Datasets:

BAAI

/

IndustryCorpus_politics

like 2

Follow

Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence 846

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/7019

Home » News » Politics » Primary Plus Two U.S. Senate candidates refuse to heed plea for GOP unity By DAVE SOLOMONNew Hampshire Union Leader New Hampshire GOP Chairman Jennifer Horn issued a plea for party unity in a letter released on Monday, but it appears to be falling on deaf ears in the hotly contested primary for U.S. Senate. Former U.S. Sen. Bob Smith and former state Sen. Jim Rubens have so far declined to indicate whether they will support former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown should Brown win the nomination to take on Democratic incumbent U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen in the fall.The letter from Horn was sent to all candidates for federal and statewide offices in the primary election, including the U.S. Senate race, as well as the state’s two congressional districts.The primary for the Republican nomination to U.S. Senate has been heating up, as long-shot candidate Karen Testerman withdrew last week and threw her support behind Smith, leaving him and former state Sen. Jim Rubens in a three-way race with Brown.Rubens and Smith have criticized Brown for his refusal to debate them, at least up to this point in the campaign. Brown has agreed to appear in at least one scheduled debate closer to the Sept. 9 primary.In her letter, Horn said that she has promised thousands of grassroots Republican activists in the state that she will put 100 percent of the party’s resources behind GOP nominees for every seat, and that the activists have promised to do the same, no matter who is nominated in the primary.“Today I ask you to join us in this promise,” she wrote. “I am asking you to promise your full support for the Republican nominee in your race, regardless of which Republican candidate is chosen by our primary voters.”The letter goes on to ask each candidate to promise to attend the NHGOP Unity Breakfast on Sept. 12.“Your signature at the bottom of this letter, and returned to me, will send a clear message that you share our commitment to returning Republican leadership to every level of government in 2014,” the letter states.Months in the makingHorn said the letter was not prompted by the surprise defeat of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in his Republican primary in Virginia last week, nor by the aggressive sparring in the New Hampshire Senate primary.“It’s something I’ve been thinking about for a couple of months now,” she said in an interview, “not because of any one race. I’ve been in difficult primaries myself, and I know how it can be. I embrace them, and I think they are good for us as a party, but I also think it’s important for the grassroots activists to see that our candidates are as committed to winning as they are.”Horn ran twice for New Hampshire’s second district congressional seat, winning the Republican nomination in 2008 before losing to Paul Hodes in the general election. In 2010, she lost in the primary to Charlie Bass.“My expectation is that the letter will be signed and returned in short order by the majority of our candidates,” Horn said. All GOP candidates receiving the letter, except Smith and Rubens, appear to confirm that expectation.“I have been consistently active in the New Hampshire GOP for the past 20 years. I look forward to the opportunity to support the GOP slate of nominees in November,” Rubens wrote in a statement. “In this case, however, another candidate in this race is someone who has not participated in any debates or public, unfiltered forums. It would be premature of me to pledge my potential support to that candidate at this time before I have a clearer view of who they are, who they represent and what they stand for.” Smith was more direct.“At this point, I am not going to sign it,” he said in an interview. “I think Rubens used the term premature, and I would agree with that. I’ve been on the stump for months now, and there have been several forums at which Sen. Brown has not been present, and it’s pretty hard to know what a person’s views are under those circumstances. I need to have this race unfold more before I make any commitments.”A spokesman for the Brown campaign said he will sign the letter.Some rocky historyIn the first district congressional race, former U.S. Rep. Frank Guinta and his challenger, University of New Hampshire professor Dan Innis, have both agreed to sign the letter, as have second district candidates state Rep. Marilinda Garcia and former state Sen. Gary Lambert.Gubernatorial candidates Andrew Hemingway and Walt Havenstein are also on board.In 2002, Smith lost his re-election bid when he was defeated in the GOP primary by John E. Sununu. He skipped the Republican Unity Breakfast, citing the need to cast important votes in Washington, D.C.According to news reports at the time, Smith did not vote on the Senate bills that day, although Sen. Judd Gregg attended the breakfast and rushed back to Washington, D.C., to vote in the afternoon.Smith caused some concern among the party faithful in May when he was overheard telling former Manchester Republican Party Chairman Gerry Thibodeau that Brown will lose to Shaheen if nominated, and that if Republicans nominate Brown, “they (the GOP) will deserve to lose.”Smith confirmed the comments, describing them as part of a “very animated” conversation with Thibodeau, a Brown supporter, at a Friends of the NRA [email protected]

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/7032

Home / Top News / U.S. News Politics 2012: After election loss, GOP hones in on brand, message, appeal By NICOLE DEBEVEC, United Press International | Dec. 9, 2012 at 4:30 AM Comments | License Photo More than a month has passed since Mitt Romney's defeat in the 2012 presidential election, but the finger-pointing continues as the Republican Party lurches toward the new year. Unlike 2008, when John McCain of Arizona returned to the Senate and became the face and voice of the party after losing to President Obama, Mitt Romney has no other public office to use as a pulpit. He simply returns to private life -- although he recently was named to return to the Marriott International board of directors -- much criticized by those in his party as a flawed candidate who ran a flawed campaign. While some blame the better organized Obama election machine and others lay criticism of the GOP standard-bearer, others have said the party's image -- particularly among Hispanics and women, who voted overwhelmingly for Obama -- is what needs retooling. "Many Republicans are upset with the Romney campaign's approach to the 2012 election, believing that a winnable election was lost by a poor fall campaign," political commentator Steven Schier of Carleton College in Minnesota said. "The 2012 GOP presidential failure has prompted much reassessment within the party's ranks about how to avoid 2012's presidential mistakes in the future." "You win and lose as a team," Republican Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, said in an interview with MSNBC. "We have to look at everything we do -- from logistics to turnout to technology to message to tone." Now the party has to reinvent itself, an unpleasant but necessary task, top GOP strategists and lawmakers agree, and do so without an obvious leader to carry the party's message. When McCain lost, he did so with his reputation basically intact and still speaks with authority on policy issues. Romney, even though he was the consensus presidential front-runner during the crowded Republican primary, had to overcome a distrustful base that never really warmed to him and now has been in relative seclusion, save a private lunch at the White House with Obama. The GOP has come off as sputtering and still as shell-shocked as they were Nov. 7. "A party that loses a presidential election always goes through a period of reassessment and seeming disarray," Schier said. "The 2012 GOP is no exception to this pattern. The party is rethinking its approach to elections and governing as it addresses issues like the fiscal cliff." Even as the party reflects on how it governs, the Tea Party will remain a key factor in the GOP base, he said. "They are the Republicans more likely to turnout in caucuses and primaries, to vote and to serve as campaign volunteers," Schier explained. "Tea Party preferences will loom large in the electoral and governing decisions of the GOP." So, who can pick up the mantle of leadership? The party has several up-and-coming prospects, including vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, who heads the House Budget Committee, and U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, who was a headliner at the GOP convention in Tampa, Fla. Both men -- considered potential presidential candidates in 2016 -- recently proffered their vision for the party's future that is more inclusive and more sensitive than it was perceived during the election. Ryan, who spoke at the Jack Kemp Foundation Leadership Award Dinner in Washington last week, argued the Republican Party must go beyond "representing the aspirations of our nation's risk-takers." "When our neighbors are struggling, we look out for one another," Ryan said. "We do that best through our families and communities -- and our party must stand for making them stronger." We have a compassionate vision based on ideas that work," he said, "but sometimes we don't do a good job of laying out that vision. We need to do better." Rubio, who received his Leadership Award at the dinner hosted by the charitable organization named for the late New York congressman and Housing and Urban Development secretary, took a soft shot at Romney's "47 percent" comment but didn't specifically mention it. "Some say that our problem is that the American people have changed. That too many people want things from government," he said. "But I am still convinced that the overwhelming majority of our people just want what my parents had -- a chance." "A new generation of national leaders is on the horizon for the GOP," commentator Schier said. "This group will be younger and more racially and ethically diverse. At the forefront of this group is ... Rubio, a Latino, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, of south Asian origin, and ... Ryan." "More diverse leadership is essential for the party to be electorally competitive in a more diverse country," he said. Among some of potential party leaders listed by The Washington Post are Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey and former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida. Christie, who also gave a keynote address during the GOP convention, already announced he will seek re-election in 2013. Known for his blunt talk, Christie raised hackles when he praised the Obama administration's hurricane response a week before the election. If Bush, son and brother of presidents 41 and 43, chooses to make his own move on the White House, the Post said he'll be making noise soon. Bush is well regarded within the party and has been advocating moderation on immigration for some time. "Jeb Bush could play a significant role in helping the party get the tone and policy right," Republican National Committeeman Henry Barbour told the Post. Related UPI Stories DeMint resigns to lead Heritage Foundation Majority favor Clinton White House bid Ryan, Rubio focus on GOP future Armey steps down from FreedomWorks Topics: Mitt Romney, John McCain, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Bob McDonnell, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal Recommended

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/7033

Home / Top News / U.S. News Politics 2014: Does President Obama's go-it-alone position have teeth? By NICOLE DEBEVEC, United Press International | Feb. 2, 2014 at 4:01 AM Comments | License Photo President Obama said he's willing to work with Congress but won't be hesitant to go it alone to advance his 2014 agenda, telling recalcitrant lawmakers he won't be twiddling his thumbs if they dawdle or fail to act for whatever reason. During his State of the Union last week, Obama offered up what he called "a set of concrete, practical proposals to speed up growth, strengthen the middle class, and build new ladders of opportunity into the middle class." "Some require congressional action, and I'm eager to work with all of you," he told the joint session of Congress. "But America does not stand still, and neither will I." "So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that's what I'm going to do." And it's already begun. Obama last week issued a memorandum directing Treasury Secretary Jack Lew to create "MyRA," or My Retirement Account, a new retirement savings tool available through employers that is focused on "reaching new and small-dollar savers and shall have low barriers to entry, including a low minimum opening amount." "MyRA guarantees a decent return with no risk of losing what you put in," Obama said during his State of the Union. He also issued a memorandum to the secretaries of Commerce, Education and Labor concerning job-driven training for workers as a follow-up to comments in his speech. "I've asked Vice President Biden to lead an across-the-board reform of America's training programs to make sure they have one mission: train Americans with the skills employers need and match them to good jobs that need to be filled right now," Obama said in the House chamber. In his memo, Obama directed the development of a specific action plan to make the workforce and training system "more job-driven, integrated and effective." He wants that report within 180 days. And on Friday, Obama issued a memorandum that bars federal agencies from turning down job applicants because of unemployment or because of experiencing financial difficulties because of unemployment. "Although executive departments and agencies ... generally can, and do, take job applicants' employment history and other factors into account when making hiring decisions, it is the policy of my administration that applicants should not face undue obstacles to federal employment because they are unemployed or face financial difficulties," Obama said in the memo. During his address, Obama also said he'd bypass Congress and raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour for individuals under new federal contracts through executive order, and said he'd use his authority in other areas as well. "In the coming weeks, I will issue an executive order requiring federal contractors to pay their federally funded employees a fair wage of at least $10.10 an hour," Obama said, "because if you cook our troops' meals or wash their dishes, you should not have to live in poverty." Obama "has decided to advance his agenda with executive orders because he has no real alternative means of making policy," said political commentator Steve Schier, a professor at Minnesota's Carleton College. "The GOP House has blocked his domestic agenda and Obama knows the GOP is likely to keep control of the House throughout the remainder of his presidency. "So that leaves executive orders as the best opportunity for presidential policymaking." While an executive order is more limiting than legislative lawmaking, for Obama, "it's about the only game in town," Schier said. Executive orders are about process and a means for helping shape public policy -- and can be temporary because they can vanish as soon as the presidential author vacates the White House. "If a presidential successor does not like extant executive orders, the successor can eliminate them with the stroke of a pen," Schier said. "Obama did this to several of George W. Bush's executive orders. A GOP successor to Obama could do the same." But his naked admission that he would work around Congress -- and he repeated that sentiment several times in one form or another -- caused consternation among conservatives, who railed against what they consider a naked grab for power by Obama. Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, walked out during Obama's address, telling folks via Facebook he left early "after hearing how the President is further abusing his constitutional powers. I could not bear to watch as he continued to cross the clearly defined boundaries of the constitutional separation of powers." "Obama has openly vowed to break his oath of office and begin enacting his own brand of law through executive decree," Stockman said, calling it a "wholesale violation of his oath of office." Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, told CNN Obama is aware of his constitutional limitations and "knows better." "It's Congress' job to pass the laws. He knows that," King said. "And we need to take our oath seriously and defend the Constitution." Even before his State of the Union, as its contents began surfacing in drips and dribbles, House Speaker John Boehner warned: "We're going to watch very closely because there's a Constitution that we all take an oath to, including him, and following that Constitution is the basis for our republic and we shouldn't put that in jeopardy." One thing, though. It isn't like Obama hasn't worked around Congress before. Nor is he the first president to do so. In June 2012, frustrated with the lack of progress on the so-called DREAM Act -- the Obama administration announced a huge policy shift related to young illegal immigrants. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security said the government no longer would seek deportation of undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children, provided they meet specific criteria, and would allow them to apply for work permits. Those meeting the criteria could receive deferred action for a 2-year period and will be eligible to apply for work permits. At the time, Obama said the department's decision to refocus its enforcement would "mend our nation's immigration policy to make it more fair, more efficient and more just." Republicans accused his administration of overreach and that the matter was best decided within Congress. Still no congressional action has been taken. Obama allies noted to the New York Times that executive orders can create momentum and some -- such as the Emancipation Proclamation, the order by President Harry S. Truman to desegregate the military and President Bill Clinton's expansion of public lands through the declaration of national monuments -- have been transformative. "There is nothing like legislation," Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who was Obama's first chief of staff and a former House member, told the Times. "But given the challenges that are mounting, the country cannot afford Congress to go MIA." Rep. Joseph Crowley, D-N.Y., conceded governing by executive order is not ideal but there is little else could Obama do given the depth of Republican opposition. "This is not a panacea, this is not the fix we are looking for," he said of the president's action on wages. "But he is leading by example, sending a message to Congress that we need to raise the minimum wage for all Americans." President Obama "can issue executive orders, but they are subject to federal court review and reprisals by Congress," political commentator Schier said. "So those constraints do limit the range of his ability to issue orders. Usually presidents issue orders elaborating on present laws, rather than attempting to create broad new laws, in order to avoid Congressional and court opposition." It's not exactly as if Obama has been using up ink signing executive orders, either. The Federal Register indicates Obama has signed 167 executive orders -- fewer than any president in the same time period dating back to Truman, the Washington Post reported. Bush 43 signed just about as many -- 166 -- in a single term as Obama has through his first five calendar years as president. Every president since George Washington has used executive orders, research by CNBC indicated. More than 13,000, in some manner, have been issued since 1789 and the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld all but two. One issued by Truman was meant to prevent strikes during the Korean War by placing all the nation's steel mills under federal law and one by President Bill Clinton barred the federal government from entering into contracts with organizations that hire replacements for striking workers. Related UPI Stories Obama to use executive power 12 times to push agenda McMorris Rodgers: Obama's policies are 'making people's lives harder' Transcript of GOP response to the State of the Union address Transcript of President Obama's State of the Union address Topics: George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Steve King, John Boehner, Harry S. Truman, Rahm Emanuel, Joseph Crowley, George Washington, Barack Obama, Supreme Court Recommended

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/7042

NEWS | LOCAL | POLITICS | SPORTS | OPINIONS | BUSINESS | ARTS & LIVING | GOING OUT GUIDE | JOBS | CARS | REAL ESTATE |SHOPPING Judge Strikes Down Parts of Executive Order on Terrorism By Dan Eggen A Los Angeles federal judge has ruled that key portions of a presidential order blocking financial assistance to terrorist groups are unconstitutional, further complicating the Bush administration's attempts to defend its aggressive anti-terrorism tactics in federal courts. U.S. District Judge Audrey B. Collins, in a ruling released late Monday, found that two provisions of an executive order signed Sept. 23, 2001, are impermissibly vague because they allow the president to unilaterally designate organizations as terrorist groups and broadly prohibit association with such groups. The ruling marks a victory for the Humanitarian Law Project and other plaintiffs in the case, who are seeking to provide support for the "lawful, nonviolent activities" of two groups designated terrorist organizations by the U.S. government: the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Turkey and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, in Sri Lanka. They argue that federal anti-terrorism laws put charities and individual donors at risk of prosecution for providing benign assistance to foreign groups that have been added to the government's terrorism list. David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who is helping to represent the plaintiffs in the case, said the executive order and a related federal statute improperly allow President Bush to create "blacklists" and engage in "guilt by association." "The court's decision confirms that even in fighting terror, unchecked executive authority and trampling on fundamental freedoms is not a permissible option," Cole said in a statement. The ruling is the latest setback for the administration's terrorism and detention policies, in lower courts and at the Supreme Court. In August, a federal judge in Detroit ruled that a National Security Agency warrantless wiretap program is unconstitutional. The government has appealed that ruling. Collins has previously issued similar rulings in favor of the Humanitarian Law Project, a Los Angeles group that has filed legal challenges to a 1996 anti-terrorism law and to the 2001 USA Patriot Act. Those issues are still being litigated after Congress rewrote parts of the Patriot Act. The latest case focuses on Executive Order 13224, which is aimed at cutting off financing to alleged terrorist groups and is based on the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Twenty-seven groups and individuals were initially named as "specially designated global terrorists" under the order -- including the PKK and the Tamil Tigers -- and hundreds more since have been added to the list. In her ruling, Collins said the order is unconstitutional because there is "no apparent limit" on presidential authority to designate groups or individuals as terrorists. In addition, the judge ruled, language banning those "otherwise associated" with such groups is "unconstitutionally vague on its face." Collins rejected a number of other claims by the plaintiffs, however, including that the order's definition of a terrorist group is too vague. The Justice Department said it is too early to decide on an appeal. "We are pleased that the court rejected many of the constitutional arguments raised by the plaintiffs," Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said in a statement. "However, we believe the court erred in finding that certain other aspects of the executive order were unconstitutional." Bruce Fein, a Justice Department official in the Reagan years who has criticized the Bush administration's broad assertions of executive power, said that appealing Collins's ruling may carry more risks for the government than simply changing the executive order's language. "If they take this up on appeal, they risk another repudiation of this omnipotent-presidency theory that they have," Fein said. Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/7160

