid off the >loans and has been reinvesting most of the profits ever since, putting very >little into bank deposits. "The interest in the bank is very low," he said. >"If you invest the money, you can get much more money." > > But more recently, residents here say, a lot of money has been flowing >into real estate here and in other big cities, especially Shanghai, helping >to fuel double-digit increases in interest rates. > > Deals increasingly involve people who have no family or neighborhood >connection, raising the risk of disputes. > > Kellee Tsai, a specialist in Chinese informal banking at Johns Hopkins >University in the United States, said that many overseas emigrants from >Wenzhou had also been sending their savings back here to be lent at much >higher rates than are available in the countries they have moved to. > > Some local investors have been able to pay for their investments with >profits from businesses here, like Chen Shen, the owner of four shops that >sell shoe-manufacturing equipment to the hundreds of shoe factories that >have popped up in this area. She said she paid cash for an apartment near >Shanghai's Bund, its riverfront district, that had appreciated as much as >60 percent in less than two years. > > > > Still, Chinese regulators do not like the practice, and officials have >been trying to stamp out such operations with limited success. > > They have outlawed the practice of pooling savings into various kinds of >informal banks that make loans for real estate and other investments: >Organizers are subject to the death penalty but are rarely caught unless >the informal banks collapse. > > Oriental Outlook, a Chinese current affairs magazine, reported late last >month on the trial of a man accused of operating an illegal bank northeast >of here that collapsed a year ago, leading to the filing of more than 200 >civil lawsuits. Another man who lost money in the scheme and went bankrupt >as a result assaulted the defendant outside the courtroom, the magazine >said. > > The extent of such pooling is unclear. But it poses the greatest risks of >damage to financial confidence if bank runs occur at these informal >institutions, economists agree. Bank runs, with depositors lined up >clamoring for their money back, have been an occasional problem around >China for years, but are always quickly contained as the authorities rush >to distribute as much cash as necessary. > > "The policy with bank runs, even with illegal banks in some cases, has >been to flood the bank with liquidity and pay everyone off," said Michael >Pettis, a finance professor at Beijing University, who criticized as ill >advised the Chinese policy of bailing out even illegal banks. > > "One of the most salutary ways to let people know not to put money in >these is to let two or three go bankrupt." > >-- >----------------- >R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> >The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> >44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA >"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, >[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to >experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' _________________________________________________________________ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

2 1

Declaration of Expulsion: A Modest Proposal
by R.A. Hettinga 10 Nov '04

10 Nov '04

<http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?print=yes&id=5652> HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE: The National Conservative Weekly Since 1944 Declaration of Expulsion: A Modest Proposal It's Time to Reconfigure the United States by Mike Thompson Posted Nov 3, 2004 [From the author: This is an essay I've been working on for the past several weeks, updated moments ago with what appears to be Bush's final number of victory states (31) once the nonsense of provisional votes in Ohio is overcome. As an admitted "modest proposal" (a la Swift's satiric story of the same name), it is nevertheless serious in pointing out the cancer that continues to threaten our body politic.] Branded unconstitutional by President Abraham Lincoln, the South's secession from the American Union ultimately sparked "The Civil War" (a name that was rejected by Southerners, who correctly called it "The War Between the States," for the South never sought to 1] seize the central government or 2] rule the other side, two requisites for a civil war). No state may leave the Union without the other states' approval, according to Lincoln's doctrine--an assertion that ignores the Declaration of Independence, which was the vital basis for all 13 American colonies' unilateral secession from the British Union eight decades earlier. Lincoln's grotesque legal argument also disregards a state's inherent right of secession which many scholars believe is found in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Meantime, America has become just as divided as it was a century and a half ago, when it writhed in Brother-vs.-Brother War. Instead of wedge issues like slavery, federal subsidies for regional business, and high tariffs, society today is sundered by profound, insoluble Culture War conflicts (such as abortion and gay marriage), and debate about our role abroad (shall we remain the world's leader, or become an unprincipled chump for the cabal of globalist sybarites who play endless word-games inside the United Nations and European Union sanctuaries?). For many decades, conservative citizens and like-minded political leaders (starting with President Calvin Coolidge) have been denigrated by the vilest of lies and characterizations from hordes of liberals who now won't even admit that they are liberals--because the word connotes such moral stink and political silliness. As a class, liberals no longer are merely the vigorous opponents of the Right; they are spiteful enemies of civilization's core decency and traditions. Defamation, never envisioned by our Founding Fathers as being protected by the First Amendment, flourishes and passes today for acceptable political discourse. Movies, magazines, newspapers, radio/TV programs, plays, concerts, public schools, colleges, and most other public vehicles openly traffic in slander and libel. Hollywood salivated over the idea of placing another golden Oscar into Michael Moore'sfat hands, for his Fahrenheit 9/11 jeremiad, the most bogus, deceitful film documentary since Herr Hitler and Herr Goebbels gave propaganda a bad name. When they tire of showering conservative victims with ideological mud, liberals promote the only other subjects with which they feel conversationally comfortable: Obscenity and sexual perversion. It's as if the genes of liberals have rendered them immune to all forms of filth. As a final insult, liberal lawyers and judges have become locusts of the Left, conspiring to destroy democracy itself by excreting statutes and courtroom tactics that fertilize electoral fraud and sprout fields of vandals who will cast undeserved and copious ballots on Election Day. The truth is, America is not just broken--it is becoming irreparable. If you believe that recent years of uncivil behavior are burdensome, imagine the likelihood of a future in which all bizarre acts are the norm, and a government-booted foot stands permanently on your face. That is why the unthinkable must become thinkable. If the so-called "Red States" (those that voted for George W. Bush) cannot be respected or at least tolerated by the "Blue States" (those that voted for Al Gore and John Kerry), then the most disparate of them must live apart--not by secession of the former (a majority), but by expulsion of the latter. Here is how to do it. Having been amended only 17 times since 10 vital amendments (the Bill of Rights) were added at the republic's inception, the U.S. Constitution is not easily changed, primarily because so many states (75%, now 38 of 50) must agree. Yet, there are 38 states today that may be inclined to adopt, let us call it, a "Declaration of Expulsion," that is, a specific constitutional amendment to kick out the systemically troublesome states and those trending rapidly toward anti-American, if not outright subversive, behavior. The 12 states that must go: California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland, and Delaware. Only the remaining 38 states would retain the name, "United States of America." The 12 expelled mobs could call themselves the "Dirty Dozen," or individually keep their identity and go their separate ways, probably straight to Hell. A difficult-to-pass constitutional amendment, however, is not necessary. There is an equally lawful route that mercifully would be both easier and faster. Inasmuch as Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution specifies that "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union," it is reasonable that the same congressional majority may expel a state from the Union. Is there, after all, any human organization in existence (including a family or law firm) that may not disown, disinherit, ostracize, alienate or expel diabolical members? Whether the nation is purged of these 12 states via the Constitution or statute, the process of elimination must begin now, for the need of societal detoxification has waxed so overwhelmingly clear. Examine the "Mostly Mainstream 38" and "Fringe 12." Of the 50 states, Bush won 30 in the 2000 presidential election against Gore, and 31 in 2004 against Kerry. More dramatic is the huge disparity among counties. Of 3,112 counties nationwide, Bush in 2000, for example, won 2,434, a crushing 78% majority. (In the counties composing "Bush USA" live approximately 150 million persons; in the 678 of "Gore/Kerry USA," 140 million.) Gore/Kerry denizens are concentrated in the metropolises of the East and West Coasts and those big cities on the Great Lakes or Mississippi River. Other significant pockets of ultraliberal extremists may be found in intellectually incestuous college towns and pro-big-government state capitals, along the estranged and overwhelmed Mexican border, and in Dixie's welfare-addicted Cotton Belt. The demographics revealed by the two most recent presidential elections are radically different and have resulted in "Two Americas" (but not the simplistic "Two Americas" [one rich, one poor] envisioned by Kerry'sMarxist-tongued running mate, John Edwards): * BUSH USA is predominantly white; devoutly Christian (mostly Protestant); openly, vigorously heterosexual; an open land of single-family homes and ranches; economically sound (except for a few farms), but not drunk with cyberworld business development, and mainly English-speaking, with a predilection for respectfully uttering "yes, ma'am" and "yes, sir." * GORE/KERRY USA is ethnically diverse; multi-religious, irreligious or nastily antireligious; more sexually liberated (if not in actual practice, certainly in attitude); awash with condo canyons and other high-end real estate bordered by sprawling, squalid public housing or neglected private homes, decidedly short of middle-class neighborhoods; both high tech and oddly primitive in its commerce; very artsy, and Babelesque, with abnormally loud speakers. Bush USA also is far safer, its murder rate being about 16% of the homicidal binge that plagues Gore/Kerry USA--2.1 per 100,000 residents, compared with 13.2 per 100,000 (from a study by Professor Joseph Olson, Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota). A downsized, post-expulsion United States still would be geographically big enough (and personally generous enough) to welcome millions of authentic refugees from the ousted former states, real Americans who crave lower taxes, smaller government, safer neighborhoods, more secure borders, greater moral leadership, and all the other aspects of a markedly better society-- one that spawns harmony, not cacophony; excellence, not dependence; justice, not histrionics; education, not brainwashing; enterprise, not welfare, and Godliness, not devilishness. As for the dozen ex-American states, they could always petition the UN and EU for foreign aid. Moreover, with any good luck (or bon chance), socialist Canada would annex our jettisoned territory, eh? Still Relevant After All These Years Language of the 1776 Declaration of Independence that rings true today for expulsion: When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another . . . Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness . . . Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes . . . but when a long train of abuses . . . evinces a design to reduce them [the people] under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Language of Barry Goldwater, 1964 Republican presidential nominee that also rings true: Sometimes I think this country would be better off if we could just saw off the eastern seaboard and let it float out to sea. ---------- Copyright ) 2004 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.? -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