Hyacinth Morgan Hyacinth Bernard Wenceslaus Morgan (11 September 1885 – 7 May 1956) was a Labour Party politician in the United Kingdom. He was a Member of Parliament (MP) from 1929 to 1931, and 1940 to 1955. He was born, of Irish descent, in Grenada, West Indies and came to the United Kingdom to study medicine at Glasgow University in 1904. while at University he was active in the Fabian Society and founded the students' Irish Nationalist Club. After qualifying, he worked in a number of Glasgow mental hospitals and then served as a doctor in France during World War I, and then entered general practice in London, initially at Greenwich, later Camberwell and finally at Paddington. Spanish Medical Aid armband Morgan contested the South London constituency of the Camberwell North West at the 1922 general election, but lost by a wide margin to the National Liberal MP Thomas James Macnamara.[citation needed] He stood again at the 1923 election, when Macnamara had re-joined the Liberal Party,[

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/7216

Can Congress Really Compromise On Extending The Payroll Tax Cut? Share Tweet E-mail Comments Print By Tamara Keith Congress returned to Washington Monday with a pile of unfinished business, and no clarity on a path to getting it done. At the top of the congressional to-do list this week is extending a payroll tax holiday that meant about $1,000 in extra take-home pay for the typical family this year. It is set to expire at the end of the month. Congressional leaders from both parties say the payroll tax cut is a must-pass measure. It's just not entirely clear how it's going to happen. Economists say that if the payroll tax holiday isn't extended, the economy would take a hit with millions of Americans seeing a little bit less money in every paycheck. "There aren't many folks, either in the middle class or those trying to get into the middle class, who can afford to give up $1,000 not right now," said President Barack Obama in the White House briefing room just as the Senate was beginning work for the day. "That's why Congress must act." Senate Republicans voted down two bills to extend the tax holiday last week — one from Democrats and a Republican alternative. Democrats and President Obama see this as a winning issue and are taking every opportunity to hammer Republicans on it. "How can you fight tooth and nail to protect high end tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and yet barely lift a finger to prevent taxes going up for 160 million Americans who really need the help?" Obama asked. Monday Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) unveiled what Democrats are calling a "compromise" measure. "Republicans need to be prepared to meet us partway," said Reid on the Senate floor. The Senate Democratic proposal would include an expanded payroll tax cut for workers. But it drops an earlier proposal to extend that cut to employers as well. It includes an idea Republicans proposed last week: banning millionaires from receiving food stamps and unemployment benefits. It also includes a surtax on income over $1 million a year, though it is smaller than past proposals and would sunset after a decade. "The scaled-back temporary tax on the richest Americans, a group with an average income of $3 million a year, is also a sincere attempt to get Republicans on board to pass what they say they want to do," said Reid. Republicans aren't so sure it's sincere. An aide to Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell says the Democrats' new plan included no input from Republicans, who continue to object to using a tax hike to pay for the tax holiday. "The only thing bipartisan about their tax hike — is the opposition," says Don Stewart, McConnell's spokesman. On the House side, a spokesman for Speaker John Boehner implied that any measure that includes tax hikes isn't a credible compromise proposal.Copyright 2011 National Public Radio. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/. View the discussion thread.

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/7247

Lack of leadership and enthusiasm blamed for slim Democratic ticket in Ogdensburg races By SEAN EWARTJOHNSON NEWSPAPERS OGDENSBURG — Voters in the recent Ogdensburg City Council race may have noticed the lack of party choices represented on the ballot.The absence is being blamed on a disorganized Democratic Committee in the city and a lack of enthusiasm for politics in general.With three seats available on the City Council, the race featured one Democrat, incumbent Daniel E. Skamperle, who also ran on the Conservative Party line, one independent, Penny Sharrow, and three Republicans, including incumbent Michael D. Morley, who also was on the Conservative line, Brian R. Mitchell and James R. Amo.Both incumbents successfully defended their seats and Mr. Mitchell walked away from the Nov. 5 election as a city councilor-elect. City Democratic Committee Chairman Vernon D. “Sam” Burns, who is also a St. Lawrence County legislator representing the city, said the lack of Democrats on the ticket was due, in part, to the inability of the committee to find candidates. “A lot of us on the committee had approached” potential candidates, Mr. Burns said. “I think it’s unfortunately a trend that a lot of people are not willing to step forward and run for public office. It takes away from family time. It takes away from someone younger looking to build a career.”But the Democratic Committee also was in the throes of a leadership crisis during much of the year. Former chairman Jeffrey Ferrell resigned in the spring after accepting a position with Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s office, Mr. Burns said, and committee members were not sure whom they elected to serve as vice chairman. Mr. Burns, who was acting as secretary, said the responsibility therefore fell to him to take over as chairman until the committee can find a full-time replacement. Mr. Skamperle said the committee was able to pull together enough money to donate about $500 to his campaign this year to help him buy lawn signs.Yet meetings, Mr. Skamperle said, were not as organized as they could have been.“We’re very loose right now,” he said. “We’re all so busy and we just haven’t had much of a chance to get together.” Mr. Skamperle, who held a fundraiser at the Freight House during his bid for re-election, said the city Democratic Committee wasn’t around to help organize fundraisers during his campaign.The city Republican Committee also didn’t hold any fundraisers to support candidates, said Chairman Frederick P. Bean, but he noted there “really wasn’t any competition” in this year’s race.With three contested City Council seats, the city’s Republicans managed to field three candidates and won two of the elections. “Getting involved in politics can be pretty tough,” Mr. Bean said. “With the economy the way it is, it’s extremely difficult to change anything. Most government bodies are trying very hard to maintain what they’ve got. About the only reward you get out of it is the fact that you can maybe save some jobs and maybe maintain some services.”And that is why, Mr. Bean said, it’s so important to find solid candidates.“The secret to my success is to find good candidates that I’m 99 percent sure can win. ... I’m always looking for people who have an interest in Ogdensburg,” he said.In two years, Mr. Burns said, when the mayor and three councilor seats are up for grabs, “we’re hoping that we have a full slate of candidates to offer to the people of the city of Ogdensburg.”

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/7267

Five Things Children Know That Liberals Have Forgotten “Liberals love to think of themselves as intellectual and nuanced, but liberalism is incredibly simplistic. It’s nothing more than ‘childlike emotionalism applied to adult issues.’ Very seldom does any issue that doesn’t involve pandering to their supporters boil down at its core level to more than feeling ‘nice’ or ‘mean’ to liberals. This makes liberals ill equipped to deal with complex issues.” — John Hawkins, September 21, 2007 Liberals are actually worse than children, not just because it’s so appalling to see adults who view themselves as highly intelligent and sophisticated thinking like little kids, but because in some respects, left-wing thinking is inferior to that of children. There are things that five year olds all across this country know that liberal child-men are intellectually unable to comprehend. 1) Life’s not fair. There’s probably not a kid in this country who hasn’t said, “That’s not fair,” and has heard a “Life’s not fair” in return. You could actually go farther than that. Not only is life not fair, the word “fair” is completely arbitrary and primarily dependent on whose goose is getting gored. If you’re paying 35% of your income in taxes and are being told that it’s not “fair” you’re only paying that much when almost half the country isn’t paying any income tax at all, you probably disagree in the strongest of terms. On the other hand, someone making $10,000 a year might not think it’s “fair” for someone else to make so much more money than he does after taxes. If you’re a black, Harvard educated business owner with 10 million dollars in the bank, you may think it’s perfectly fair that your son gets into a college over a more qualified son of a white garbage collector because of Affirmative Action, but it’s pretty easy to see how the person being discriminated against because of his race wouldn’t feel the same way. In other words, one person’s “fair” is another’s person’s “unfair” which can become a huge problem when the government starts defining what’s “fair” and putting the force of law behind it. Yes, some of that has to happen in order to have an orderly and law abiding society, but increasingly, what’s “fair” is becoming little more than an overbearing government and tyrannical judges abusing the law to do favors for the politically well-connected and voting blocks they think will help “their side.” No matter what they do, life will never be “fair” and trying to make it so is an inherently “unfair” exercise in utopianism that has proven to lead to considerably more misery than simply accepting that “Life isn’t fair” in the first place. 2) You can’t have everything you want. This is something most kids learn when they don’t get a pony at Christmas or when their parents take them into a dollar store and tell them they can have “two things.” This is not a lesson liberals seem to have ever learned because their thinking is, “If it’s a ‘good idea,’ then it should be funded, regardless of what it costs, regardless of whether it’s worth the money.” It’s like liberals start with the assumption that we have infinite money and if anyone opposes spending for any reason, it must be because he’s “mean.” Did you know we actually have a higher debt load per person than Greece ($44,215 vs. $39,000), a nation that’s only being saved from default because richer countries are paying its bills? So what happens when we run out of money, go into a depression, taxes explode, and the checks from the government slow down and stop? Judging by what’s happening in Greece, liberals will start throwing Molotov cocktails in the street and blame everyone but themselves for spending the country into oblivion. 3) Good people make the world work. Most fairy tales, boiled down to their essence, consist of someone being put in danger and either learning to overcome the danger through working hard and showing virtue or having a “good” prince, teacher, or fairy godmother help the hero triumph. Who is Superman? Captain America? Spider-Man? They’re personifications of goodness and righteousness come to life to protect people and to right wrongs. Children not only believe in goodness; they want to BE that hero when they grow up. Liberalism, on the other hand, undercuts Christianity at every opportunity and sneers at goodness and virtue. Liberals believe enforcing moral standards is one of the worst things you can do. They consider judging people for bad behavior to be “mean” and impermissible. The liberal replacement for decency, character, and virtue is the pseudo-morality of being “nice, tolerant, and non-judgmental.” Of course, you can be “nice, tolerant, and non-judgmental” and still be a bad person, a coward, and generally worthless as a human being. Being genuinely good requires a moral code, it requires drawing a clear line between right and wrong, and it requires having the fortitude to stand up for what’s right. The real heroes, the people who make the country work as opposed to parasites who leech off the efforts of better men, generally turn out to be exactly the sort of good people that liberals hold in complete and utter contempt. 4) Liberals think EVERYONE should get a trophy. Oh, you’re the right race? It should be easier for you to get into college. You’re the right gender? Well, you should get paid more even though you work less because you take three months off to take care of your children. You want to work for a non-profit? Well, you should make as much as that guy running a small business because some people think that’s just as valuable. Wrong. Life is a competition on an almost infinite number of levels with an almost infinite number of ways to “win.” As P.J. O’Rourke has said, “There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.” If you think “banksters” and CEOs have it so much better than everyone else, you don’t demand that the government put you on the same level they are; you become a banker or CEO. If you’re a secretary and you don’t think it’s right that a fireman makes more than you do, become a fireman. If you like having lots of leisure time, but you want to make the same money as someone who works two jobs, then you make your choice as to what you value more and you live it. Everyone can’t be on the same level. Some people will be born with richer parents, better looks, more athletic ability, more brains, a better environment, etc., etc. All of them won’t be good at the same things and the only way to make sure they all “get a trophy” in the same areas is to make sure that everyone is equally mediocre. Smart people push for equality of opportunity and let everyone rise to his own level while liberals try to tear people down and turn them all into losers to insure equality of results. 5) Nobody owes you a living. There are a lot of people who have come to believe that they’re owed a certain standard of living just for being born in this country. Oh, you’re an American citizen? That means you’re owed a free education, a house, medical care, a job you enjoy with lots of vacation days, and then early retirement with someone picking up the bills. Wrong. You’re actually owed “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” all of which you’re primarily responsible for getting and maintaining yourself. Even most people’s parents expect them to move out at 18 and take care of themselves and newsflash, the government isn’t your parents. Because Americans are a benevolent people, we’ve chosen to put a basic safety net in place to take care of people who fall on hard times. Unfortunately, it has been so abused that we have a whole movement full of bums, thugs, and losers with their hands out, demanding that everyone take care of them because they think they should be children for life and the government should take the place of their mommy and daddy. Again, wrong. At the end of the day, you are responsible for taking care of yourself. You want a bike, get a paper route. Want to go to college at a private school for 6 years to get a degree in lesbian studies, then get a job, pay your bills, and pay off your own loans. Live below your means, save some money, get married before you have a kid, and if, God forbid, you do fall on hard times and take government assistance, have the common decency to feel a deep sense of shame for leeching off your betters instead of paying your own way. Also see...Man Sees Fellow Fan’s Pregnant Wife Texting Another Man, and Does Something About ItDec 05, 2014 | By Cassy FianoIt takes a lot of nerve to not only have an affair with someone while pregnant, but to also text that person right underneath your spouse’s nose. But that’s what...Read MoreA devastated father takes to Facebook with a blunt message after his son dies of an overdoseBy Rachel AlexanderWhile Mowing the Lawn, a Father Noticed a Bald Spot Under His Daughters’ Window; That Night He Found the CauseBy Sierra MarleeWORST NIGHTMARE! He Felt Something ALIVE Moving Around in His Ear — Halfway Thru This Video, They Found the Creature LIVING There.By Tiffiny RuegnerMan Foolishly Enters Tiger Pen & It’s The Biggest Mistake of His LifeBy Tiffiny Ruegner The War on “Obama Defectors” NARAL Pro-Choice America is targeting what it calls “Obama defectors”: female voters who supported Barack Obama in 2008 but now Nate Silver’s numbers racket In the last week or so, an intense kerfuffle broke out over the poll-prognosticator Nate Silver and his blog at The Bill & Hillary Blame Game is For Losers Is Bill Clinton still president? Has he been caught fooling around with another intern in the Oval Office? Has Paula

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/7307

Rep. Napolitano Supports Bipartisan Transportation Bill Over Temporary Stop-Gap By: Grace Napolitano Date: March 29, 2012 Location: Washington, DC Today, Rep. Grace F. Napolitano voted against a temporary 90-day extension of federal funding for transportation projects, instead calling upon the Republican leadership in the House to allow a vote on the comprehensive, two-year, bipartisan transportation bill recently passed by the Senate. "This temporary stop-gap bill is not enough to create the new jobs and transportation projects we need," Napolitano said. "Ninety days worth of funding is not enough to make long-term plans and hire workers for the spring construction season. The House should instead pass the two-year bipartisan transportation bill that has already passed the Senate, which is the biggest opportunity for job creation we will likely have all year. We should pass the Senate bill, sign it into law, and get people back to work as quickly as possible. "As it stands now, the Republicans are in control but they have not been able to gather enough support within their own party to pass a highway bill. I support the bipartisan Senate bill, and I cosponsored the House version, which the Democratic leaders of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee introduced last week. I believe that between House Democrats and moderate Republicans, the two-year Senate bill could pass the House if Speaker Boehner allowed a simple up-or-down vote." Congress traditionally passes a transportation bill every few years to fund highway, rail, and public transit projects across the country. Current funding is set to expire Saturday without a new funding bill from Congress. The extension, H.R. 4281 the Surface Transportation Act of 2012, passed by a final vote of 266 to 158. Napolitano is a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives. Without congressional action, federal funding for transportation projects across the country will run out this Saturday, March 31st. The Senate passed a bipartisan transportation bill on March 14 by a vote of 74 to 22. Their bill provides $109 billion to fund transportation projects across the country for the next two years. If Republican leadership allowed the House of Representatives to vote on the Senate bill and it passed, President Obama could immediately sign it into law. This would allow work to continue on highway construction projects across the country and give transportation planners the certainty they need to begin budgeting and hiring workers for new projects. House Republicans had been working their own transportation bill, H.R. 7, which also included oil drilling and other controversial measures, but that process was derailed in February after House Republicans were split on their support for the bill. On Monday, House Republicans proposed a 90-day extension of current funding but then withdrew it just before votes after it appeared it lacked the support to pass. On Tuesday, a 60-day extension was proposed. It too was pulled from the legislative calendar at the last minute. The two earlier attempts were done using the suspension calendar process, which requires a two-thirds vote to pass. Today's vote was conducted by a simple majority. Source: http://napolitano.house.gov/press-release/rep-napolitano-supports-bipartisan-transportation-bill-over-temporary-stop-gap

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/7316

House Pulls 'Plan B' Tax Measure From The Floor Share Tweet E-mail Comments Print By Melissa Block Listen Listening... Transcript ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST: From NPR News, this is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. I'm Robert Siegel. MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: And I'm Melissa Block. Well, so much for Plan B. In a dramatic setback for House Speaker John Boehner, tonight he had to call off a vote on his alternative plan to avert the fiscal cliff because he didn't have the votes from his own Republican caucus to pass it. So now, year-end tax increases and spending cuts are looming as the House has gone home for Christmas without voting on the Boehner plan. Boehner and other House leaders had offered a higher tax rate on income over one million dollars a year, coupled with the promise to cut spending drastically while holding defense programs harmless. NPR congressional correspondent David Welna joins me to walk through how this vote fell apart. And, David, it became clearer and clearer through the evening that this was not going to go down as the speaker intended. DAVID WELNA, BYLINE: Indeed, Melissa. I think the first sign of this was when they held a vote earlier this evening on putting off the sequester with a bunch of other tax cuts that only Republicans really supported. They barely got enough votes for that, and I think that was a pretty clear sign that they were in trouble in terms of getting enough votes for this Plan B, which in effect is asking Republicans to go along with tax rates rising for income above a million dollars after the beginning of the year. And really, I think this was probably a bridge too far for a lot of Republicans and that became clear in the evening when, instead of going to the vote, the Republicans met behind closed doors. And they emerged saying in fact there was going to be no vote. Speaker Boehner issued a statement saying that there would be no vote and that it would be up to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid now to move things forward. BLOCK: And to be clear here, David, who are the Republicans who have been resisting the speaker on this? Is this another conservative revolt, as he's dealt with before? WELNA: It is a conservative revolt. This - a lot of Tea Party-backed members of Congress say that giving in on tax rates rising, even for the wealthiest, is a betrayal of what people sent them to Congress to do. And they have the backing of conservative activist groups such as the Club for Growth, Americans for Prosperity, the Heritage Foundation, which sent spokesmen outside the Capitol yesterday to rail against Boehner's plan. And already there are triumphant emails going out from them saying "we won." And, I mean, this was just really a huge test for Boehner and his clout as leader of the Republicans, as speaker of the House. This is a gigantic setback for him. BLOCK: And a lot of people now, David, are saying - are they not - this is the end for Speaker Boehner as speaker of the House. He cannot survive. WELNA: It could well be. When the new Congress convenes on January 3rd, the first vote that the House is going to take is for who should be speaker of the House. And some had speculated that Boehner would want to hold off any big votes until after then because he didn't want to test how much support he had in his caucus. Right now, there's a real question whether he actually has the kind of leadership that can survive in that caucus. And I guess one of the things that we're going to be wondering about in the coming days is whether we're going to hear Speaker Boehner offering his resignation or not. BLOCK: David, is there a way to avert the fiscal cliff before January 1st? WELNA: Well, you know, I think that right now the initiative may be coming from the White House, from Senate Democrats. They're planning to meet next Thursday, the 27th. Congress is to reconvene then - at least the Senate is. And I think when they get to that 11th-plus hour, maybe there will be more willingness on the part of House Republicans to do something to keep taxes from going up January 1st. BLOCK: OK. NPR's David Welna. David, thanks. WELNA: You're welcome, Melissa. BLOCK: And, again, the news that House Speaker John Boehner called off a vote on his Plan B because he didn't have the Republican votes to pass it. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/7328