6 7

Ashcroft resigns, America is Safer, at least for the moment
by Bill Stewart 10 Nov '04

10 Nov '04

With Ashcroft going, America's a bit safer, unless of course his successor is just as bad. One of the candidates for Ashcroft's successor is Bush's White House legal counsel Alberto Gonzales, who's been responsible for several memos suggesting that POWs from Afghanistan aren't protected by the Geneva Conventions and that torturing captives may be ok. So we may not be safer once he's in place. Another candidate is Larry Thompson, former deputy attorney general, who's currently the general counsel for Pepsico. He's black, which is for some reason still politically interesting, but he's also indicated that he likes working at Pepsico. NYT's latest rumors favor Gonzales. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Bush-Cabinet.html?oref=login (Requires free login - use some fake email address if you don't have one.)

1 0

Faith in democracy, not government
by R.A. Hettinga 10 Nov '04

10 Nov '04

<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/11/0…> The San Francisco Chronicle Election Fallout Faith in democracy, not government - Victor Davis Hanson Sunday, November 7, 2004 Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were the only two Democrats to be elected president since 1976. Both were Southerners. Apparently, the only assurance that the electorate has had that a Democrat was serious about national security or social sobriety was his drawl. More disturbing still for liberal Democrats is that George W. Bush is the first Republican Southerner ever elected to the presidency, another indicator that a majority of the citizenry no longer finds conservatism and Texas such a scary mix. The fate of third-party candidates was also instructive in the election. Left-wing alternatives like Ralph Nader go nowhere. Conservative populists, on the other hand, can capture 10 percent or more of the electorate, as Ross Perot did in 1992 and almost again in 1996. Indeed, Perot's initial run probably accounts for Clinton's first election, and helped his second as well. In short, Kerry's 3.5 million shortfall in the popular vote underestimates the degree to which the country has drifted to the right. Over a decade ago, it took a third-party candidate, political consultant Dick Morris' savvy triangulation and Bill Clinton's masterful political skills to stave off the complete loss of Democratic legislative, executive and judicial power of the sort that we witnessed last week. Something else is going on in the country that has been little remarked upon. It is not just that an endorsement of a Michael Moore does not translate into votes or that Rathergate loses viewers for CBS. It has become perhaps far worse: A Hollywood soiree with a foul-mouthed Whoopee Goldberg or a Tim Robbins rant can turn toxic for liberal candidates. We are nearly reaching the point where approval from the New York Times or a CBS puff-piece hurts a candidate or cause, as do the billions in contributions from a George Soros. Television commentators Walter Cronkite, Bill Moyers, Andy Rooney or Ted Koppel have morphed from their once sober and judicious personas into highly partisan figures that now carry political weight among most Americans only to the degree that they harm any cause or candidate with whom they are associated. Readers do not just disagree with spirited columns by a Molly Ivins, Paul Krugman or Maureen Dowd, but rather are turned off when they revert to hysterics and condescension. To the degree that the messages, proposals or endorsements of a delinquent like Ben Affleck, an incoherent Bruce Springsteen, or a reprobate like Eminem were comprehensible, John Kerry should have run from them all. This election also involved perceived hypocrisy. No one in Bakersfield or Fresno thinks that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld espouses views at odds with the privileged lives that they live; they, of course, unabashedly celebrate and benefit from free enterprise and corporate capitalism. In contrast, Teresa Heinz Kerry and John Kerry, George Soros or John Edwards even more so enjoy the fruits of the very system they at times seem to question. Thus, concern for two Americas is not discernable in John Edwards' multimillion-dollar legal fees, the Kerry jet, or Soros Inc.'s global financial speculation. It is easy for a Noam Chomsky or Michael Moore to trash Halliburton, but Red America wonders about the source of university contracts that subsidize privileged professors' sermons or why corporate recording, cinema and advertising conglomerates that enrich celebrities are exempt from Hollywood's Pavlovian censure of big business. That the man who nearly destroyed the small depositors of Great Britain also fueled MoveOn.org seemed to say it all. Where does this leave us? After landmark legislation of the last 40 years to ensure equality of opportunity, the public has reached its limit in using government to press on to enforce an equality of result. In terms of national security, the Republicans, more so than the Democrats after the Cold War -- in Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq -- oddly are now the party of democratic change, while liberals are more likely to shrug about the disturbing status quo abroad. Conservatives have also made the argument that poverty is evolving into a different phenomenon from what it was decades ago when outhouses, cold showers and no breakfasts were commonplace and we were all not awash in cheap Chinese-imported sneakers, cell phones and televisions. Like it or not, the public believes that choices resulting in breaking of the law, drug use, illegitimate births, illiteracy and victimhood can induce poverty as much as exploitation, racism or sexism can. After trillions of dollars of entitlement programs, most voters are unsure that the answers lie with bureaucrats and social programs, especially when the elite architects of such polices rarely experience firsthand the often unintended, but catastrophic results of their own well-meant engineering. So we all know the cure for the Democratic Party: More moderate, populist candidates who don't talk down to voters or live one life and profess another; more explicit faith in American democracy and values; and a little more humility in accepting the tragic limitations of human nature. Yet for many,that medicine of reappraisal will be far worse than the disease of chronic defeat. Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