Mugabe vows to crack down on corruption Zimbabwean president admits that some of his party's ministers have had been soliciting bribes from investors. Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe has pledged to crack down on corruption in the ruling party. Speaking at his party's annual congress, Mugabe admitted that some of his ministers had been soliciting bribes from would-be investors following the passing of a law requiring foreign investors to sell a majority of shares to local businesses. The 88-year-old president also warned he would call elections sooner rather than later if the opposition Movement for Democratic Change failed to come up with a new constitution. Al Jazeera's Haru Mutasa reports from the town of Gweru, where Mugabe was speaking. Robert Mugabe Haru Mutasa Gweru Movement for Democratic Change

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/7380

U.S. names Russians targeted for sanctions WASHINGTON — The Treasury Department today announced the names of 18 Russians subject to financial sanctions and visa bans because of their alleged violations of human rights.The list, an outgrowth of a law enacted last December to hold Russian officials accountable for human rights abuses, is certain to further strain relations with the Moscow government. Russia has strongly objected to the act and threatened to retaliate with its own sanctions.The act is named for Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who was arrested in 2008 for tax evasion after accusing Russian police officials of stealing $230 million in tax rebates. He died in prison the next year, allegedly after being beaten and denied medical treatment.The list included Artem Kuznetsov and Pavel Karpov, two Russian Interior Ministry officers who put Magnitsky behind bars after he accused them of stealing $230 million from the state. Two tax officials the lawyer accused of approving the fraudulent tax refunds, and two other Interior Ministry officials accused of persecuting Magnitsky, were also on the list. Absent were senior officials from President Vladimir Putin’s entourage whom some human rights advocates had hoped to see sanctioned. Magnitsky’s former client, London-based investor William Browder, who has campaigned to bring those responsible in his death to justice, has claimed that one of those tax officials, Olga Stepanova, has bought luxury real estate in Moscow, Dubai and Montenegro and wired money through her husband’s bank accounts worth $39 million.The act

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/7408

Obama-McCain flap a taste of what's ahead?Story Highlights McCain aides say they've been itching for a fight with Obama "Appeasement" flap has given Democrats reason to gather behind Obama Obama slams Bush over attack "that alienates us from the rest of the world" McCain-Obama flap has left Sen. Clinton out of the headlines Next Article in Politics » Read VIDEO WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. John McCain aides said Friday they've been itching for a fight with Sen. Barack Obama and are eager to engage in a discussion about foreign relations. Democrats accuse McCain of hypocrisy when it comes to his views on talking to Hamas. And with Obama holding the lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton in both pledged delegates and superdelegates, the back-and-forth on McCain's Hamas statements may be the first of what could be many altercations with the presumptive GOP candidate for president. Meanwhile, McCain is continuing to deal with the fallout from an interview by Jamie Rubin, a Clinton supporter. Rubin wrote an op-ed piece in Friday's Washington Post relating an interview he conducted with McCain on the British network Sky News shortly after Hamas won the Palestinian elections in January 2006. "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another," he said at the time. "And I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy toward Hamas, because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice ..." In a January 2006 CNN interview, McCain stressed conditions Hamas would need to meet before establishing a working relationship with the United States. "Hamas, now that they are going to govern, will be motivated to renounce this commitment to the extinction of the state of Israel. Then we can do business again. We can resume aid, we can resume the peace process." Don't Miss Obama blasts Bush, McCain over 'attacks' McCain predicts Iraq war over by 2013 Dems fire back at Bush on 'appeasement' statement Obama seized on that, blasting McCain for attacking him for suggesting it could be beneficial to sit down with the leader of Iran. "He was actually guilty of the exact same thing that he is accusing me of ... and in fact was saying maybe we need to deal with Hamas. That's the kind of hypocrisy we've been seeing in our foreign policy." Riding on his bus, McCain insisted his position on Hamas has always been the same -- no negotiation until it renounces its belief that Israel should not exist. "Hamas would have to abandon their terrorist activities and their dedication to the extinction of the state of Israel. It was very clear then, it is very clear now," he said. Watch more on the controversy » After searching for it all day, McCain's campaign late Friday found and e-mailed to reporters more of the interview -- with the ail subject line: "Jamie Rubin lied" --that they said proved McCain had been quoted out of context. In that footage, when asked whether "the United States should be dealing with that new reality through normal diplomatic contacts to get the job done for the United States?" McCain responds: "I think the United States should take a step back, see what they do when they form their government, see what their policies are and see the ways we can engage with. If there aren't any, there may be a hiatus. But I think part of the relationship will be dictated by how Hamas acts, not how the United States acts." On Friday night, Rubin released the following statement supporting his interview. "The question and answer I released yesterday was a full question and a full answer. Nothing was left out of the question or the answer. Nothing is taken out of context." Also on Friday, Obama linked McCain with what he called "the failed policies" of the Bush administration, accusing him and the White House of "bombastic exaggerations and fear-mongering" in place of "strategy and analysis and smart policy." Watch more of Obama's comments » "The American people are going to look at the evidence," he said. "We don't get a sense that this has been a wise foreign policy or a smart foreign policy or a tough foreign policy." In a speech at the annual meeting of the National Rifle Association in Louisville, Kentucky, on Friday, McCain defended his foreign policy positions. McCain called some of Obama's ideas "reckless" and questioned his understanding of America's standing in the world. Watch McCain take on Obama's comments » "It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don't have enemies," the Arizona Republican said. "That's not the world we live in. And until Sen. Obama understands that reality, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe." The verbal sparring took place a day after President Bush suggested in a speech before the Israeli Knesset that those who want to shift American policy to include direct talks with what he called "terrorists and radicals" were appeasers and delusional. Watch more of Bush's speech » "I don't take what Bush says personally, but I was offended by what is a continuation of strategy from this White House, now mimicked by Sen. McCain, that replaces strategy and analysis and smart policy with bombast, exaggerations and fear-mongering," Obama said. White House officials denied Obama was a target of Bush's remarks. But privately, White House aides indicated the criticism was aimed at various Democrats, including Obama and former President Jimmy Carter. The "appeasement" flap, however, has give the Democratic Party its first real chance to coalesce behind Obama. Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that if the president disagrees so strongly with the idea of talking to Iran, then he needs to fire his secretaries of state and defense, both of whom Biden said have pushed to sit down with the Iranians. "This is bulls**t. This is malarkey. This is outrageous. Outrageous for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, sit in the Knesset ... and make this kind of ridiculous statement," he said. And there was a more telling response from Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton. She didn't hit Obama on appeasement -- she hit Bush. "President Bush's comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is offensive and outrageous on the face of it, especially in light of his failures in foreign policy," Clinton said in South Dakota on Friday. The whole flap has largely left the New York senator out of the headlines before the upcoming Kentucky and Oregon primaries on Tuesday. But as Obama and McCain spent much of Friday sparring over foreign policy, Clinton quietly ignored them during an economic roundtable in an Oregon home, instead focusing her attacks on Bush's attempts to lower oil prices during his trip to Saudi Arabia. Clinton said she was going to stay in the race, claiming that she is ahead in the popular vote -- debatable because of the complicated method of counting states' votes as well at the confusion surrounding Michigan and Florida. CNN's Dana Bash, Jim Acosta, Ed Hornick and Rebecca Sinderbrand contributed to this report. All About John McCain • Barack Obama • Hamas

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/7451

Reply #1: Thanks for the post! Unfortunately, the apathy in NY is so thick you can cut it with a knife! Bill Bored 1. Thanks for the post! Unfortunately, the apathy in NY is so thick you can cut it with a knife! I hope this race and the 200,000-ballot discrepancy in the City of New York will be enough to get people to wake up and realize what the State of New York has been doing to our election system.But I also expect the usual public hearings in which partisan election officials lie and partisan legislators swear to it. There was no real legislative oversight leading up to these elections, even though the Dems had control of both houses of the NY State Legislature and the Executive Branch, including the Attorney General -- an elected office in New York. Not to mention control of half the State Board of Elections.All these hacks did was to circle the wagons and say how great -- no, how PERFECT! -- the new system was going to be; how the paper ballots would be "available" in case they were needed for an audit or recount; while downplaying all the obvious and less obvious ballot scanner flaws that had been discovered; and ignoring the opinions of experts such as those working for NIST who've said NOT to trust software to count votes, and experts who have studied auditing and statistics who know how many ballots need to be counted by hand to prove who really won our elections.Now they find they can't even afford to pay their election lawyers! And that doesn't even take into account the cost of the hand counts, if they get 'em! So it's easier for the Democrats to CONCEDE than to "count every vote" and that's exactly what they've been doing so far.But in Nassau County, things may be different because this county is the one that stood up and filed a BIPARTISAN LAWSUIT to STOP electronic vote-counting. That may turn out to be the REAL STORY here, regardless of who wins this race, or whether or not there's a hand count. See:http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/01/26056.htm Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/7561

Ross: Iran nukes pose danger of nuclear war http://www.jewishjournal.com/world/article/ross_iran_nukes_pose_danger_of_nuclear_war_20111213 Dennis Ross in 2007. Photo by Nrbelex/Wikipedia The greatest danger posed by a nuclear Iran would be the increased likelihood of a Middle East nuclear war, Dennis Ross said. “If Iran has nuclear weapons, the potential for nuclear war in the Middle East goes up dramatically,” Ross, whojust retired as the White House’s top Iran policy official, said during his first post-Obama administration address at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The danger, Ross said, lies in the complete lack of communication between Israel and Iran, as opposed to open lines between earlier nuclear antagonists, like the United States and the Soviet Union. “You are not going to have a stable situation where anyone can feel that they are going to wait,” he said. “If there is the slightest indication that Iran is changing its readiness, can Israel wait? ... The potential for miscalculation would be enormous.” Ross said President Obama was committed to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. “The administration prides itself on a certain reality that it does what it says,” he said, referring to Obama’s making good on his promise to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Regarding Iran, Ross said, when Obama “says all options remain on the table, it doesn’t mean that force is his first choice, but it means that that’s an option that he intends to exercise.” On Israeli-Palestinian peace, Ross said the psychological gap between the sides remains wide, although substantively they are close. He said that absent talks, Israel should preserve a “political horizon” that “validates” Palestinians that favor nonviolence, such as the current Palestinian Authority leadership. He suggested allowing the Palestinian police to expand their presence in parts of the West Bank and increasing economic access for Palestinians to all of the West Bank. Ross has returned to work at the Washington Institute, an influential Washington think tank where he served as a top scholar from 2001 to 2009.

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/7562

BDS: Frustration, but with hope by Shayna Howitt and Zoe Lewin May 29, 2013 | 3:43 pm U.C. Berkeley Senate Bill 160, which calls for targeted divestment from companies that profit off of human rights abuses in the Palestinian territories, passed this last week in the University of California, Berkeley, student senate. The debate it sparked left us both frustrated with the broken campus dialogue on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and hopeful due to the changing conversation in the Berkeley Jewish community. We come from Jewish homes in Los Angeles, where we spent countless Shabbat mornings in shul and two respective high school semesters studying in Israel. We both arrived at Berkeley as dedicated supporters of Israel looking for an open space in which to ask challenging questions about Israel’s military occupation of the West Bank. We found that space in J Street U. We found people who believe, just like us, that American Jews have an obligation to protest and discuss the injustices we witness — especially those in Israel, a place with which we have deep, personal connections. The fall before we arrived at Berkeley, J Street U was rejected from our Jewish Student Union (JSU). More than a year later, we still hear members of the new JSU board declare that “now is not the time” for us to be invited into the community. Despite the vibrant support system we have found in J Street U, we still hear others in Hillel murmur that we are not pro-Israel enough. Upon hearing that a divestment bill was returning to the senate, we braced ourselves for what we anticipated would be a contentious discussion within Berkeley’s Jewish community. Instead, however, members of the Jewish community, representing perspectives from Tikvah to J Street U, were invited to collaborate on writing an actionable alternative to divestment. Although the negative experiences of Berkeley’s 2010 divestment debate still haunted Hillel, with many in our community either disengaged or defensive, we viewed this as a hopeful sign that 2013 would be different. Advertisement Our suggestions to oppose Israel’s occupation and promote American responsibility in achieving a lasting peace became the focus of the bill the student leaders wrote in response to divestment. In Jewish community meetings, the necessity of taking proactive steps toward a two-state solution became central to our messaging. Unfortunately, this was not the message heard by the hundreds of students who packed into the senate hearing for the bill. Many members of the Jewish community who spoke emphasized their own marginalization, instead of acknowledging the legitimate grievances presented by Palestinian students and their allies. For example, they defended Israel’s security barrier as a necessary security asset, ignoring how it has bifurcated private Palestinian land and impeded everyday life. But problematic rhetoric was not limited to the anti-divestment side. Advocates of divestment called for a Palestinian state “from the river to the sea,” ignoring the lengthy history of Jewish connection to the land and directly exacerbating Jewish students’ sense of marginalization. They snickered when Jewish and Israeli students told stories about terrorism, failing to acknowledge these real and legitimate security concerns. Most paradoxically, they mocked students who were seriously attempting to wrestle simultaneously with Israeli and Palestinian narratives of suffering, alienating the people, like us, most interested in finding common ground. People spoke past each other without truly hearing or respecting the other side’s narrative. They did not realize that recognizing one community’s claim to self-determination inherently requires that they recognize the other. We did not support the divestment resolution because it did not explicitly endorse the Jewish people’s right to a homeland, but it is hard for us fully reject its premise. We recognize the bill as a well-intentioned effort to fix real problems we, too, are frustrated with, and we had hoped to convince the senate to choose alternative actions that would constructively engage more members of the Jewish community. Moreover, as part of the anti-divestment community, we could not ignore the irony of hearing our peers declare themselves, “pro-Israel, pro-Palestinian, and pro-peace.” The same members of the Jewish community who have previously sought to exclude our message from the JSU suddenly selectively appropriated it on the senate floor without internalizing what those words mean. To those students, we say, join us. We believe that peace can come in our lifetimes and that we have an important role in bringing it. We are proud that, at the Berkeley senate meeting, many in our community pressed for a two-state solution. We hope to hear these same individuals speak out against settlement expansion, support democratic rights for all who live within Israel’s borders, and be willing to openly criticize Israel’s human rights violations — and not just when they are desperate to defeat divestment. The Jewish community will only be considered a serious partner in campus discussions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict once we demonstrate our commitment to making the necessary sacrifices for peace. If we can back up our rhetoric with serious action and sustained political engagement to achieve a two-state solution, hopefully we will empower pragmatic moderates on the other side to do the same. Berkeley’s divestment debate was just the beginning. Join us, and let’s prove to our peers that the Jewish community is committed to peace, justice and freedom for all — and that we, too, have a strategy for acting on our values. Shayna Howitt and Zoe Lewin are undergraduate students at University of California, Berkeley. boycotts, sanctions and divestment j street u. jewish student union jsu senate bill 160 History matters: Garcetti and the history of Jewish politics

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/7659

Website flaws imperil Obama's activist agenda By MIKE DORNINGBloomberg News WASHINGTON - The rocky debut of the insurance exchanges at the heart of President Barack Obama's health care law poses risks to his political agenda and the activist role for government that he has championed for his second term.White House officials say they expect a surge in online enrollment to begin in mid-November, meaning the administration may have only about three weeks to fix the flaws before negative public perceptions about the new program begin to harden."This is your signature program, and you're marching it onto the field and everybody stumbles," said Peter Hart, a veteran Democratic pollster. "It's hard to see competency, and it puts a giant question mark behind the future plans."Some Republicans have called it a Katrina moment, likening the health care rollout to President George W. Bush's botched response to the 2005 hurricane that ravaged the Gulf Coast and led to more than 1,800 deaths.Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster, says Obama has time, possibly even months, to fix the snags before suffering lasting political damage from the initial performance of the website.The public isn't likely to hold early difficulties with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act against Obama if they fade quickly, said McInturff, who consulted with the Bush administration on the Medicare prescription-drug rollout."There's some tolerance in the beginning," he said. "In general, people are not shocked that you can have some problems as a major new federal program gets off the ground."Obama - whose second-term woes also have included Edward Snowden's disclosures of National Security Agency telephone and Internet surveillance and opposition to his request to use force in Syria - has moved to address the sign-up issue.The President appeared in the White House Rose Garden on Oct. 21, days after the conclusion of the government shutdown, to promise action. He drafted Jeffrey Zients, a health care entrepreneur whom he had already chosen as his next top economic adviser, to help mend the electronic marketplace.Zients told reporters on a conference call Friday that the federal exchange, healthcare.gov, will be fixed by December. Ten Democratic senators led by U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire called on the Obama administration to extend the health law's first open-enrollment period, scheduled to end March 31.Public skepticism about government competence drove the political shift from Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs of the 1960s to Ronald Reagan's limited-government philosophy in the 1980s, said David Osborne, co-author of "Reinventing Government."The perceived failures that reshaped public sentiment lasted for years and had a far-reaching impact on society: the Vietnam War, urban race riots, soaring crime rates, failing public schools and then-President Jimmy Carter's inability to rein in inflation, said Osborne, a former adviser to then-Vice President Al Gore. He said he doesn't think the problems rise to that threshold.For Obama, the law is the centerpiece of a first-term program that included an $830 billion economic stimulus, ramped-up support for clean-energy production, and the most far-reaching regulatory law since the Depression.He has set an expansive second-term agenda that includes a revamp of immigration policy, action to control climate change, greater access to pre-kindergarten education, and a boost in infrastructure spending. Much of that agenda has been impeded by the Republican-run House and the deadlock over taxes and spending that led to the 16-day federal government shutdown.Americans' initial impression of the online health-care exchanges hasn't been good. Twenty-nine percent say they are working very or fairly well while 46 percent say they aren't, according to a Pew Research Center poll conducted Oct. 9-13.The federal website was hobbled by software errors and overwhelmed by higher-than-anticipated consumer demand after it opened on Oct. 1. About 8.6 million people visited the site in the first week, running into long waits that kept many from registering to check out insurance options.At one point, the online exchange posted error messages in at least 24 states. Independent, state-run web sites have seen fewer waits and flaws.Lawrence Summers, Obama's former top economic adviser, voiced concern Thursday at a conference hosted by the Center for American Progress, a research group that advocates a greater federal role in addressing social issues. The website's flaws won't help "if we want to renew confidence in the public sector," Summers said, according to Slate magazine.Several states running their own exchanges have reported fewer issues than the federal marketplace, which was designed for states that didn't set up their own version. Many Republican governors refused to do so because they opposed the program.Massachusetts, which has operated an exchange since 2006 and revised its system to comply with the federal law, saw 23,025 applications for insurance started since Oct. 1 and 7,592 completed, Jason Lefferts, a spokesman, said Thursday.California, the most-populous state with an economy that would be the world's ninth largest if it were a country, embraced the law and established a state exchange. More than 125,000 insurance applications were started as of Oct. 19, according to a statement from the exchange, Covered California.Nonetheless, Michael Gerson, a former chief speechwriter for Bush, said the federal website's flaws have "potent symbolism" with voters because they are "right at the point of interaction" with the government in the President's signature domestic initiative.The exchanges are administered by government, though the insurance sold on them is issued by private companies."It's going to add to an undifferentiated skepticism of government action on a vast scale," Gerson said. "Americans have an inherent fear of take-a-number-and-wait medicine. This website is the embodiment of take-a-number-and-wait medicine. You don't even get a number and you have to wait."Gerson drew a parallel with the political importance some state governors have placed on improving customer service at motor-vehicle facilities because that's a common direct experience voters have with government.Former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, a Republican, demanded biweekly reports on the average time customers had to spend at the state's Bureau of Motor Vehicles, according to spokeswoman Shelley Triol."There's a reason they do that," Gerson said.Hart, the Democratic pollster, said he expects to see the experience of the federal exchanges highlighted by Obama critics as another reason to doubt government's capacity to deliver. That could include the President's proposed revamp of immigration law to allow a pathway to citizenship for undocumented workers in the U.S., he said."You can see how the opposition will take this and extend it to immigration and other programs," Hart said. "If you can't sign up people who blah, blah, blah, we're talking about 12 million people who are roaming this country illegally."Democratic supporters of Obamacare argue that the public will consider the insurance plans a good value once the system is up and running. Former Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour and other critics predict the opposite.Barbour said the issues with the website were reminiscent of the Bush administration's response to Hurricane Katrina because it suggests "large-scale incompetence."Bolstering the Obama administration's reputation for competence are the killing of al-Qaida leader Osama bin-Laden under the President's watch, the recovery of the economy from the 2008 financial crisis and withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, Hart said.Forty-nine percent of Americans said Obama is "able to get things done" in a Pew Research Center poll taken in May. That's comparable to the 50 percent who described Bush that way in July 2005, just before Katrina, though lower than 64 percent for President Bill Clinton in August 1997, when the economy was expanding at a more than 5 percent pace.While the federal online exchange is one of the most visible components of Obamacare, only a minority of Americans is likely to have direct experience with the site, Hart said.Just 25 percent of the U.S. population is either uninsured or covered through individual health policies - the group most likely to shop for insurance on the exchanges. The rest already receive insurance through either an employer, Medicare, Medicaid or other government program, according to 2012 data released last month by the U.S. Census Bureau.Even among those who shop through online exchanges, many won't use the federal website. Fourteen states, including such heavily populated ones as New York, have insurance marketplaces run by their own governments.Avalere Health, a consulting firm in Washington, projects that 33 percent of enrollments in the Obamacare plans during the first year will be processed through state-run exchanges.That may be one reason why many people report satisfactory experiences with online exchanges even with the federal website's woes. Among those who said they have visited an online exchange, 56 percent said the website was very or fairly easy to use, according to a Pew poll conducted Oct. 9-13.McInturff, the Republican pollster, said Americans' views on the role of government in recent years have been in a "steady state" that will be difficult to disrupt.Responses have fluctuated within a narrow band in a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll that has asked 14 times since Obama took office whether government "should do more" or "is doing too many things," McInturff said.In February 2009, as Obama took office in the middle of the economic crisis, 51 percent said government should "do more" versus 40 percent who said it's doing "too many things."In the most recent poll, taken Oct. 7-9 during the partial government shutdown, 52 percent answered "do more" and 44 percent "too many things."By comparison, in December 1995, when Clinton and Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich were battling over the federal budget, 32 percent said government should do more against 62 percent who said do less.

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/7663

Conway voters poised to make tax cap history By JOHN KOZIOLUnion Leader Correspondent Budgets, labor contracts among top Conway issues CONWAY — Regardless of what they ultimately do, voters here will make New Hampshire history at their town and school deliberative sessions next week just by considering whether to adopt a tax cap.While tax caps — or limits on the amount of revenue that can be raised by taxes annually — are not new to the Granite State, they have all been enacted in cities that amended their charters, such as Manchester, Dover and Somersworth.Conway voters, at the school deliberative session on March 3 and also at the town deliberative session on March 5, will be asked whether they wish to adopt a tax cap under a law passed by the Legislature in 2011 and amended in 2013. The final school and town warrants will be voted on April 8.Introduced by petition on both the town and school warrants, the Conway tax cap would restrict the annual increase in the amount to be raised by taxes to 2.5 percent of the prior year's budgets.On Tuesday, a representative of the New Hampshire Department of Revenue's Municipal Services Division said she had no information about any town adopting RSA 32:5-b Local Tax Cap, yet, nor was she aware of which other towns are also weighing the measure.The law allows a town or school district tax cap to be based on either a fixed dollar amount or a fixed percentage and allows "the legislative body" the ability to override the cap "by the usual procedures applicable to annual meetings and deliberative sessions of the legislative body."That legislative body, which is comprised of voters, also can "increase or decrease the amount of any appropriation or the total amount of all appropriations."To be adopted in Conway, the tax caps require a three-fifths majority of votes cast.Cap divides boardsOn Tuesday evening, the Conway School Board joined the Conway Board of Selectman in voting unanimously against the caps; the Budget Committee supported the caps by a vote of 11 in favor, six opposed.Conway Town Administrator Earl Sires said he's not surprised that voters have proposed the caps, adding: "We're willing to try new things around here."On behalf of the selectmen, Sires said the five-member board was generally concerned that the cap would impose "an arbitrary number on the town budget which needs to respond annually to different challenges and that it would reduce the flexibility the town will have in addressing both the range of services and the level of service that we're offering."Even if the caps are adopted, they wouldn't go into effect until 2015, Sires said, at which time, or in any subsequent year, they could be removed by voters by the same three-fifths majority that created them.While requiring the budget committee to present a capped budget to voters at the town and school deliberative sessions, the voters at those sessions could amend that proposal upward — but no more than 10 percent over what the budget committee recommended — or down.Conway's town manager since 2000, Sires said during his tenure there have been instances where the selectmen and the budget committee have had differences that were ultimately "hashed out at town meeting and that follows the tradition of direct democracy that holds for New Hampshire where the voters maintain the control."Two sides of coinDick Klement, a member of the Conway Budget Committee, said he and the majority of his colleagues felt that the town needs to do something to get spending under control."This is not just a Conway issue," he said on Monday, "I think this is a national issue. We have gotten used to printing more money than we have."A former member of the Conway School Board, Klement acknowledged that much of what is driving the increased costs on the school and town levels is beyond local control. He agreed that even if voters adopted the tax caps, the caps would not control property values, which would continue to rise and fall with the marketplace.School Board member Mark Hounsell made the motion on Tuesday to bring the cap up for a vote and then he joined with the six other members to reject the motion.For Conway, he said a cap "is unnecessary, unconstitutional, short-sighted and dangerous."It is also confusing, Hounsell added on Wednesday, and the effort to put the caps on the warrant for the town and school deliberative sessions may have been defective."There's some question as to whether we have met the law regarding the posting of a petitioned article," Hounsell said, pointing out that while the cap petitions were submitted on Feb. 11, the town and school district were required to have a public hearing on them, and other petitioned articles, by Feb. 7.He warned that a school cap would place an even larger burden on Conway taxpayers because it could have an impact on the town's ability to meet contractual obligations with the other communities that comprise School Administrative Unit 9. A cap could threaten the school district's accreditation, he said, and would affect everything from sports to bus routes.Like Klement, Hounsell agrees that what ails Conway is not all of Conway's doing or in its power to deal with. He stressed that the state of New Hampshire, despite several court rulings, has "never" properly funded public education.Another, more immediate worry is that Conway is poised to undergo a community-wide property revaluation in 2014, said Hounsell, who expects that property values will go down."Currently, we have $1.4 billion of value in Conway and every time that drops, that raises the tax rate," he said, adding that even without making any cap-related changes to future school and/or town budgets, "We could be at a place where we can't increase anything. We'd be at a place where we'd have to cut."[email protected]

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/7794

ADVERTISEMENT Napolitano trumpets border security on 2-day tour Article by: ELLIOT SPAGAT February 4, 2013 - 9:56 PM - U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano toured the Mexico border Monday to trumpet increased enforcement as she campaigned for an overhaul of immigration laws. The former Arizona governor highlighted "incredible" spending on border enforcement, 40-year lows in "illegal immigration numbers" and relatively low violent crime rates in major border cities like San Diego and El Paso, Texas. "What we have seen now compared to 20 years ago is like the difference between a rocket ship and a horse and buggy," Napolitano said at a news conference after a helicopter tour. Napolitano continues her border tour Tuesday in El Paso, while the House Judiciary Committee holds a hearing on immigration reform. The House panel includes several immigration hawks. A bipartisan group of senators wants assurances on border security as Congress considers proposals that would bring the biggest changes to immigration law in nearly three decades. Last week, a bipartisan group of senators released a blueprint that would bring a path to citizenship for people living in the U.S. illegally, but they demanded assurances on border security first. President Barack Obama does not endorse such a linkage in his own immigration proposal. But Republicans in the Senate group, including John McCain of Arizona and Marco Rubio of Florida, say they cannot support an immigration bill that doesn't make a pathway to citizenship conditional on a secure border. "I believe the border is secure. I believe the border's a safe border. That's not to say everything is 100 percent," Napolitano said. Peter Nunez, chairman of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates a restrictive immigration policy, acknowledged substantial increases in border spending over 40 years but said it was impossible to declare whether the border is secure because there are no easy metrics. "How are you going to define secure?" said Nunez, a former U.S. attorney in San Diego. "It's a subjective thing. It's just nonsense." The Border Patrol made 356,873 apprehensions on the Mexican border during the 2012 fiscal year, up 8.9 percent from the previous year but still hovering near 40-year-lows. U.S. Customs and Border Protection's budget nearly doubled to $11.7 billion in 2012 from $6.3 billion in 2005, according to figures from the Migration Policy Institute.

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/7796

ADVERTISEMENT Texas candidate faces thorny death penalty choice Article by: PAUL J. WEBER AUSTIN, Texas — The death penalty is like gun rights in Texas politics: Candidates don't dare get in the way of either. But Republican Greg Abbott, the favorite to succeed Gov. Rick Perry, must soon make a decision as attorney general that could disrupt the nation's busiest death chamber.It's an election-year dilemma for Abbott. But in Texas, it's one that Democratic rival Wendy Davis can't easily exploit, illustrating how little room there is to maneuver on this issue.Abbott must soon decide whether to stick with his earlier opinions that Texas must disclose the source of the execution drugs it uses. That revelation could prompt attention-shy suppliers to halt their drug deliveries and stop Texas' executions.If Abbott holds firm, he'll please death penalty opponents who prison officials say want to target the companies with protests and threats. Reversing course would go against his vows for transparency in government."There's no political upside. It puts him in a little bit of a tough position," said Republican consultant Matt Mackowiak.The predicament comes up as Davis, the feisty Fort Worth lawmaker who has attracted national attention, is eager to find ways to shake up the campaign and prevent Abbott from riding a solid lead in the polls to a general election victory in the GOP-dominated state.But Abbott's difficulty leaves her with few opportunities since portraying the law-and-order attorney general, who has held the position since 2003, as somehow soft on crime would be implausible. Both Abbott and Davis support the death penalty."I don't think any accusations here stick," said Harold Cook, a onetime leader of the Texas Democratic Party and now a consultant.Polls in recent years have shown public support in Texas for capital punishment at more than 70 percent. The state has executed an average of 20 inmates a year since Perry took office in 2001."In Texas, a lot of people feel like it's a settled issue," said Texas Democratic state Rep. Jessica Farrar, whose multiple bills to abolish the death penalty have attracted only a handful of supporters.But death penalty opponents have managed to halt executions in some states, including conservative ones, by putting pressure on the suppliers of the lethal drugs, charging that the chemical executions can be cruel and unusual.Since 2010, Abbott has rejected three attempts by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to keep information about its execution drug suppliers confidential. He ruled that the benefits of government transparency outweighed the state's objections.With prison officials warning that threats against suppliers are escalating, Abbott is expected to issue a ruling on the latest request in coming weeks.When asked last weekend about Abbott's options, Davis avoided calling Abbott out personally. She referred to an earlier statement that said she believes the execution drug information should be public."I support capital punishment and I believe that as it has worked in this state it's been one that has provided due process in a way that I think we all would hope would occur," she said.Unless the issue is resolved, it could be a problem for whoever is elected Texas governor, some strategists say."If you are the governor when we run out of drugs and you can't buy anymore, that's where you're going to create a problem," said Republican consultant Allen Blakemore, a veteran of district attorney election races in Harris County.Anti-capital punishment groups concede that Texas embraces the death penalty tighter than most but say public support for it is declining nationwide. Thirty-two states still have the death penalty after Illinois, Maryland and Connecticut — led by Democratic governors — repealed capital punishment in recent years."It's certainly not the issue it used to be. And I would say that's probably true politically," said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington.Two death row inmates in Texas were put to death this month with the state's available supply of pentobarbital.

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/7803

Senate leaders arm-twisting to keep alive Cannon's court reform Mary Ellen Klas, Times/Herald Tallahassee Bureau Thursday, April 28, 2011 3:57pm Senate leaders are working hard to rally the votes for a court reform bill today that is getting heavy pushback from several Republican senators. The Senate needs 24 of the 40 senators to pass the bill and the fate of a budget deal is hinged on its passage. Although there are 28 Republicans in the Senate, several have been unwilling to embrace the top priority bill of House Speaker Dean Cannon which is aggressively opposed by the Florida Bar. Throughout the day, Senate leaders have been button-holing their Republican colleagues on the floor of the Senate. They have persuaded some members who have previously opposed the bill to sign on by agreeing to withdraw an anti-union bill that would have banned unions from using payroll deduction to collect their dues. “I’m with leadership,’’ said Sen. Evelyn Lynn, R-Ormond Beach. “The budget is the most important thing we do. We need to get it done.” “They don’t have the votes,’’ said Sen. Paula Dockery, R-Lakeland, an opponent of the bill. “The Legislature has enough to worry about in getting our budget together, in getting people back to work and I don’t think we came in here with the idea that we have to do massive reform of the court system,’’ she said. “There doesn’t appear to be any problem, the case load has been reduced and here we are meddling in the business of the Supreme Court when nobody from the court system has come and asked use to do that. So there’s no problem. It’s a pretty expensive solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.” Former Fort Lauderdale state Sen. Walter “Skip” Campbell, who came the Tallahassee to lobby against the bill, said he believes Republicans are pursuing the bill not because they believe it’s a pressing need for Florida but because they want to load the 2012 ballot with issues that will force lawyers to spend money to try to defeat it. “The reason why they are putting all these constitutional amendments on the ballot is so that money will be spent and diverted from candidates to issues,’’ he said. [Last modified: Thursday, April 28, 2011 4:23pm]

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/7805

2014 session built to promote Gov. Rick Scott's re-election STEVE BOUSQUETTampa Bay TimesSunday, May 4, 2014 12:00pm Florida Gov. Rick Scott defeats Charlie Crist for re-election Florida's 2014 election by the numbers shows Gov. Rick Scott won by 64,145 votes Gov. Scott draws two Republican challengers in re-election bid When the 2014 legislative session began, Senate and House leaders focused on a five-point "work plan." Cut taxes. Support the troops. Make government more efficient. Improve schools. Protect the vulnerable. But House Speaker Will Weatherford, R-Wesley Chapel, and Senate President Don Gaetz, R-Niceville, left off the most obvious priority: protect Gov. Rick Scott, who faces a tough re-election fight. It was part of the plan all along. A defeat in November would be a shattering blow to Florida Republicans. When the session ended late Friday, legislative leaders shamelessly celebrated their success at bolstering Scott's prospects as they put a punctuation mark on an election-year session that lays the groundwork for the forthcoming campaign. "Everything he wanted going into this session, he got," Weatherford said. "I have every reason to believe this will jump-start him into the election cycle. It's going to be a really successful year for him going forward." Scott plans a weeklong "help is on the way" tour of eight media markets, a victory lap to underscore the tax cut package. He'll be in Tampa on Tuesday. The governor's abbreviated session agenda was designed to attract maximum popular appeal: a $400 million rollback of auto tag fees, more money for education and a freeze on college tuition. He got all three, and more. With Weatherford taking the lead, and over Gaetz's strong opposition, the Legislature approved in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants at Florida colleges and universities. Scott, who opposed the idea in the past, never pushed for it. He did not mention it in his March State of the State address, but he came awfully close, saying: "Our people are dreamers," and by calling three times for lower tuition fees. In keeping with the plan, as lawmakers celebrated passage of the tuition bill Friday, Weatherford gave Scott all the credit for breaking a Senate logjam and for getting former Republican Govs. Bob Martinez and Jeb Bush to lobby for its passage. "The bill would have never passed the Senate had the governor not engaged," Weatherford said. "Your ability to show compassion to these students . . . it's a testament to your leadership." Perhaps it was a coincidence, but Weatherford's mention of Scott's "compassion" came a day after a statewide poll by Quinnipiac University said that voters consider Scott's probable Democratic challenger, Charlie Crist, more compassionate by a 15-point margin. Scott repeatedly used the session to blast Crist's record as governor, blaming him for 15 percent annual tuition increases and for hiking automobile tag fees during a recession. "If they thought it was such a great idea to repeal the fees, why did they wait so long?" Crist said. "We never intended for them to be there forever." Crist noted that the higher fees, enacted in September 2009, were in effect for a much longer period under Scott than under him. Democrats say the 2014 session is another case of Scott abdicating his responsibility to the Legislature, which set the agenda and refused an expansion of Medicaid that Scott endorsed a year ago. "We're kicking important issues down the road so he (Scott) can have an election where he can say, 'It's great.' It's not great," said Rep. Perry Thurston, D-Plantation, the House minority leader. "I think it's gamesmanship." For years, Democrats supported in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants. When the Republicans finally embraced the idea, Thurston called it election-year pandering, but added: "Don't get me wrong. I think it's a good thing." What the Legislature failed to do dovetails with the Democrats' campaign strategy. "Not expanding Medicaid was a terrible thing. I can't believe they didn't do that," Crist said in an interview. "A million Floridians will not be getting health care because of their lack of compassion." Crist wants Scott to veto much of the pork-barrel spending in the $77.1 billion budget and call lawmakers back for a special session to steer the money into education. But Crist's criticism of the budget is weakened by the fact that most Democrats in the Legislature voted for it. "My suspicion is that they wanted to get things funded that they cared about," Crist said of Democratic lawmakers. "But I can't believe how big that budget is." In his fourth year in office, Scott has still not quite figured out how to work with the Legislature, but he showed signs of improvement this spring. He benefited greatly from the work of Lt. Gov. Carlos Lopez-Cantera, a former Miami legislator and House majority leader, who maintained open lines of communication with lawmakers. The governor rubbed elbows in public with legislators several times during the session, something he didn't do at all a year earlier. But the feeling wasn't always mutual. Gaetz, the Senate president, pointed out that cutting auto tag fees originated in the Senate in 2013, and that neither Scott nor the Department of Children and Families advocated changes in child protection laws to reduce deaths of children in state supervision, one of the major bills passed this year. "The agency didn't come to us and say, 'Reform us,' " Gaetz said. "The governor didn't ask us to do that. The people of Florida asked us to do that." Times/Herald staff writer Mary Ellen Klas contributed to this report. Steve Bousquet can be reached at [email protected] or (850) 224-7263. 2014 session built to promote Gov. Rick Scott's re-election 05/04/14 [Last modified: Sunday, May 4, 2014 11:26pm]