3 12

Cryptography Research Expands Into Europe
by R.A. Hettinga 10 Nov '04

10 Nov '04

<http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/041110/sfw043_1.html> Yahoo! Finance Press Release Source: Cryptography Research, Inc. Cryptography Research Expands Into Europe Wednesday November 10, 8:09 am ET Industry Veteran Ken Warren Takes Reins as Smart Card Business Manager SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 10 /PRNewswire/ -- Recognizing the strategic significance of Europe in driving the deployment of smart cards, Cryptography Research, Inc. today announced it has set up operations in the United Kingdom to provide enhanced support for European licensees of its recently launched DPA Countermeasures Licensing Program. Cryptography Research also announced the appointment of smart card industry veteran Ken Warren to head up the effort as smart card business manager. Warren will ensure European customers can successfully implement CRI's patented countermeasures, and he will actively represent CRI in all European smart card industry activities. ADVERTISEMENT Although the smart card market is becoming increasingly global, the majority of the industry leaders have their headquarters, R&D facilities and design centers in Europe. By establishing representation in Europe, Cryptography research is again demonstrating its commitment to the smart card industry and to providing the necessary support to improve the security of smart card devices. In his position as smart card business manager, Ken Warren brings a wealth of industry expertise, and CRI's European customers will be able to benefit from his support at the local level. "With Ken Warren leading our European expansion, Cryptography Research has achieved a new milestone in its quest to reduce fraud and piracy in the smart card industry through effective DPA countermeasures," said Paul Kocher, president of Cryptography Research. "Europe is key to building on the early success of our DPA Countermeasures Licensing Program, and we are fortunate to have someone of Ken's stature at the helm and to represent us to the leaders in the smart card industry." Ken Warren has extensive experience in the smart card industry, having worked in a variety of roles for more than 12 years. Before joining CRI, Ken was group marketing manager at Renesas Technology Europe Ltd, the world's number-one supplier of microcontrollers and a leader in security IC products. Prior to that, Ken was smart card business development manager for Hitachi Europe Ltd. Ken has also held positions at NatWest Bank and Mondex International where he was responsible for IC security. "CRI has taken the lead in developing the technologies necessary for cryptographic device manufacturers, smart card vendors and smart card issuers to produce more secure, DPA-resistant products, and now we are bringing them directly to the major industry players in Europe," said Ken Warren. "I look forward to working with Kit Rodgers, director of licensing, and the others at CRI, and to supporting the smart card industry in its efforts to prevent DPA attacks and reduce fraud and piracy." Differential Power Analysis and related attacks were first discovered at Cryptography Research by Paul Kocher, Joshua Jaffe and Benjamin Jun. DPA involves monitoring the fluctuating electrical power consumption of smart cards and other secure cryptographic devices and applying advanced statistical methods to extract secret keys and other information. An attacker who successfully employs DPA can create fraudulent transactions, generate counterfeit digital cash, or receive unauthorized access to digital content. Cryptography Research's DPA-related patents provide the basis for implementing effective DPA countermeasures in smart cards and other devices, and a license is required to make, use or sell any DPA-resistant product. Organizations that join the Cryptography Research DPA Countermeasures Licensing Program receive priority access to Cryptography Research's experienced technical staff and research team. Licensees also gain the right to display the "DPA lock" logo on qualifying products. Early-adopter terms are being offered for a limited time to provide competitive advantages to early licensees, including superior pricing and forgiveness for infringement of CRI's countermeasure patents in already-deployed products with DPA countermeasures. About Cryptography Research, Inc. Cryptography Research, Inc. provides technology to solve complex security problems. In addition to security evaluation and applied engineering work, CRI is actively involved in long-term research in areas including tamper resistance, content protection, network security and financial services. The company has a broad portfolio of patents covering countermeasures to differential power analysis and other vulnerabilities, and is committed to helping companies produce secure smart cards and other tamper resistant devices. Security systems designed by Cryptography Research engineers annually protect more than $60 billion of commerce for wireless, telecommunications, financial, digital television and Internet industries. For additional information or to arrange a consultation with a member of the technical staff, please contact Jen Craft at 415-397-0123, ext. 329 or visit www.cryptography.com. Source: Cryptography Research, Inc. -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

Why we're a divided nation
by R.A. Hettinga 10 Nov '04

10 Nov '04

This is one of the best arguments for minimal government I've heard. Like most good arguments, it's blindingly simple. Cheers, RAH ------- <http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/printww20041110.shtml> Townhall.com Why we're a divided nation Walter E. Williams (back to web version) | Send November 10, 2004 Recent elections pointed to deepening divisions among American people, but has anyone given serious thought to just why? I have part of the answer, which starts off with a simple example. Different Americans have different and intensive preferences for cars, food, clothing and entertainment. For example, some Americans love opera and hate rock and roll. Others have opposite preferences, loving rock and roll and hating opera. When's the last time you heard of rock-and-roll lovers in conflict with opera lovers? It seldom, if ever, happens. Why? Those who love operas get what they want, and those who love rock and roll get what they want, and both can live in peace with one another. Suppose that instead of freedom in the music market, decisions on what kind of music people could listen to were made in the political arena. It would be either opera or rock and roll. Rock and rollers would be lined up against opera lovers. Why? It's simple. If the opera lovers win, rock and rollers would lose, and the reverse would happen if rock and rollers won. Conflict would emerge solely because the decision was made in the political arena. The prime feature of political decision-making is that it's a zero-sum game. One person or group's gain is of necessity another person or group's loss. As such, political allocation of resources is conflict enhancing while market allocation is conflict reducing. The greater the number of decisions made in the political arena, the greater is the potential for conflict. There are other implications of political decision-making. Throughout most of our history, we've lived in relative harmony. That's remarkable because just about every religion, racial and ethnic group in the world is represented in our country. These are the very racial/ethnic/religious groups that have for centuries been trying to slaughter one another in their home countries, among them: Turks and Armenians, Protestant and Catholic, Muslim and Jew, Croats and Serbs. While we haven't been a perfect nation, there have been no cases of the mass genocide and religious wars that have plagued the globe elsewhere. The closest we've come was the American Indian/European conflict, which pales by comparison. The reason we've been able to live in relative harmony is that for most of our history government was small. There wasn't much pie to distribute politically. When it's the political arena that determines who gets what goodies, the most effective coalitions are those with a proven record of being the most divisive -- those based on race, ethnicity, religion and region. As a matter of fact, our most costly conflict involved a coalition based upon region -- namely the War of 1861. Many of the issues that divide us, aside from the Iraq war, are those best described as a zero-sum game, where one group's gain is of necessity another's loss. Examples are: racial preferences, Social Security, tax policy, trade restrictions, welfare and a host of other government policies that benefit one American at the expense of another American. You might be tempted to think that the brutal domestic conflict seen in other countries at other times can't happen here. That's nonsense. Americans are not super-humans; we possess the same frailties of other people in other places. If there were a severe economic calamity, I can imagine a political hustler exploiting those frailties here, just as Adolf Hitler did in Germany, blaming it on the Jews, the blacks, the East Coast, Catholics or free trade. The best thing the president and Congress can do to heal our country is to reduce the impact of government on our lives. Doing so will not only produce a less divided country and greater economic efficiency but bear greater faith and allegiance to the vision of America held by our founders -- a country of limited government. -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