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/7844

It's time for Republicans to return to their core beliefs By MATT DALY Publication: The Day To paraphrase Lewis Carroll: "If you don't know where you're going, any road will lead you there."The Republican Party, as it continues to tumble down a rabbit hole, is proving the "Alice in Wonderland" author's point.The party is floundering. Republicans are told they should reject internal voices that advocate a conservative doctrine. That advice is partly correct, for if the Republican Party is to remain viable it will need to extricate the neo-conservative agenda that brought the Iraq War, nation building and promoting democracy by military force. The party also needs to learn the lesson from such domestic big government, social engineering boondoggles as "No Child Left Behind."The party must erase the conservative caricatures painted by Democrats and the media and explain why America needs a dose of classical conservatism and guiding principles - not from a failed Bush doctrine - but from the kind of conservatism championed by the likes of Theodore Roosevelt, Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Economics is a discipline that has been snatched by the left and is now used to provoke class envy.Who spoke these words? "There are�ways by which the federal government can�aid economic growth�I am talking about the accumulated evidence� that our present tax system exerts too heavy a drag on growth�. that it siphons out of private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort."(To) lift the economy the federal government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures but to expand the opportunities for private expenditures� next year's tax bill should reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes."Was it Reagan? Barry Goldwater? It was from President John F Kennedy's 1962 speech to the Economic Club of New York. There was a time when Democrats understood the laws of economics do not bow to political affiliation. Classical conservative Republicans must remind people of this reality as they make the case for tax cuts and reforming America's galactic tax code.Recently the Republican controlled House approved extending the government's borrowing authority. It's bad enough Republicans couldn't find any places to cut spending, but making matters worse, they joined Democrats in waiving the debt limit until March 15, 2015. Since there is no limit for a year, the federal government can borrow as much as it wants. Congress has essentially relinquished its constitutional authority to control spending. Long before the Bush doctrine and neo-conservatives ascendency to power in 1994, the country gave the Republican Party sweeping victories in Congress. The Contract with America was a worthy blueprint, however not ever followed through on. The combined budgets of 95 programs the Contract pledged to eliminate increased by 13 percent in 2000. That's not a record of achievement, but of abandonment.Republicans again have a chance to win big in the next election. For that to happen across the country and right here in Connecticut, they will have to return to their roots and explicitly denounce the failed policies backed by the neo-conservative right and forcefully articulate the virtues of classical conservatism.Matt Daly is a former policy scholar at the Yankee Institute and was a Republican candidate for Congress in 2010. He lives in Glastonbury.

时政

2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/7852

Holiday deliveries improve but hiccups continue ... Petition filed to legalize pot in Missouri ... Sinquefield gifts to Hanaway governor bid at $900,000 ... Holiday deliveries improve but hiccups continue ... Petition filed to legalize pot in Missouri ... Sinquefield gifts to Hanaway governor bid at $900,000 ... Rep. Keith Frederick's Capitol Report: Veto Session The Constitution allows that when a bill is passed by both chambers of the Legislature, the Governor has the option to veto any bill. He generally does so with an explanation of what his objections are to the measure. Following that, the House and Senate convene to review the bills that have been vetoed. If both the House ... Comment By Rep. Keith Frederick By Rep. Keith Frederick The Constitution allows that when a bill is passed by both chambers of the Legislature, the Governor has the option to veto any bill. He generally does so with an explanation of what his objections are to the measure. Following that, the House and Senate convene to review the bills that have been vetoed. If both the House and Senate vote to pass the legislation “the Governor’s objections thereto not withstanding”, and if 2/3 of the members of each body are in favor of the override, then the bill becomes law in spite of the Governor’s opposition. This year there were 29 bills that the Governor vetoed. Of those, the General Assembly enacted 10 bills, “The Governor’s objections thereto not withstanding”. Veto session is now complete and so all the legislation that was considered and passed in the spring session is now settled. Some bills remained negated by the Governor, but 10 were over ridden. There have only been 24 veto overrides in the history of the state, with 16 of those occurring when only a simple majority was required. This veto session was not only historic in scope but a real indicator of the legislature’s willingness to work together to secure numerous, significant policy victories for Missourians. This information is made available through the House Research department. Two of the bills that got a lot of attention leading up to the Veto Session were HB 253, a tax cut bill and HB 436, a 2nd Amendment bill. House Bill 253 would have provided tax relief to Missourians, including individuals and small businesses, to be phased in over ten years. The Governor vetoed the bill and he contended that its provisions would lead to cuts in education. I feel that a tax reduction for our citizens and for our businesses that are the source of jobs for our people is very much needed. The tax cuts were to be phased in and most of the reductions were to occur only if revenue in the state had increased at least 100 million dollars. I strongly supported HB 253 and voted to override the Governor’s veto. Missouri ranks 47th in economic growth over the last decade, and we have been lagging behind our neighboring states for many years. It is time to make our state a better environment for the engines of our economy and jobs- our small businesses. Leading up to the vote, the Governor traveled around the state, using taxpayer’s dollars to do that, to promote his point of view. He is entitled to do that, and I don’t slight him for that. However, the information he was putting out was not accurate. When he scared educators into thinking that there would be less money for the schools systems, he did all of us a disservice. In order for there to be less for education, general revenue to the state would have to decline. That is what is constitutionally required for the governor to withhold funds that have been appropriated by the Legislature. Much of the tax cuts would not take place unless revenues in fact went up by more than 100 million dollars. In addition there is evidence from Kansas and Oklahoma which have recently cut taxes as well as in states where there is no state income tax that such tax policies lead to increased overall revenue, even though the rates that people and businesses pay goes down. If we do not create an environment for small businesses to thrive, we will attract and keep fewer of them which will mean fewer jobs in our state. Fewer people working equates to diminishing tax revenue and a mentality that more needs to be extracted from those who are still in the state. That line of thinking and strategic course only leads to more exodus and therefore a downward spiral such as happened in Detroit. With declining revenues in that city, its leaders cannot simply jack up the taxes on those who remain; the people won’t stand for it, and they too will leave and business owners would just quit. Instead, you have to create the type of environment that is conducive to small business. During this debate, in the weeks leading up to the veto session, Governor Rick Perry of Texas came to Missouri to encourage us to follow their lead and the lead of a number of other prosperous states and reduce the tax burden on our citizens and businesses. Missouri’s Governor and those on the side of bigger government and higher taxes cried foul, and said that Governor Perry should not be coming here to Missouri to rob us of what jobs we have left. To that line of thought my reply is simple. Rather than fear that a Governor from another state would come here and convince businesses to relocate out of Missouri, stack the deck against the other states. Do that by creating a business environment that is superior or at least as good as the other states. The next step is then for our Governor to go to other states and inform people of all of the advantages that Missouri has to offer that make it a great place to establish or expand a business. That is the American way, and that is the way of the future. To complain about Governor Perry’s visit to Missouri is to contend that our people should be kept in the dark, no fair telling them of the advantages available in other states- keep our folks in the dark, so we can continue to extract more of their hard earned money than would be the case in a nearby state. Page 2 of 8 - The second bill deals with the second amendment, the right to keep and bear arms. HB 436 was a strong assertion of the 10th amendment. I firmly believe that the federal government, with all three branches is not authorized to be the sole and final arbiter of which laws that it creates are constitutional and which are not. The federal government has a conflict of interest in that regard. The states gave the federal government its limited powers and retained all other powers. The Supremacy clause is at the heart of this dispute between those who believe in the constitution as written and strictly interpreted and those who believe it is just a general set of guidelines that can be ignored when it suits their purpose. I happen to believe that the constitution was specifically constructed to protect against abuses that the founding fathers knew were likely to recur. They envisioned that the Constitution and laws made “in the pursuance thereof” would be the supreme law of the land. Some think that means the federal government shall reign supreme in all matters once a law is on the books. However, when a law is made that is not in the pursuance of the constitution then it is of no effect and is null and void. Who decides this? The states! The states are the parents in the relationship; it is the states that created the federal government and not the other way around. Therefore if a law is enacted by the legislative branch of the federal government and upheld by the judicial branch of that same government that is not the end of the story. Nowhere does it say that the federal government gets to be the final judge of which laws are made in the pursuance of the constitution. If a power is not explicitly given to the federal government then that power is retained by the states or by the people. The states retain the authority to determine if a law is made in the pursuance of the constitution and if it is not in the pursuance of the constitution, then that the law in question is null and void. Therefore, when it comes to the second amendment, the state of Missouri shall have the final say as to whether laws made restricting the use of firearms by its citizens is in pursuance of the constitution or not. HB 436 does quite a number of things, but chief among them is to declare that the state of Missouri will be the judge of what laws are constitutional and which are not when it concerns the second amendment. Those of you who followed these Capitol Reports each week during the spring session are aware that HB 436 has a great many more provisions that make sense and protect our second amendment rights. Included in its provisions is my bill that helps to prevent the federal (or state) government from using our electronic medical records as a back door to establish a gun registry. It also provided for a school safety officer program that in my view would be the most effective deterrent to the mass killing of innocent students in schools. In past shootings when the shooter is first confronted by an armed individual, he generally takes his own life as a way out of this confrontation. The provisions of the school safety officer program which provides for extensive training in addition to concealed carry permit training to willing teachers, or administrators in our schools. In this way, the time from brandishing a gun to confrontation by another armed individual is made much shorter and therefore the number of deaths or injuries will be reduced substantially. There was a problem with a part of the bill which prevented the publication of lists of gun owners which I was made aware of during the spring session but after HB 436 was passed. The unintended consequences of this provision were that any publication of gun ownership would have potentially been a violation of the law. When this was discovered, I met with a Senator and sought legal opinions and proceeded to amend SB 75 to include language that was more focused and did not involve the unintended consequences of restricting gun ownership publication such as with a photo of a father and son who just bagged his first turkey in youth season. With the language of SB 75 in place, I was comfortable moving forward with HB 436 since the less restrictive language was sitting in statute and could be used until the unintended problem in HB 436 could be corrected in January. In the end, the House passed HB 436 with a super majority, but it failed in the House by a vote of 22 to 12. Page 3 of 8 - Overview of Vetoed Bills Soon to be Law The legislature fell short in its efforts to override the governor’s veto of the income tax cut bill and the Second Amendment Preservation Act, but the House and Senate were able to put several other bills of substance on the path to becoming law. These pieces of legislation will go into effect as the law of the land in 30 days. Overviews of some of the bills are provided below. HB 19 (Appropriations Bill) We overrode the governor’s line item veto in HB 19 to authorize the appropriation of $1 million for the reconstruction of the Pike-Lincoln Technical Center in Northeast Missouri that was gutted by a fire in 2011. The facility provides critical vocational-technical services to the young people and adults who are trying to obtain the skills necessary to land the jobs of today and tomorrow. While the facility was insured, it does not have the financial resources to repair and construct facilities to serve the needs of the many people in the area who want vo-tech training. Specifically, the bill will help provide the additional funding to equip the building with computers and to make it accessible to people with disabilities. We believe in training our young people for the jobs they will need to sustain and support a family and for that reason we overrode the governor’s veto in a bipartisan fashion to appropriate this money for an extremely worthy cause. Unfortunately, the governor immediately withheld this money from the budget despite our override. We will do our best in the coming weeks to convince the governor that releasing these dollars is the right thing to do. HB278 (Federal Holidays Bill) The legislature came together to stand in defense of our rights to publicly celebrate federal holidays such as Independence Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas by overriding the governor’s veto of HB 278. It’s unfortunate that we have reached the point where legislation is necessary to protect these rights, but we have seen in recent years a continued assault on the public celebration of Christmas and other holidays. In fact, some parents have dealt with situations where their children are prohibited from singing Christmas carols at school. We passed HB 278 during the regular session to defend our rights to celebrate these holidays openly. The bill makes it clear that any state or local governmental entity; public building, park, or school; or public setting or place is not allowed to ban or restrict the practice, mention, celebration, or discussion of any federal holiday. It is a change to our state statutes that would protect everyone’s right to practice a federally deemed holiday in a public place.Page 4 of 8 - HB339 (Auto Insurance Reform Bill) By overriding the veto on HB 339 we sent a strong message to Missourians that they should abide by our laws and obtain automobile insurance before getting behind the wheel. Right now we know some 22 percent of Missouri drivers are uninsured. Under this bill, drivers who lack insurance will give up their ability to sue and collect for noneconomic damages in an accident that involves an insured driver even if the insured driver is at fault.We were careful to make certain there are some exceptions to this provision. For example, if the insured driver was under the influence of drugs or alcohol or guilty of a serious crime, the limitations on lawsuits would not apply. In addition, uninsured motorists who lost coverage within the last six months would not be restricted under this law. Keep in mind also that the bill only limits damages for pain and suffering, which were not traditional categories of relief under the common law. We believe this is a positive step forward and a new law that will encourage people to comply with the insurance requirement, limit lawsuits against law-abiding citizens, and prevent those without insurance from driving up costs for the system. HB650 (Tort Reform Bill) We overrode the governor’s veto of HB 650 to protect more than 1,500 family-supporting jobs in the mining industry right here in Missouri. In addition, the bill will help save more than 6,000 supporting jobs. Right now the Doe Run Company is exposed to heavy liability because of a large number of lawsuits that were filed in 2005 before a law capping punitive damages in all lawsuits took effect. Keep in mind, the company has been a good steward of the environment here in Missouri. In fact, the company has already spent more than $60 million in remediation and cleanup efforts and also has developed new technology to reduce emissions in lead smelting by 99 percent. The bill we approved bars awards of punitive damages related to property where mining ceased before 1975 if the owner can show "good faith" efforts to clean it up. It also caps punitive damage awards at $2.5 million. By protecting this important Missouri business we can save important jobs that would otherwise be lost and preserve a company that has worked in good faith to remediate this issue since it obtained the property in 1994. HB1035 (Political Subdivisions Bill)Page 5 of 8 - Another vetoed bill overridden by the legislature is a good government bill that makes several important changes that will now go into effect despite the governor’s efforts. Under current law, when a county clerk makes a mistake on a form submitted to the State Auditor's Office by simply putting a number in the wrong box, it can cause the tax rate ceiling to be lowered for that taxing district. The bill allows an amended form to fix a mistake or clerical error. The bill gives the State Auditor’s Office control of when amended returns can be done and provides the opportunity to go back and fix a mistake. Third classification counties are on a four year audit cycle so a mistake can affect several years. One county imposed a sales tax and was required to rollback its property tax. The clerk marked the voluntary rollback by mistake and thereby lowered the tax rate ceiling for the county. The bill will allow a change to a required rollback which is what the voters passed. SB 9 (Agriculture Omnibus Bill) The bill protects our state’s number one industry – agriculture – by making important changes on our laws regarding animal abuse and neglect. Right now, under Missouri law, a livestock owner who has animals that break through a fence and are unconfined for any period of time can be charged with the crime of animal abuse or neglect. While it is hard to believe, a livestock owner who has cows that get loose could actually be jailed for the “offense”. The bill we passed will give livestock owners a reasonable amount of time to get their animals back under control and allow the state to avoid needlessly punishing responsible animal owners.In addition, the bill places harsher penalties on cattle rustling and cattle theft, which has been a major problem in southwest Missouri.The bill also contains provisions to develop a comprehensive long-range strategic plan for career and technical education in Missouri. In addition, the governor vetoed SB 9 in part because of his concerns with a provision regarding foreign ownership of Missouri agricultural land. Right now our state prohibits foreign ownership of farmland and yet we have seen thousands of acres owned by those from outside our country who have found a way around the law. SB 9 is meant to grandfather in some of the foreign individuals and entities who already own Missouri land and have been responsible and productive in doing so. It also gives some teeth to our laws on this issue by giving the director of agriculture some say in future purchases of our land, and by putting a cap on those purchases.Page 6 of 8 - Child Custody and Visitation Rights for Active Duty Military Members (SB 110) The legislature came together to override the governor’s veto of SB 110 to establish the child custody and visitation rights of a deploying military parent. The bill is meant to protect deployed military members from having their custody orders changed while they are unavailable to respond to any court actions brought by the other parent.Its provides deployed military parents the right to attend a hearing modifying visitation rights to his or her child. Also, the bills require 30 days before such a hearing can be conducted after the affected person returns home from deployment. In addition, the bills require that communications between parent and child are maintained even during the deployment. Volunteer Health Services Act (SB129) By overriding the governor’s veto of SB 129 and placing the bill into law, we will eliminate an enormous barrier that has prevented many health care professionals from volunteering their services in times of need. The threat of litigation and the need for expensive medical malpractice insurance have prevented many capable health care professionals from providing their services during emergencies. This bill is designed to ensure Missourians continue to receive quality care, and that health care practitioners are not subjected to overly-burdensome regulations or frivolous litigation. The bill will exempt a volunteer health care provider from civil liability unless they exhibit gross negligence or willful misconduct in providing their services. The bill also will allow health care professionals to provide services within their scope of practice without the need for additional licensing or certification. Tennessee created the model for this program in the 1990s and has used it to great effect to provide free medical care to their neediest citizens. We want to encourage our doctors and nurses to volunteer their time and their expertise to provide quality care to those who need it. The Volunteer Health Services Act will remove some of the barriers currently in place to ensure that can happen. Voting by Videoconference (SB 170) The governor vetoed a bill sponsored by a legislator in his own party when he prevented SB 170 from becoming law. We overrode that veto in a bipartisan fashion to allow a member of a governmental body to cast a vote by videoconference. This is something that 35 other states already allow. Current law requires members to be physically present and in attendance at the meeting to vote. But as we all know, changes to technology have made the use of videoconferencing much more prevalent. Allowing members of school boards and fire protection districts to vote in this way would ease the burdens of travel and time constraints that many public servants face. It also is important to note that the bill does not apply to members of the Missouri General Assembly.Page 7 of 8 - SB 265 also known as Agenda 21 failed in the override attempt by a vote of 107 to 53 in the House. Legislation that was approved by the General Assembly but vetoed by the governor would have barred state or local officials from adopting policies outlined in a 1992 United Nations document that could affect private property rights. The measure was designed to take aim at "Agenda 21," a UN agreement signed by 178 nations that encourages sustainable development. The agreement encourages environmentally friendly and sustainable practices around the world, with suggestions from the international level down to cities and towns. Our concern is that the agreement will infringe on the private property rights of Missourians without due process.In his veto letter Governor Nixon stated “It is fundamentally misguided and unnecessary to require local government officials to become international law experts in order to perform their duties. This legislation would spawn endless litigation frivolously attacking governmental action based on a belief that a two decades old United Nations resolution is somehow shaping decisions regarding such issues as health codes and road projects.” SB 267 also known as Civil Liberties Defense Act or the Sharia Law bill was also defeated in the House attempt at an override to the Governor’s veto. This failed by a vote of 109-52. This bill would have ensured that court rulings based on laws made outside the U.S. are unenforceable in Missouri if those laws violate the state or U.S. constitutions. The bill would have prevented Missouri courts from using policies that come from outside the United States that also violate constitutional guarantees.Governor Nixon stated in his veto letter that it would “have a chilling effect on foreign adoptions.” And that “This obstacle would complicate an already challenging process facing a Missouri couple seeking to adopt a child from another country whose legal system is deemed “inconsistent” with ours. This Past WeekendOn Saturday, October 5, The Phelps County Republican Committee had a picnic/BBQ at Lions Club Park and had a number of speakers. The Keynote Speaker was our Lieutenant Governor, Peter Kinder, followed by Senator Dan Brown and yours truly. Local elected officials including Larry Stratman, our District 1 Commissioner, John Beger our Prosecuting Attorney, Kathy Oliver, our Phelps County Public Administrator, and Sue Brown, our Circuit Clerk gave updates to those gathered as well. Judge Bill Hickle also participated in the event. We presented our views on issues of the day and where we see things headed in our state. In addition, I was able to coordinate with Congressman Jason Smith and his staff to provide a cell phone hook-up to a sound system that I use for such events. While Congressman Smith was in Washington, D.C., he was able to address the crowd at Lions Club Park and update them on the work he has been doing on our behalf during this difficult time of federal government shutdown. All in all we had a very fine event in spite of the rain and concluded the event just before the brunt of it hit the area. Page 8 of 8 - By Rep. Keith Frederick