Secession
by R.A. Hettinga 10 Nov '04

10 Nov '04

<http://www.townhall.com/columnists/tonyblankley/printtb20041110.shtml> Townhall.com Secession Tony Blankley (back to web version) | Send November 10, 2004 I assume the Republican National Committee is busy recording and archiving the idiotic statements coming out of national Democratic Party leaders and commentators. There is no doubt that the election has not only yielded a victory for the Republicans, but also a bumper crop of self-destructive vitriol and bitterness from the Democrats. The opinion pages of the New York Times (that would be pages A-1- D 37 inclusive) have been running articles by prime cut liberals, the general themes of which have been that conservative Christians are the equivalent of Islamic terrorists and that the benighted provincials who voted for President Bush are simply hate-filled bigots who have no place in America. The apotheosis of this political dementia was put forward in my very presence on last week's "McLaughlin Group" by my friend and colleague Lawrence O'Donnell. Lawrence, in cool blood and in apparent full control of his senses, asserted that this election will give rise to a serious consideration of secession from the Union by the blue states. I should point out that though Lawrence has been barking more than usual in this election season's TV commentary, he is a brilliant political analyst and a serious Democratic Party player. He was the late Sen. Moynihan's top Senate staffer. He comes from one of the great Democratic Party families. I believe it was his uncle who was President John Kennedy's White House chief of staff. He is also the most gifted writer/producer on the NBC show, "West Wing." He is not one of those no name nitwits who the cable shows pull from obscurity to recite Democratic Party talking points. I elaborate on his enviable pedigree and qualities of mind and experience because if he says such a thing to a television audience of six million viewers, it must surely reflect some measurable body of senior Democratic Party sentiment. And although it is inconceivable that any senior elected Democratic Party officials would ever repeat or act on such a deranged notion, it is a measure of how deep is the Democratic Party elite's contempt of and estrangement from the American public. In this regard, I couldn't help thinking of the founding election of the modern Democratic Party -- the election of 1828, when General Andrew Jackson of Tennessee defeated John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts by 139,000 votes out of 1.1 million cast. That election, which defined the Democratic Party that we have known for almost two centuries, has been called the first triumph of the common man in American politics. It pitted the moneyed interests of the Northeast against the farmers and working free laborers of the South and West. It was the first election in which almost all of the states (22 of 24) used direct popular election rather than state legislatures to elect the presidential electors. It was capped with a raucous inaugural celebration during which "rustic" common people shocked Washington society as they wandered through the White House celebrating, drinking and shaking President Andy Jackson's hand. And so started a bond between the Democratic Party and the typical working American that lasted 176 years -- until last Tuesday. It's not that the Democrats lost an election; obviously both parties have lost numerous elections. But never before in my memory -- which goes back faintly to 1956 -- has either party in its loss reacted with such venomous contempt for the American people. When we conservatives got shellacked in 1964 -- with Goldwater losing 61 percent-39 percent to Lyndon Johnson -- we knew we had a lot of work ahead if we were going to educate the public to our views. But I can honestly say that although I remember thinking that the public was misguided in its judgment, I never hated or felt contemptuous of the majority electorate -- of my fellow countrymen. This dominant sentiment of the Democratic Party elite -- that scores of millions of Americans are categorically unacceptable as fellow countrymen -- is evidence of a cancer in the soul of that party. These Democrats, quite expressly, are asserting that "christers," people who believe in the teachings of Jesus as described in the inerrant words of the Bible, are un-American, almost subhuman. Some of these Democrats would rather secede than stay in the same country with such people. If they were in the majority with no need to secede, what would they do? Their bigoted and absolutist view of religious people is at least a second cousin to the Nazi view of the Jews. In Europe, the few remaining people of faith have recently taken to calling the increasingly more adamant European secularist majority "secular fundamentalists." While that phrase is unfair to the perfectly respectable fundamentalist religious sentiment -- it shows how much more harsh and filled with fear the religious/secular divide is becoming. Fortunately, most rank-and-file Democrats are not infected with such secular bigotry. Democrats don't need to secede. They just need to purge their party of such of their leaders and intellectual vanguard as spew forth such rubbish. -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

Morgan Stanley website breach
by R.A. Hettinga 09 Nov '04

09 Nov '04

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5059129-103676,00.html> Guardian | Morgan Stanley website breach Rupert Jones Wednesday November 10, 2004 The Guardian A credit card company with more than 1 million customers has closed an online security loophole that could have allowed people to access account holders' details and move money about. Yesterday it emerged that the Morgan Stanley website had allowed users to access their credit card information after entering just the first digit of their credit card number. The incident comes four days after internet bank Cahoot closed down its website for 10 hours following a tip-off that users could view other customers' private details. Cyber crime experts said banks and other companies must take more responsibility for providing their online customers with security or run the risk that people will steer clear of these services. Morgan Stanley had permitted customers to let their PC "remember" their password so they only had to enter the first digit of their card number before the "autocomplete" facility provided the rest. This meant that someone using the same computer could potentially access another's accounts. The Association for Payment Clearing Services (Apacs) recommends that companies disable the auto function to remove the risk of this happening. The problem was reported to Morgan Stanley by the BBC after a viewer contacted a programme about the flaw. A Morgan Stanley spokeswoman said it had "taken immediate steps to turn off the auto function to ensure there are no possible security issues". "Morgan Stanley has received no customer complaints or calls on this issue to date, and to our knowledge no accounts have been accessed improperly," she said. But Philippsohn Crawfords Berwald, a city law firm, said the loophole "potentially enabled users to shift money across accounts with incredible ease". -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