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/38

After eight days of fighting, ceasefire appears to hold Israel Hayom/Exclusive to JNS.org, Thursday, November 22, 2012 Tags: News Comments U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the Prime Minister's office in Jerusalem. [Israel Sun photo] After eight days of fighting, Operation Pillar of Defense came to a close, and now all that can be done is wait for the results. During the night following the Israel-Hamas cease-fire announcement, there was sporadic rocket fire for several hours after the 9 p.m. deadline went into effect, but none after midnight. In all, 12 rockets were fired into Israeli territory after the deadline. The Israel Air Force has ceased all activity in the Gaza Strip. If the calm holds, reserve soldiers called up to prepare for a potential ground invasion will begin to be sent home in coming days. On Thursday morning, residents of southern communities heard warning sirens indicating incoming rockets, but no rockets were found. Officials believe that several rockets may have exploded inside Palestinian territory. As far as the cease-fire agreement goes, Israel will seek to end the smuggling of weapons and ammunition from Sinai into the Gaza Strip. Hamas will seek a removal of the naval blockade on Gaza and the opening of all border crossings. The man behind the agreement was Mossad head Tamir Pardo, who traveled to Cairo, presented the Israeli position and returned to Jerusalem with a list of understandings to be presented to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. The three convened the Forum of Nine senior ministers and formulated an outline for the cease-fire agreement. The Forum of Nine was scheduled to meet at 2:30 p.m. on Wednesday, but the bombing of a Tel Aviv bus disrupted that plan. Netanyahu and the ministers were furious, and the mediators immediately called UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. For a moment it seemed that the cease-fire agreement was doomed, and that Netanyahu would launch an Israeli ground invasion in Gaza. But then Clinton exerted pressure, and U.S. President Barack Obama also called Netanyahu and asked him to give the truce a chance. You have to give your citizens a normal life, Obama reportedly said to Netanyahu, and it worked. It was decided that the announcement regarding the cease-fire would come out of Egypt, in order to give the Egyptian leadership the credit and to cement Egypt’s involvement. Egyptian Foreign Minister Kamel Amr said at a joint press conference with Clinton on Wednesday that “Egypt succeeded, after much effort, to achieve understandings that will make a cease-fire possible.” “This is a critical moment for the region,” Clinton said as she welcomed the agreement. “Egypt’s new government is assuming the responsibility and leadership that has long made this country a cornerstone for regional stability and peace.” The Forum of Nine was not in full agreement. Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz and Interior Minister Eli Yishai argued that a truce would be a mistake. Sources at the Prime Minister’s Office said that throughout the discussions there was never a vote on whether or not to launch a ground invasion. The political echelon in Israel explained that this was a calculated move. For Israel, this operation shifted the command over Hamas from Iran to Egypt. Israel is not entirely pleased with Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, for failing to stop the trafficking of mid-range Fajr rockets from Sinai into Gaza. But still, there is hope that Egypt, too, will abide by the new rules that have been set. Lieberman said Wednesday that the operation had been waged on three fronts: military, diplomatic, and public opinion. On the military front, it emerged that the Israel Security Agency has very good intelligence capabilities. The assassination of Hamas military commander Ahmed Jabari was a baptism by fire for ISA Director Yoram Cohen, and he came through with flying colors. IDF Chief of General Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz also passed a test, and it was clear that he shared the views of Netanyahu and Barak. The army proved itself once again with a speedy reserves call-up and effective intelligence work, and effective consultations with close legal advisers. In Israel it was agreed that there were no surprises on the diplomatic front. The European Union did not support any Israeli operation that was anything but surgical, but provided a general moral backing. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon represented the UN’s position that Israel’s actions should be examined closely, and that it did not matter what the target was, it only mattered what, or who, ultimately was hit. Ban arrived in Israel and confronted Netanyahu while drawing comparisons between Gaza civilian casualties and Hamas rockets. As far as the prime minister is concerned, he oversaw the diplomatic front as well as the military front and the homefront. His approval for every step was constant, and daily. He held 20 conversations with world leaders, four conversations with Obama, and ultimately made a decision that ran contrary to the public's sentiments. The Palestinians, as expected, declared a “massive victory” on Wednesday. The head of the Hamas political bureau, Khaled Mashaal, said in Cairo: “Israel was defeated, and has yielded to our demands. The enemy leaders’ adventure is one of the worst and most unusual failures in the history of the Zionist entity. We are committed to the agreement as long as Israel is committed to it.”

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/146

L.A. business group wants answers from Greuel on pensions March 19, 2013 | 5:30 A Los Angeles business group that endorsed mayoral candidate Wendy Greuel has called on her to appear personally to explain statements she made about pensions -- and about reopening talks with City Hall labor unions over reductions in retirement benefits. Greuel, the city controller, has been attacking opponent Eric Garcetti for weeks over his City Council vote to roll back retirement benefits for new hires, saying he and his colleagues failed to properly negotiate those changes. She went further Friday, telling The Times that she wants to meet with labor leaders to discuss the reduction in benefits “to make sure we get that pension reform that they agree with." Those remarks alarmed Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce President Gary Toebben, who said his organization supported the council's decision to cut pension benefits for newly hired civilian city workers last year. Toebben said he asked Greuel to appear personally before his group to explain herself and disclosed that a Greuel campaign fundraiser scheduled for Thursday by the chamber has been canceled for now. “We’re going to have a conversation with Wendy to clarify the pension comments,” Toebben said. “And we just didn’t have a sufficient response [from potential guests] at the moment to hold the fundraiser this Thursday. So we are not doing that.” Greuel said Tuesday that the fundraiser had been canceled because potential guests had not been given enough advance notice. And she backed away from some of her previous remarks, including her push for a new round of collective bargaining with employee unions. In an interview, Greuel said she wants simply to meet with unions to discuss ways to keep them from filing a legal challenge against the pension cuts, not open a new round of negotiations. "I want to work with them to avoid that lawsuit. But I believe in those pension reforms and do not want to roll them back," she said. That was a different message from the one Greuel gave last week. On Friday, she told The Times she wanted to meet with the unions on the reforms that had been passed. "So I would sit down with them and ask them to do collective bargaining," she said last week. "Which means yes, open that up to have those discussions." Labor leaders have filed a challenge against the city's pension ordinance, saying the changes were not negotiated in "good faith." That challenge will probably not be resolved until after a new mayor takes office. The chamber has been one of the loudest voices in support of reductions in retirement benefits at City Hall. The group endorsed the proposal from former Mayor Richard Riordan to require that newly hired city employees be given 401(k)-style benefits, not pensions. The council voted last fall for an alternative plan, increasing the retirement age and rolling back benefits for newly hired civilian workers who are not at the Department of Water and Power. But that ordinance has been challenged by the city’s labor unions, who are threatening to take the city to court on the grounds that the city did not negotiate the changes “in good faith." Greuel has sided with the unions on that point, saying Garcetti and others should have engaged in collective bargaining. She compared the city's handling of pension matters to the state of Wisconsin, where Republican Gov. Scott Walker pushed to strip employee unions of their right to collective bargaining. The county Federation of Labor endorsed Greuel on Tuesday, one week after she made the comparison between the council's handling of the pension vote and Walker's policy. Toebben said the meeting with Greuel is still being scheduled. “We want to make sure we are not on opposite sides of this discussion,” Toebben said. Council President Herb Wesson, who led the charge for the council to approve the pension reductions last fall, said he did not expect the vote to become such a major issue in the campaign. He said he was "comfortable" with the council's vote, saying the city's lawyers advised them that collective bargaining wasn't needed on matters involving future employees. "To be honest with you, I don't know if I understand where she's going with this," said Wesson, referring to Greuel. -- David Zahniser at Los Angeles City Hall Twitter@DavidZahniser

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/245

Capital District News 7:45 am NYS Ethics Panel Meets Amid Controversy Share Tweet E-mail Comments Print By Karen Dewitt Listen Listening... The head of the state ethics commission, Janet DiFiore, says she has “done nothing wrong”, after allegations she used her influence as Westchester County DA to obtain welfare benefits for her maid. DiFiore spoke after a lengthy closed door session of the ethics commission. Capitol Correspondent Karen DeWitt reports… The allegations against the Westchester County DA chosen by Governor Cuomo to head a newly formulated state ethics commission were first reported in the New York Post. The paper quoted a political rival of Janet DiFiore, who accused the DA of improperly using her influence to obtain food stamps, Medicaid and other government welfare benefits for her long time live in servant. The Westchester County Social services agency is investigating. DiFiore refused to discuss details, when she was asked about them following a lengthy closed door meeting of the ethics commission. “I have done nothing wrong on anyone’s behalf, let alone someone who was an employee for me,” said Di Fiore, who called the allegations a “politically motivated attack.” The over three-hour closed executive session was preceded by a 26 minute public portion of the meeting. In the meeting commission members squabbled over procedures to adopt regarding staff confidentiality agreements. During the public portion of the meeting reporters were restricted from leaving their seats to better record the discussion, and video cameras were asked to leave half way through the proceedings. Commission spokesman John Milgrim says the reason was that the room was at its 49 person capacity, but a count of those present, recorded by video cameras before they were asked to leave, showed no more than 40 persons at the meeting. Milgrim says the meeting was available on the web. One day before the meeting, Governor Andrew Cuomo offered a qualified defense of DiFiore, saying she seemed the best person for the job. “A sitting district attorney, that says serious,” Cuomo said. Cuomo refused to get drawn in to the controversy. “I’ll leave that to Westchester County to sort out,” Cuomo said. “And I’ll stay out of the county’s process and stay out of the local politics.” The governor says he has not spoken to DiFiore since the allegations surfaced. The questions over Ethics Chair DiFiore’s domestic help are not the only controversy connected to the ethics commission. Recently, it was leaked that the commission was investigating a complaint about the second most powerful Senator in the Majority Republican conference, Deputy Majority Leader Tom Libous, over allegations that surfaced in an unrelated corruption trial. Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos initially demanded an investigation of the leak, saying a crime had been committed. It’s illegal for commission members to discuss on going investigations. But Skelos later backed off that stance, saying it would be hard to prove and better to fix up the laws governing the ethics commission instead. “Our effort is better off directed towards improving the legislation,” said Skelos. “Rather than an investigation that probably won’t get any result.” Governor Cuomo, who convinced the legislature to create the ethics panel last year, after the previous ethics commission had been discredited, admits that some of the rules governing the commission may need some tweaking. “The constant dialogue that is coming from the commission I find troubling,” Cuomo said. Cuomo says overall, though he is “fully confident” that the ethics commission will achieve its goal of improving government ethics, but he admits it’s a “very complicated undertaking.” In Albany, I’m Karen DeWitt. Tags: ethics

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/268

Libya: When the impossible became possible Libyans gather in The Cafe to discuss the daunting task of rebuilding their country after the revolution. Last Modified: 31 Dec 2011 15:19 Had anyone argued in early 2011 that Libyan "Brother Leader" Muammar Gaddafi would soon be forced out of power, they would have been labeled dreamers at best, insane at worst. But that is exactly what happened. In mid-February, just weeks after Gaddafi berated Tunisians for ousting Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, the Libyan people rose up to say 'enough is enough.' For 42-years they had lived at the mercy of a totally unpredictable man and his brutal regime. Risking it all, activists in the eastern city of Benghazi had planned protests for February 17, 2011. That day was the anniversary of a small uprising in the city five years before, when young people attacked the Italian consulate in Benghazi to protest the racism of Italy's foreign minister at the time, Roberto Calderoli. But the protests soon turned into anti-government riots, which were crushed by Libyan forces. At least 11 people were killed, and dozens wounded. Little did they know that their demonstration would spawn a nationwide revolt. The "17 February Revolution" of 2011 spread like wildfire across the country, turned into an armed rebellion, and received worldwide military and political support. Libyans inside the country and outside flooded into Benghazi, which was liberated from Gaddafi's control at the outset of the conflict. Long-time opposition leaders and high-level defectors formed the National Transitional Council (NTC) on February 27. After the fall of Tripoli in August and the killing of Gaddafi in October, the NTC appointed an interim government to manage Libya's affairs until the people get a chance to elect their representatives. Currently those elections are scheduled for June/July 2012. Today Libyans are breathing freely for the first time in decades. But their country needs to be rebuilt almost from scratch. A proper system of law and order must be created. Schools and hospitals must be overhauled. The country has always been oil-rich, but the wealth never trickled down to the people. And the revolution has left open wounds between the rebels and Gaddafi's loyalists, who have suddenly found themselves on the wrong side of history. In The Café in Tripoli, Libyans discuss the challenges they face as they try to build a modern democracy after decades of being an isolated, backward pariah state. What do they want the new Libya to look like? Our Coffee Mates in this episode: - Taher Diab is a member of the National Transitional Council. He lived in exile for years in Ireland and Italy before returning to Libya two years ago. - Azza Al-Maghour is a lawyer who advocates for a bigger role for women, and for more transparency from the NTC and interim government. She is a member of Libya's High Commission for Human Rights, and also the author of a collection of short stories. - Zahi Mogherbi is a retired professor of political science at Benghazi University. When Gaddafi's son Saif al-Islam launched initiatives for reform in Libya over the last decade, Mogherbi was involved in the drafting of a new Libyan constitution. The draft never saw the light of day. - Mohamed Omeish is the coordinator of the February 17th Coalition in Tripoli, which organised the rebellion in the capital. He is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. - Amira Sallak is a student of architecture and urban planning at Benghazi University. She heads an organisation focusing on youth empowerment called Bukra, or 'Tomorrow.' - Adam Sbita is a Libyan-American student who was attending George Mason University in Virginia when he decided to leave the US and join the fighting against Gaddafi's forces. The Cafe airs each week at the following times GMT: Friday: 2000; Saturday: 1200; Sunday: 0100; Monday: 0600. Click here for more on The Cafe. Mexico: Failed state or economic giant? US: Still #1? One state, two states or even three states? Israel: The enemy within? The Dis-united Kingdom What's Hot

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/350

Hamas miscalculated on attacks, Ross says Sheldon Kirshner, Staff Reporter, Monday, November 26, 2012 Tags: Canada Comments Dennis Ross TORONTO — Hamas committed a serious miscalculation by triggering the recent eight-day border war with Israel, says Dennis Ross, the former U.S. envoy to the Middle East. In a speech in Toronto last week, he suggested that Hamas laboured under a grand illusion in thinking that Israel would not respond harshly to a significant upsurge in rocket attacks. Hamas incorrectly assumed that Israel would bow to a “new normal” of increased rocket barrages, Ross said in delivering the Joseph and Gertie Schwartz Memorial Lecture at the University of Toronto’s Centre for Jewish Studies. In recent months, he explained, the lulls between rocket assaults were steadily decreasing. Hamas, too, was not only taking direct responsibility for these attacks, it was no longer even trying to stop more radical groups, such as Islamic Jihad, from attacking Israel, he said. Hamas also miscalculated by assuming that Israel would exercise restraint due to three interlocking factors: the forthcoming Israeli election, Israel’s preoccupation with Iran’s nuclear program and Israel’s desire not to offend the new Islamic government in Egypt. Thanks to the U.S. and Egyptian-brokered ceasefire that ended the fighting, life for Israelis will improve in the next few months, Ross said. But over time, the truce will likely erode, just like previous ones, he warned. Ross praised Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi for playing a key role in arranging last week’s truce. By doing so, Morsi elevated Egypt’s status as a regional power. Although he threw his support behind Hamas and remains anti-Israel to the point of refusing to maintain direct contact with Israeli leaders, Morsi adopted a practical rather than an ideological approach to peacemaking at precisely the right moment, Ross said. Morsi’s decision to broker the ceasefire in conjunction with the United States stemmed primarily from a desire to get much-needed economic assistance from the United States and the International Monetary Fund. Morsi can’t ignore anti-Israel sentiment in Egypt, but by the same token, Morsi realizes that Egypt’s economy is dependent on outside help, Ross said. The United States will support Egypt’s requests for further economic aid if it respects the rights of the Christian Copt minority and of women, and if it preserves a pluralistic political democratic system and hews to its 1979 peace treaty with Israel, he said. He said Turkey, a rising power in the Middle East, did not play a meaningful role in arranging a truce, because it has downgraded its once-close political relationship with Israel. Ross predicted that 2013 will be a decisive year in determining whether Israel or the United States go to war to stop Iran’s militarized nuclear program. Before Washington turns to other options on the table, it intends to embark on a last-ditch diplomatic campaign to induce Iran to abandon efforts to build a nuclear arsenal. U.S. policy, he said, turns not on containing Iran after it becomes a nuclear power, but on preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear device in the first place. Claiming that Iran is feeling the brutal effects of international economic sanctions, Ross said its currency and oil exports, accounting for 85 per cent of its revenues, have taken a big hit. Nevertheless, Iran is sticking to its ideological guns in its standoff with the west, said Ross. In comments on the Arab-Israeli dispute, he said a two-state solution is in Israel’s national interest. He pointed out that Israel may lose its Jewish and democratic characteristics if current demographic factors don’t change. He said the real problem between Israel and the Palestinians boils down to “disbelief” – neither side believes the other really wants a two-state solution. “You have to change the dynamics,” said Ross, who was instrumental in helping Israel and the Palestinian Authority reach territorial agreements in 1995 and 1997 and Israel and Jordan sign a peace treaty in 1994. He outlined a plan to foster a new sense of trust between Israel and the Palestinian Authority: • Israel should offer compensation to Jewish settlers in the West Bank who leave settlements voluntarily. • Israel should not build in areas of the West Bank it plans to give up within the parameters of a peace treaty. • Area C in the West Bank, which fell under full Israeli security control under the 1993 Oslo accords, should be opened to Palestinian economic activity. Israeli military incursions into Area A of the West Bank, which is under Palestinian civil and security administration, should be kept to an absolute minimum. For their part, the Palestinians can show they’re serious about a two-state outcome by placing the map of Israel in school textbooks, government documents and websites. They should also acknowledge Israel’s historical connection to the land, stop hailing suicide bombers as heroes and martyrs, prepare Palestinian public opinion for compromises, replace refugee camps with permanent housing and continue building the institutions for future statehood. Taking aim at critics who claim that U.S. President Barack Obama is unfriendly toward Israel, Ross said he stoutly defended Israel during Operation Pillar of Defence and has done more than any other president to nurture Washington’s security and intelligence alliance with the Jewish state. “There’s nothing more important than security for Israel,” he declared. But like all his predecessors, Obama has had his differences with his Israeli counterpart, he said. The proper role for U.S. diplomacy in the Middle East is “active engagement,” Ross said, adding that the United States cannot impose a solution.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/351

Canada puts Israel on list of democracies ‘unlikely’ to generate refugees JTA, Thursday, February 21, 2013 Tags: Canada Comments Prime Minister Stephen Harper [PMO photo] VANCOUVER — Canada placed Israel on a list of "safe" countries whose citizens are unlikely to seek asylum as refugees. The move by Canada is considered a show of confidence in Israel. Though it places stricter regulations on Israeli asylum seekers, it is a signal that Canada considers Israel a strong democracy unlikely to produce genuine refugees, in league with the European Union, the United States and other western democracies. Israel was among eight new countries to join the list of Designated Countries of Origin, which now has 35 nations. Countries eligible for the list are "democratic countries that offer state protection, have active human rights and civil society organizations and do not normally produce refugees," Citizenship and Immigration Canada said in the statement. "Most Canadians recognize that there are places in the world where it is less likely for a person to be persecuted compared to other areas," it said. "Yet many people from these places try to claim asylum in Canada, but are later found not to need protection. Too much time and too many resources are spent reviewing these unfounded claims." Israel's addition to the list excludes Gaza and the West Bank. The other countries added were Mexico, Japan, Norway, Iceland, New Zealand, Australia and Switzlerland. The ability of citizens from countries on the list to appeal decisions of the quasi-judicial Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) will be limited. Amnesty International and the Canadian Council for Refugees criticized the list for limiting the ability of citizens from member countries to appeal IRB judgments, saying this was a violation of the UN Refugee Convention, Postmedia News reported. Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government is seen as having strengthened the Canada-Israel relationship. In the fall, Canada closed its embassy in Iran and expelled Iranian diplomats from the Canada. The Harper government supported Israel in its conflict in the Gaza Strip last November and opposed the Palestinian statehood bid at the United Nations in September.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/492

Jennifer Bendery [email protected] 'Missing In Action': Congress Ignores America's Poverty Crisis Posted: 04/08/2013 12:16 am EDT Updated: 04/08/2013 11:31 am EDT Share Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) holds up a copy of his budget at a March 12 press event, a plan that would decimate programs for the poor. (Win McNamee/Getty Images) WASHINGTON -- At a time when Republicans on Capitol Hill are expressing outrage over canceled White House tours, something more deserving of outrage is taking place: tens of millions of the nation's most vulnerable are taking hits on all sides. The nation's poverty rate is frozen at a high of 15 percent. And lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, for the most part, aren't even talking about it."Missing in action," Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio), the chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said of Congress' record on poverty.It has been a topic of discussion among Washington lawmakers in fleeting moments. Language about making poverty a national priority found its way into the Democratic Party platform last year and into President Barack Obama's State of the Union address in February. Democrats tucked a line into their budget proposals this year calling for a strategy to cut poverty in half in 10 years.Yet the issue has all but disappeared from the legislative agenda in Congress as lawmakers focus squarely on deficit reduction. Obama, too, has been largely silent on the issue, and has even proposed cutting Social Security -- a key tool for combating poverty. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a leading voice for the poor in the Senate, has fumed that Obama is caving to Republicans on the issue at the expense of "millions of working people, seniors, disabled veterans, those who have lost a loved one in combat, and women."The statistics are staggering. According to the Census Bureau, the nation's poverty rate is at its highest level in decades. More than 46 million people -- one in seven Americans -- are living below the poverty line, 16.4 million of them children. Another 30 million Americans are just a lost job or serious illness away from joining them. And in the last six years alone, more than 20 million people have joined the ranks of those relying on food stamps to get by.Meanwhile, the rich are only getting richer. Income inequality in the United States is greater now than at any time since 1929. It has gotten so severe that, according to a report by the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute, low-earning workers in the United States are actually worse off than low-earning workers in all but seven similarly developed countries. Given these figures, it is "unfathomable" that poverty is not "at the top of everybody's priority list," Fudge told The Huffington Post.Many economists agree that the most effective thing Congress has done for poor people in recent years was pass the stimulus package in 2009. It was one of the first bills Obama signed into law as president, and it included substantial benefits for the poor, including an expansion of the child tax credit and new funds for child care, job training and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, the nation's principal welfare program.The package is credited with saving or creating 2.5 million jobs, growing the economy by up to 3.8 percent and keeping the unemployment rate from hitting 12 percent. As bad as things are now, they could have been much worse, economists say.Given the subpar unemployment rate -- it's been hovering just below 8 percent for months -- and the worsening conditions for the poor, some say the obvious response from Congress should be another stimulus."It would be one thing if this were happening and there wasn't something we could do," said Heidi Shierholz, an economist at EPI. "The thing that makes this tragic and sick is that Congress could do a stimulus bill and bring the unemployment rate down relatively quickly, and they're choosing not to."Shierholz acknowledged that the idea of Congress passing a stimulus "sounds ridiculous" given that lawmakers are banging the drum on austerity right now. But the economics are clear."The increase in the poverty rate that we've seen since 2007, we could bring that down if we wanted to," she said. "It is crisis number one. But with this Congress right now, it's just a question of trying to keep them from doing harm. We're actually implementing austerity policies right now, which is absolutely wrongheaded."Those austerity policies include the sequester, $85 billion in across-the-board spending cuts that Congress agreed to let take effect on March 1, which will come down hard on the poor. That belt-tightening comes on top of the more than $1.5 trillion in spending cuts that Congress has passed in the past several years.From a political standpoint, it's not hard to see why lawmakers wouldn't want to talk about poor people. Poverty isn't the most glamorous topic. It doesn't have powerful lobbying groups behind it that can make or break someone's reelection, and it doesn't ignite people's passions in the same way that gay marriage or gun control does. Politicians in both parties rarely bring up poverty on the campaign trail. "How many times throughout the presidential election or in congressional elections do you ever hear the word 'poor?'" Fudge asked. "It does not poll well. It is not a word used often."But polling aside, the reality is services for the poor are taking more and more hits in many districts, a fact that isn't necessarily reflected in the voting records of the lawmakers who represent them. Half In Ten, a campaign focused on cutting the nation's poverty rate in half in 10 years, released a chart that breaks down which lawmakers represent the poorest districts. While the chart draws from data that was released prior to congressional redistricting in 2012, an analysis of Republican lawmakers' districts before and after redistricting reveals a number of members with high poverty rates back home who voted last month to pass the budget put forward by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), which would decimate funding for programs for the poor, disabled and elderly.Budgets aren't binding documents, but the Ryan plan is a "statement of priorities" that effectively demonstrates where lawmakers stand on poverty issues, said Melissa Boteach, the director of Half In Ten and of the Poverty and Prosperity Program at the Center for American Progress."The Ryan budget kicks 12 to 13 million people off of nutrition assistance, cuts off pathways to opportunity, slashes job training and education, and makes draconian cuts to Medicare, which serves a majority of the disabled and the elderly," said Boteach. "That's how House Republicans have outlined their priorities."Among those who voted for Ryan's budget: Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, whose district has a roughly 28 percent poverty rate and 38 percent child poverty rate; Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.), whose district has a roughly 26 percent poverty rate and 37 percent child poverty rate; Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), whose district has a roughly 17 percent poverty rate and 25 percent child poverty rate; Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.), whose district has a roughly 16 percent poverty rate and 19 percent child poverty rate; and Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.), whose district has a roughly 16 percent poverty rate and a 26 percent child poverty rate.The Huffington Post reached out to those Republican congressmen for comment. Two responded, and with the same message: deficit reduction equals poverty reduction."We've had record levels of government spending these past few years, yet we continue to have high levels of poverty," Gosar said. "Clearly more government spending has not restored economic growth or revived opportunity for those in search of the American dream. We need more, not less, of what we know creates growth and prosperity -- free markets, low taxes, and limited government.""As someone who has experienced poverty, I understand the federal government's role in protecting the opportunity for every American to achieve their version of the American Dream," Yoho said. "Unless we get our fiscal house in order now, those opportunities are in danger. Fiscal responsibility at the federal level is crucial to combating poverty, and that's one of the reasons I voted for the House Budget."Lawmakers who have championed poverty issues were beside themselves at the idea of colleagues voting to gut programs for the poor when there are so many poor people in their districts."It's mind-boggling," Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) said. "I don't know how they treat their constituents. I don't know how they relate to their people."But Lee knows from experience that poverty isn't a popular topic on Capitol Hill. She created an Out of Poverty Caucus in 2007 and got about four dozen lawmakers to join. In the last Congress, the caucus introduced six bills and endorsed two more that, collectively, would have beefed up programs ranging from nutrition assistance to job training to affordable housing. But none of the proposals even got a committee hearing.Lee didn't seem disheartened. She emphasized that there are multiple ways to influence policy."The big, big problem and obstacle is with the Republican Tea Party Congress. They want to dismantle everything right now," she said. "Right now, I don't see a lot of momentum on poverty issues, so we're trying to build momentum on the outside. There are a lot of great campaigns."Just about all stakeholders would agree that job creation is the best way to lift people out of poverty. But in the current Congress, the appetite for any kind of major jobs package just isn't there. Obama put forward an ambitious, $447 billion employment bill last year that many economists believed had the potential to create millions of jobs, but it was met with swift opposition from Republicans.So what, then, does Congress plan to do about poverty in the next year and a half? Debate a handful of smaller bills. The Senate will take up a bill "sometime this year" to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10, according to a top Senate Democratic aide. In the House, a Republican leadership aide pointed to three items that GOP leaders say will help the poor: a welfare reform reauthorization bill, the Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills Act and a renewed focus on education.The problem is, none of those proposals have bipartisan support. The author of the minimum wage bill, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), has been predicting GOP resistance from the moment he introduced his bill. "Republicans will throw up a smokescreen about it costing jobs," he said at the bill's unveiling.The House Republican proposals, meanwhile, lack Democratic support, and their effectiveness is questionable. The welfare reform bill only targets 4 million of the nation's 46 million working poor, and the SKILLS Act, which would consolidate more than 30 workforce development programs into a single fund, would actually make it harder for vulnerable groups like the elderly and disabled to access job training, according to the White House Office of Management and Budget.As for increasing the focus on education, it's true that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who controls which bills get House votes, recently signaled a desire to make the issue more of a priority. But his interest appears to center on school vouchers, which Democrats say would decimate public education.So, for the time being, it looks like the nation's working class and poor won't be getting much help from their leaders on Capitol Hill.Perhaps the best that advocates for the poor can do for now is try to prevent services from being scaled back even more. Lee said she is using her role on the House Budget Committee to try to preserve key items that Republicans have put on the chopping block, including the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit, food stamps and unemployment insurance. Lee also has a bill that would direct federal agencies to look at their impacts on poverty, and she suggested that poverty-related amendments to Republican bills may be an option.Lee and Fudge are also trying to keep poverty in the spotlight as much as possible. The Congressional Black Caucus is pressing the White House to create a commission on poverty, and members of the caucus are reaching out to the Republican Study Commission, which has its own anti-poverty initiative, to see if they can find ways to tackle poverty together. House Majority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) recently launched a task force on poverty within the Democratic Caucus, which Lee will lead."We have to keep working at it," Lee said of forcing poverty into the forefront in Washington. "We have to focus on accountability. Congress will support an agenda if they care about it. This a political struggle like everything is." How Paul Ryan's Budget Would Hurt The Poor of His plan would cut the budget by $4.6 trillion over the next 10 years. These budget cuts would raise the unemployment rate, shrink the economy and eliminate 2 million jobs in 2014 alone, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a progressive think tank. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster) His budget would slash Medicaid spending by $756 billion and turn the program into a block-grant program for states. It also would eliminate Obamacare's Medicaid expansion, which would have provided Medicaid coverage for an estimated 12 million more people. (AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis) His budget would turn the food stamp program into a block-grant program for states. It also would encourage states to limit the amount of time that the unemployed can access food stamps and limit food stamp eligibility mostly to workers. (AP Photo/Dinesh Ramde) His budget would cut Medicare spending and turn the program into a subsidized private-insurance program. This would translate into less health care for seniors, according to the Washington Post's Ezra Klein, as well as more expensive health insurance, according to the left-leaning Center for American Progress. (AP Photo/Jeff Barnard) If it stays in effect, Obamacare would reduce the number of uninsured Americans by 27 million by 2023, according the Congressional Budget Office. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File) His budget would limit eligibility for the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) welfare program mostly to people that are working. (Photo by Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images) His budget would cut funding for a variety of domestic programs -- potentially including child care, education, women's preventive health care and domestic violence prevention, according to the National Women's Law Center. (AP Photo/Michael Dwyer) Paul Ryan Poverty Marcia Fudge Poverty Food Stamps Ted Yoho Congress Poor Congressional Black Caucus Poverty America Marcia Fudge Poverty Paul Ryan Budget Barbara Lee Poverty Congress Poverty World Elections in 2013 Hal Rogers Paul Gosar Tom Rooney Poverty in America Barbara Lee The Congress: Poverty Bill's Progress - TIME Out of Poverty Caucus This Week in Poverty: Sequestration, Housing, Homelessness Grading Congress on Income Inequality - Moyers & Company Why Does the Wealth Gap Between Congress and Voters Matter ... It's the Inequality, Stupid | Mother Jones Top Earners Doubled Share of Nation's Income, Study Finds Click here to view Conversations