Sunrise in the West
by R.A. Hettinga 09 Nov '04

09 Nov '04

<http://www.techcentralstation.com/110904A.html> Tech Central Station Sunrise in the West By William J. Stuntz Published 11/09/2004 The conventional wisdom holds that America is and always has been divided between North and South. Actually, there is a bigger and deeper divide: between East and West. The West is winning, hands down. Consider these facts. Thirteen times since World War II, the country has elected a President from West of the Mississippi River. Easterners have won the White House twice in that time, and one of those -- Georgian Jimmy Carter -- beat another Easterner, Michigan's Gerald Ford, the only Eastern nominee of his party in the past fifty years. Eight times, an Eastern candidate squared off against a son of the West. The West won seven out of eight. Four of the seven victories were landslides. The East's one win -- John F. Kennedy over Richard Nixon in 1960 -- was a squeaker. In today's more Western America, it would probably squeak the other way. The West's growing dominance has a lot to do with the Republican Party's. Thirteen of its last fifteen nominations have gone to Westerners. Nine of those candidates won; six won at least forty states. The two Easterners, New York's Thomas E. Dewey and Ford, both lost. The Democrats have been more geographically balanced: seven nominees from West of the Mississippi, eight from the East. Also less successful. Easterners Kennedy and Carter won, barely; Carter later lost massively to Californian Ronald Reagan. The other five Eastern Democrats, along with three of the seven Westerners, lost to Western Republicans. Another way to measure the country's Western tilt is this: Since World War II, tickets with two Westerners have run seven times. They won all seven elections, five by landslides. Tickets with two Easterners have run, and lost, four times. Six of the seven West-West tickets were Republican. All four of the all-East tickets were Democratic. Some of this can be chalked up to geographical coincidence. But not all, and probably not most. Deep differences of attitude and spirit separate America's two halves. Easterners like theory and process. Westerners care more about outcomes than procedures, and they like whatever works. Easterners are cautious; Westerners take chances. Easterners like universities, legislatures, and the U.N. Westerners like businesses, the executive branch, and the Army. Eastern politicians are more likely to talk down to voters -- think of Dewey, Adlai Stevenson, or John Kerry -- because they are instinctively less democratic; they come from a world where social and educational class matters and where institutions seem to outlast people. (I teach at a university that is nearly four centuries old.) Western politicians are more optimistic, believe that problems can be solved and limits surpassed. Also that institutions are temporary things: they are the creatures; people are their creators, and creators matter more than the things they create. The flip side of optimism is rootlessness: if life isn't working out, go somewhere else and reinvent yourself, like Easterner-turned-Westerner (and Democrat-turned-Republican) Ronald Reagan. Easterners are more likely to be defined, and confined, by place. Eastern candidates want to protect a lead and play it safe -- Dewey, anyone? -- while Westerners roll the dice, not only in campaigns but in the White House: Reagan's simultaneous tax cuts and defense buildup (Howard Baker called it "a riverboat gamble," and it was), Bush's war in Iraq and his decision to wrap his arms around the third rail of American politics. The patterns don't always hold. Bob Dole comes from Kansas and is a small-d democrat to his core, but most of his political instincts are Eastern. The elder George Bush voted in Texas but lived most of his life in New England and Washington, D.C., and it shows. John F. Kennedy was Eastern through and through, but his politics showed a Western optimism: cut taxes and revenues will rise; promise that we will walk on the moon, then make it happen. Today, New Yorker Rudy Giuliani is one of the nation's most Western politicians -- like a New Yorker of the last century who loved the West (the West loved him back) and had a Giuliani-like executive temperament: Theodore Roosevelt. And the regional breakdowns are more complex than first appears. The Pacific Coast votes with the Northeast in national elections, though it still has a different political feel: One can hardly imagine Arnold Schwarzenegger, a classic Westerner, rocketing to the top of Massachusetts politics. So, too, the South -- including its Eastern seaboard -- usually lines up with the West in national elections, a pattern that goes back to William Jennings Bryan, and maybe to Andrew Jackson. But the West dominates this West-South political alliance, at least in presidential politics. The current President Bush is a good example. Though he is sometimes called a Southerner, Bush's orientation is more West than South. White Southerners (the modifier is important) are instinctive pessimists, perhaps because their ancestors lost a great war. They are rooted, not just to the land but to one particular piece of it, in a way Westerners aren't. Even their religion is different, more respectful of church authorities. Bush's Methodism is fiercely independent; it draws more inspiration from the Pope than from his own church's bishops. And Bush is Reagan-like in his fondness for taking big chances, rolling the dice. John Kerry, meanwhile, is a classic Easterner. Kerry may not have shaped the Senate during the past twenty years; he does not appear to have had much influence there. But the Senate has shaped him. His outlook on governance is quintessentially legislative -- and quintessentially legal. Legislators, like lawyers (Kerry is both), believe that if you get the process right, if the right people are consulted along the way and the right arguments are made at the right times, good decisions will follow. Executives know better. Sometimes more process only gums up the works. Consultation helps only if those who are consulted give wise advice. The bottom line matters more than what steps one takes to get there. Perhaps Kerry's critique of Bush's approach to terrorism didn't sell because it boiled down to two inconsistent claims about process: Don't consult allies in Afghanistan; that's outsourcing. Consult everyone in the world -- well, everyone in the United Nations -- about Iraq. On the campaign trail, Kerry often said that he "might" have gone to war in Iraq, but that if he had, "I'd have done it right." Meaning, he would have gotten the right process. There is a very different critique that one could make of Bush's presidency: The process has been fine, but too many bottom lines are wrong. Maybe going to war in Iraq was too risky a venture. (Al Gore was right about one thing: George W. Bush really does like "risky schemes.") Today, Bush's massive tax cuts coupled with equally massive spending increases -- and we haven't even begun to fix entitlement programs, which will cost a bundle -- look like a losing bet. The problem with Bush is not that he prays, not that he takes chances or shoots from the hip, not that he doesn't listen to Jacques Chirac or Gerhard Schroeder. It's that he often makes bad decisions. An executive critique rather than a legislative one might have won the election. We'll never know. For my part, I'm torn, as I suspect many Americans are: Eastern and Western blood flows through a lot of the same veins. I don't like risk; huge deficits terrify me. I'm a lawyer by training and so tend to value process too highly. But when I look at the broad sweep of American history, I see a country that, time and again, ignored process and took gambles that paid off big. Westerner Abraham Lincoln -- in his America, Illinois was definitely the West -- fought and won a long, hard war that freed millions and saved mankind's last, best hope. Westerners Truman, Eisenhower, and Reagan fought and won another long, hard war, and millions more taste freedom because of it -- and they did it without incinerating half the planet. The sheer size of those achievements boggles the mind. Maybe, just maybe, two decades from now the Near East will be filled with Muslim democracies; young men and women (women!) will fight their battles with ballots rather than bombs. If so, that too will be a mind-boggling achievement, the happy bequest of a Westerner who once ran a baseball team, and loved to swing for the fences. William J. Stuntz is a Professor at Harvard Law School. -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

What Next for Libertarians?
by R.A. Hettinga 09 Nov '04

09 Nov '04

<http://www.techcentralstation.com/110904C.html> Tech Central Station Ryan H. Sager What Next for Libertarians? By Ryan Sager Published 11/09/2004 Libertarianism is in a bad way following the 2004 presidential election -- and not just because Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik failed to overtake Ralph Nader for third place (though, if it's any consolation, he tied the erstwhile consumer advocate in the Electoral College). No, the problem is that both parties proved themselves able to ignore libertarian ideas almost completely this year and are only likely to do so increasingly going forward. Now, make no mistake about it, this was an election mainly about foreign policy (a topic to which libertarian philosophy has traditionally been difficult to apply). While much has been made of the fact that 22 percent of voters chose "moral values" as their "most important issue" when asked in exit polls -- making it the most popular of the options given -- that was only because "terrorism" and "Iraq" were listed as separate choices. Together, those foreign-policy topics, inextricably linked in the minds of many, were the deciding factor for 34 percent of voters. But the utter irrelevance of libertarian ideas this year can't be written off simply because of the nation's current foreign-policy concerns. It's impossible to ignore the fact that the domestic agendas of both parties this year were based firmly on expanding the power of the state. The Kerry-Edwards campaign, in its only small-government gambit, opposed certain provisions of the Patriot Act; but, for fear of looking soft on terror, that position was, shall we say, deemphasized. Otherwise, the Democrats pushed a pretty standard, statist line: "rolling back" tax cuts (otherwise known as "raising taxes," be it only on the rich), nationalizing health care, leaving Social Security to fester, spending more on education, increasing the amount of environmental regulation and putting a flu shot in every pot. The Bush-Cheney team had its version, a little lighter on economic statism but heavier on cultural statism: leaving in place its own move toward socialized medicine (a.k.a., the colossally expensive Medicare prescription drug benefit), cracking down on "indecency" and banning gay marriage. Tax cuts were also promised, though not paired with any cuts in programs to pay for them. Social Security reform may have been the only bright spot. So, what can we expect from the Republicans going forward? More of the same -- but worse. Karl Rove is already out in the press promising President Bush's evangelical base a renewed push to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. And there can be absolutely no doubt that such an amendment, if not passed soon, will become a central issue in the 2006 midterm elections, used as a wedge issue to paint any Democratic senator or congressman who doesn't go along as a hopelessly out-of-touch liberal. And what can we expect from the Democrats? It's too soon to tell definitively, of course, but there are really only two directions the party can move, neither of them terribly favorable to the libertarian-minded. The party could begin playing to its liberal base -- MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, etc. -- but that would only pull it further out of the mainstream, leaving the Republicans to run the country unchallenged. More likely, we'll see a serious move by the party to close the "values gap" that supposedly cost its candidates so dearly this election cycle. There are any number of ways this could happen. Suddenly, Democrats in Congress could join Republicans in supporting a flag-burning amendment. They could suddenly become quite attached to the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. They could roll over on the anti-gay marriage amendment. And it would be completely unsurprising if Americans woke up suddenly to find the Democrats initiating new hearings into violence and sex in the music industry, television, movies, video games, Web pages, comic books or wherever. Libertarianism never flourishes during times of war, but that's exactly why people concerned with economic liberalism and social freedom should be concerned. With the War on Terror likely to be the defining issue of a generation, libertarians must begin to grapple with it seriously instead of pretending it doesn't exist. The forces of statism in this country have grabbed onto this war to move the center of gravity in our politics to the left economically and to the right socially. Karl Rove and the forces of "national-greatness conservatism" embodied in places such as The Weekly Standard have seen the chance to create a "permanent Republican majority" -- a platform combining traditional Republican strength on national security with a radical expansion of the size of the federal government, designed to rob the Democrats of their natural constituency. The Republican Party under Bush, in short, has ceased to be a hospitable environment for libertarians, and the alternative looks no better. The party that came in second isn't the only one with some thinking to do right now. Those of us in fourth need to wake up as well. Ryan Sager is a member of the editorial board of The New York Post. He also edits the blog Miscellaneous Objections and can be reached at editor(a)rhsager.com. -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0