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/541

Raze Homes to Deny Palestinian ‘Victory’ by Amira Schiff This debate on whether to destroy the houses in the Gaza settlements before disengaging is part of a series of discussions among younger scholars sponsored by the Center for Israel Studies of the University of Judaism. During recent months we have been witness to heated protests by settlement residents opposed to the disengagement and evacuation plan, and these manifestations are likely to intensify during the coming summer. However, even for the majority of Israelis who accept the logic of disengagement, the process includes knotty, painful decisions. One of them is the conundrum of whether or not to destroy the settlers' homes as part of the evacuation of the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria. What makes this question so grave is today's situation in which it is impossible to coordinate the disengagement process with the Palestinian side. While the Israeli government's disengagement decision of June 2004 stated that no settlers' homes or sensitive structures, including synagogues, would remain standing, the rising voices being heard today, even among the security forces, of leaving houses intact, renews the need to stand firm and not alter the government's original decision. The intensity of the emotionally charged situation, for both Israelis and Palestinians, demands that the settlers' home be razed during the pullback. The decision to establish Jewish settlements in Gaza was taken after the 1967 Six-Day War, in recognition of the political and security importance of Jewish settlement as a buffer along the Egyptian border. From 1948 to 1967, Gaza was controlled by Egypt and used as a base for launching terror attacks against Israel, and the violence continued in the late 1960s. Successive Israeli governments, beginning with the Labor led-government of the time, encouraged Israel's young adults to settle there, on a mission supported by all parties within the Zionist consensus. Following the "three nos" of the Arab summit in Khartoum, settlers had no reason to think that the communities were temporary. Since then, the settlements have come a long way. With their own hands, settlers built homes and schools, constructed farms and factories to provide income, and raised their children. Today, one can find five generations of a family born and living there. Gush Katif takes pride in its magnificent educational institutions. There are also cemeteries where loved ones have been interred, including those murdered by Palestinian terrorists. Throughout the years, settlers there have been subjected to constant attacks, including infiltration attempts and shootings at vehicles en route to the settlements as well as mortar fire at settlers' homes, which has lethally intensified in recent years. Since publication of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's disengagement plan late in 2003, and because of the Hamas' desire to take credit for causing Israel to withdraw and evacuate settlements, the settlers' lives have become even more difficult. Those who now advocate leaving the homes standing propose transferring them to the Palestinian Authority on humanitarian grounds in return for monetary recompense. The transfer can, in their opinion, be carried out directly or through a third party. In countering this contention, it would be wise to remember that the government's guiding principle in its original decision to destroy the homes and sensitive buildings while leaving other facilities intact was intelligence information about the planned takeover of the buildings by terror organizations. Last March, Abu Mazen went so far as to agree to a joint committee of Palestinian organizations, including the terror organizations, which would determine how to distribute the Jewish property left in the Gaza Strip. On this background, the idea of transferring homes to a third party in return for some economic recompense would seem to be more promising. The idea of transferring the homes to the Palestinians via a third party who would allegedly monitor those who took up residence in them sounds reasonable and certainly more economic than simply destroying the property. However, at the time of this writing, there is still no proposed third party capable of preventing the Hamas from raising their flags on the houses or using former Jewish homes as bases for terror attacks. Regardless of the third party's capabilities, in the final analysis those enjoying the fruits of the settlers' efforts will be the Palestinians -- if not those who committed the terror acts then those who aided, abetted and encouraged terror against the settlers. As the Bible so succinctly asked, "Have you both murdered and inherited?" Beyond considering the deepest feelings of the settlers, who are flesh of our flesh, it is also essential to examine the ramifications for Israel's long-term interests of leaving the homes to the Palestinians. We have already seen how steps perceived by Israeli decision-makers as serving Israel's interests have been etched into Palestinian and Arab consciousness as Israeli weakness. It is important to consider well whether leaving the houses for the Palestinians in the name of coordination and trust, even in return for a seemly sum, is worth the damage of feeding the Palestinians' belief that they can successfully chase Israeli settlers from their homes, take over their property, and fly the flag of the Palestinian Authority over their homes. Amira Schiff is a doctoral candidate in the political studies department at Bar-Ilan University. She is currently writing her dissertation on pre-negotiation process in the Israeli-Palestinian and the Cypriot conflicts. center for israel studies disengaging university of judaism younger scholars Entrapment, Surrender and Silence

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/612

Stay U.S. Immigration Policy Program Border Security U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement DACA at the Two-Year Mark: A National and State Profile of Youth Eligible and Applying for Deferred Action DACA Information Summit/Neighborhood Centers Inc. Fifty-five percent of the 1.2 million unauthorized immigrant youth immediately eligible for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program launched in 2012 had applied as of July 20, 2014. This report provides the most up-to-date estimates available for the size, countries of origin, educational attainment, employment, English proficiency, age, gender, and poverty rates for the DACA population nationally and for key states, and is accompanied by a new data tool with national and state-level data. U.S. Immigration Reform Resources MPI has compiled in one easy-to-access location its key research and data resources on issues, policies, enforcement programs, and more that relate to the immigration reform debate underway in Washington. More than IRCA: U.S. Legalization Programs and the Current Policy Debate Immigrant Legalization in the United States and European Union: Policy Goals and Program Design Structuring and Implementing an Immigrant Legalization Program: Registration as the First Step By Donald M. Kerwin and Laureen Laglagaron U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Alan Bersin Discusses His Vision for CBP Potential Reforms to the U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program DREAM vs. Reality: An Analysis of Potential DREAM Act Beneficiaries Marc Rosenblum Testimony Video: Immigration and U.S. Immigration Policy Pages« first‹ previous…8910111213141516…next ›last » Slightly more than 2.1 million unauthorized immigrant youth and young adults could be eligible to apply for legal status under the 2010 DREAM Act, though historical trends indicate that perhaps fewer than 40 percent would obtain legal status because of a variety of limitations. This policy brief offers detailed estimates of potential DREAM Act beneficiaries. Testimony of Marc Rosenblum, MPI Senior Policy Analyst, before the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. 7th Annual Immigration Law and Policy Conference The conference, co-sponsored by Georgetown Law, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., and the Migration Policy Institute, focused immigration and refugee law and policy. Immigrants: Contributors to the Economy or Competitors for American Jobs? Briefing and discussion of the release of the latest paper by MPI's Labor Markets Initiative: The Impact of Immigrants in Recession and Economic Expansion. Video, Audio Reform of the Immigration Removal Adjudication System A discussion on possible reforms to the immigration adjudication system and the recent report on the topic by the American Bar Association's Commission on Immigration. 'Securing Human Mobility' book release discussion with Susan Ginsburg, Michael German, Luis Rubio, and Donald M. Kerwin. Immigrant Legalization: Assessing Labor Market Effects Public Policy Institute of California researchers Magnus Lofstrom and Laura Hill discuss their research examining the potential labor market outcomes and other possible economic effects of a legalization program. This volume, by a former senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission, argues that the U.S. approach to immigration and border security is off-kilter and not keeping pace with the scope and complexity of people’s movement around the world, nor with expectations regarding freedom of movement. A Discussion on U.S. Immigration Policy Video of L2muSse1owg MPI's U.S. Immigration Policy Director Doris Meissner discusses the policies, trends, and programs that have resulted in today's U.S. immigration system, and the prospects for legislative reform. Subscribe for Updates About the Program The U.S. Immigration Policy Program analyzes U.S. policies and their impacts, as well as the complex demographic, economic, political, foreign policy, and other forces that shape immigration to the United States. The program also offers influential thought leadership and policy recommendations regarding ways to improve the U.S. immigration system. The U.S. Policy Beat in MPI's Online Journal Each month, MPI authors review major legislative, judicial, and executive action on U.S. immigration at the local, state, and federal levels. This month's article focuses on state access to federal immigration data. "More than 10 years after 9/11 and 26 years after IRCA, enforcement first has de facto become the nation's singular policy response to illegal immigration." - Excerpt from "Immigration Enforcement in the United States: The Rise of a Formidable Machinery" Read the Report U.S. Immigration Data from MPI's Data Hub Immigrants in the U.S. Workforce Independent Task Force on Immigration and America's FutureIn 2006, the Task Force articulated a vision that promotes U.S. global competitiveness in the context of post-9/11 security imperatives, while tackling many of the technical details that have made immigration such an intractable public policy topic. Doris Meissner, former Commissioner of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, directs MPI's U.S. immigration policy work. Demetrios G. Papademetriou is Co-Founder of MPI and President of Migration Policy Institute Europe. (On study sabbatical through 2014) Muzaffar ChishtiMarc R. RosenblumJames W. ZiglarMadeleine SumptionMichael FixRandy CappsJeanne Batalova Media Contact

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/636

An Interview with Jimmy Kemp Larry Kudlow Last Saturday, I had the pleasure of interviewing Jimmy Kemp on my syndicated radio show. Jimmy is the son of the late great Jack Kemp, and he now runs the Jack Kemp Foundation. And like his dad, Jimmy is also a great advocate for free enterprise. During our talk, Jimmy and I discussed his dad, free-enterprise zones, the Reagan 1980s, and economic growth. Here’s the transcript: Kudlow: I was talking about Jack Kemp my mentor, the late Jack Kemp, the great Jack Kemp, my friend and mentor, and his great message of economic growth and opportunity for all. I want to emphasize those last two words- for all. Nobody, in my lifetime, in either party, has reached out with a message of hope, growth and opportunity to minorities better than Jack Kemp. And I want to bring in my pal, Jimmy Kemp, who runs the Jack Kemp Foundation because, Jimmy is now the keeper of the scrolls and he is also a great friend. Jim, how are you buddy? Kemp: I’m great Larry, how are you? Kudlow: I’m okay uh you know, there’s some scattered, you see some scattered columns and websites that talk about where’s the Jack Kemp, the new Jack Kemp in the Republican Party but, it was Jack’s message- I gave a talk, it was very funny, I gave a talk to the Wall people, the Manhattan, New York Republican Party and I’ve done this a little bit on the Kudlow Report, we had a whole Jack Kemp segment two nights ago- Kemp: I saw it. Kudlow: Alright, what I remember, let’s put the tax cuts aside for a minute, as important as they are, what I remember, particularly when Jack was the Secretary of HUD, because I was one of his volunteer kitchen cabinet there; Jack wanted Empowerment Zones- Kemp: Enterprise Zones. Kudlow: Enterprise Zones, tax free Enterprise Zones- Kemp: Not tax credits, but tax free, you’re right. Kudlow: And as much home ownership as possible for minority groups. Jack went to the projects, he actually went to the projects in Detroit, Chicago, L.A., and New York. He worked with Charlie Rangel, the great, black Congressman in New York City and we developed what became Empowerment Zones here in New York City. My wife’s art studio is in one, I mean am I wrong here? Is my memory betraying me? Kemp: No, no of course not. And part of what Dad understood is that- good policy, as great as Kemp-Roth was at cutting tax rates at that time, which was, reflecting on it, it was obvious tax rates were confiscatory. You couldn’t have them that high and have a growing economy. But he also knew at the same time, back in the 70’s, way before he was at H.U.D., but in order to have good policy it can only be policy that can be passed and in order to pass it he had to get Democrats. Larry, he was a Republican in a Democrat controlled House of Representatives and yet they had President Reagan in 1980, but he had to convince people, like Charlie Rangel, that he really did care. And that these policies that were “conservative,” he liked to call them liberal, because they were intended to free people to provide equal opportunity and knew that tax rates went along with providing that equality of opportunity in the housing sector, for people starting businesses in ghettos or barrios or poor urban areas, wherever they were. He knew that capitalism without capital is nothing but an ism, as Jesse Jackson had said and you had to get capital to people who would do something with it. He trusted people, and, as you pointed out, all people, not just rich folks who went to good schools. Kudlow: See that’s the thing. Now the Republican Party is, some people in the Republican Party are trying to open up immigration reform. I’m all for it. Your dad believed that immigrants were a positive force. Kemp: E pluribus unum. Kudlow: Right. He would have been on the right side of that issue today. But, you know, Jimmy, It’s just like reaching out and saying okay we’re going to give you a green card, that’s not really the answer. I mean what I’m saying is Jack Kemp had a set of policies, besides low tax rates, he had ownership policies, he had empowerment policies, he had, let’s see, no capital gains tax if you moved a business into an Empowerment Zone, which would attract capital and people. There was human capital and financial capital. Kemp visited the projects, I want to emphasize it, Kemp met with La Raza Hispanics. Kemp visited the projects. When we were negotiating back in , I don’t know when this was Jimmy, 1991, Jack sent me to a couple of meetings with La Raza with his Rep. to try to figure out how to get a zero capital gains tax and La Raza backed it. They actually backed it. Now, Republicans don’t do that anymore. They don’t show up in the projects, they don’t go to a La Raza meeting, they don’t get photographed with Hispanic leaders and black leaders anymore. That was stuff Kemp did, it was great stuff. Why doesn’t anybody do that now, follow his example Kemp: Well, the greatest example and a guy we all love and respect, Paul Ryan, who worked for Dad. H made the calculated decision to focus on our incredible budget deficit and the spending that was out of control in the entitlement programs and led, Larry as you know, it took him away from the main thrust of Dad’s career. And there isn’t anybody who has jumped into that, really opportunity, the way that Dad took the reins, and there are a lot of great leaders today. I’m not discouraged. Part of our purpose at the Kemp Foundation is to help support or political leaders and we’re certainly not pessimistic because we certainly couldn’t have the name Kemp associated with us if we were. You’ve got governors who are doing the right thing, you’ve got plenty of congressmen and senators, but we do need a more robust discussion of the components of an economic policy because there should never be any discussion of a new normal, I know you hate that phrase. This country has too much capability and abilities, not only in the board rooms, but in classrooms around the country. Kudlow: Growth should be unlimited. Just to reset the table, we’re talking to Jimmy Kemp who is the president of the Jack Kemp Foundation. I am holding up, you see these stories about Jack Kemp, one story was written, “We need entrepreneurs like Jack Kemp.” Okay, I’m fine with that, but I don’t want to miss the essential point here, the essential point; Jack’s goal was growth, in other words, if you grew the economy rapidly through lower tax rates, less regulation and sound money, if you grew the economy that was a weapon to shrink the budget deficit and the debt. That was Jack’s way out. That didn’t mean he’d vote for spending bills that were unnecessary, but he understood that debt to GDP, that Republicans obsess about all the time, you solve that, in some sense, by growing the GDP. Kemp: Sure, you want a bigger pie. Kudlow: Bigger pie! And secondly, with the debate about so called Republican outreach to minorities look at what Kemp did. Kemp didn’t do it just to win votes, he had a program. Let’s go through it again, it was home ownership, it was enterprise zones, it was tax-free enterprise zones. He would go to the meetings and the rallies and meet with the leadership. He already showed the way. What we need is a Kemp biography here to let people read this stuff and that’s what he did, he was a one-man band. Some Republicans made fun of him, the country club crowd made fun of him, Jimmy, but we should follow his lead now. Kemp: Well, yeah, the Kemp Foundation has a biography in the works and then we’re also releasing, in 2013, all of his speeches, which were previously released in a volume called the American Idea. And American Renaissance, we’re going to put out as well. The American Idea will have all of the speeches that were in it previously, but a bunch added to it. Kudlow: Who’s doing the biography Jimmy? We only have 25 seconds. Who’s doing the Biography Jimmy? Kemp: We’ve got Mort Kondracke and Fred Barnes working on it. Kudlow: I did the oral history. I want to see that. I want to work on that biography. Kemp: Alright. Kudlow: Jimmy Kemp, president of the Jack Kemp Foundation. That was Jack Kemp’s message, hope and opportunity for everybody, including minorities. I’m Larry Kudlow and we’ll be back with some budget talk on the other side of the break.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/667

So Sorry....Too Busy....Can't Participate Earlier this year, I learned from a guy whose name is Reince Priebus that, moving forward, the Republican Party was going to work harder to win over non-white voters to the GOP "message." As a matter of fact, when Priebus announced the GOP autopsy report, he promised that the GOP would spend $10 million reaching out to minorities. Not So Funny Clowns The Guardian published it's first piece based on the leaked material of Edward Snowden on June 5, 2013. On June 14th, Florida Democratic Representative Alan Grayson spoke from the floor of the House about what was revealed in the Guardian about the NSA's hoovering and storing program..... "This is not the first time that the government has entered into surveillance on people without probable cause. Many of us remember that there was FBI surveillance of Dr. Martin Luther King, including wiretapping and bugging his personal conversations. I thought -- perhaps naively -- that we'd moved beyond that. And, in some sense, we have moved beyond that. Because now they're doing it to everybody." Leaking In Plain Sight + "Punishment" Remember how Bradley Manning helped our "enemies" by leaking, after the fact, the Iraq video of a U.S. helicopter gunship slaughtering unarmed Iraqi civilians indiscriminately....circling around to attack more civilians who came to help those wounded? Me either. Yes, Manning's leaks embarrassed the Leaders of our "shining city on a hill".....but no evidence was ever presented explaining how those leaks placed anyone in jeopardy. Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison last week. Are The Lives Of U.S. Citizens A "National Interest?" Took a long weekend.....and I will be taking another long weekend this week. Contrary to popular lore, bloggers have real lives too. I see that while I was working on my tan.....all the smart people decided it was the right and proper time to attack another middle eastern country. This time it is Syria. Our military is currently drone-killing in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and perhaps Somalia. Sacrificing Children At Gun Altar? Since Newtown, seven accidental child shooting deaths (where “child” is defined as “12 and under”) have been recorded in Ohio, which, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, doesn’t have any child access prevention laws on the books.* Five have been recorded in Texas, which does. In 2010, 15,576 children and teenagers were injured by firearms — three times more than the number of U.S. soldiers injured in the war in Afghanistan,.... 'Don't Know Much About History' The cornerstone doctrine of the conservative movement in the United States of 2013 is based on an entirely faulty interpretation of U.S. history. How many times have you heard the line... 'the Founders intention in the Constitution was to "limit" the powers of the federal government?' "Limited government." In this misinterpretation, or twisted version, of historical truth......the Constitution grants the federal government only very "limited" powers, and individual states remained sovereign with significant power, all because "states rights" were equal to federal rights.....or "states rights" trumped federal power. Republicans Poised To Lose Senior Vote? One of the most reliably Republican-voting demographic groups has been American seniors. In the 2012 general election, seniors favored the GOP candidate, Mitt Romney, by a 12% margin. In the 2008 general election seniors favored McCain over Obama by 8%. In the Tea Party GOP sweep of the 2010 midterm election, seniors voted for Republicans over Democrats by a whopping 21% margin. For some reason, however, senior voters polled in July 2013 appear to be moving away from their traditional loyalties to the GOP..... To read more or comment... A Twofer In Ohio: GOP Wars Against Women & Science After the 2010 midterm win by Republicans, GOP governors conspired together to implement a scorched-earth policy against women and their legal rights. If you think multiple Republican-controlled state governments each came up with their own individual plan to wage war against female autonomy.....and the various red state war-on-women plans all just happened, coincidentally, to contain the same, or similar, provisions.....you need to think again. Women in the United States, and particularly women in GOP-controlled states, are being attacked by their state governments. Yes, it's a war......and Republicans have declared it by working to deny women their right to choose their own reproductive lives. The political party which boasts the most about "freedom"....oddly.....is the same political party passing state laws to eliminate the freedom of state citizens who happen to be female. The Plan: Hide In Plain Sight Last week, RNC Chair Reince Priebus announced the full RNC's vote to boycott any and all primary debates conducted by CNN and NBC....if the two teevee channels dared to air documentaries or mini-series about Hillary Clinton. Just like when Senate Minority Leader McConnell sent a letter to professional sports leagues threatening their "reputations" if they teamed with the White House to advertise the rollout of Obamacare.....Priebus' RNC had warned CNN and NBC about their choice of entertainment programming in 2014, threatening the two teevee channels with a Republican debate boycott if the "liberal" channels followed through with their planned Hillary programming content. Hysterical Over Shariah Oklahoma just may be the reddest of all red states. In the last three general elections, all 77 of Oklahoma's counties voted for the Republican presidential candidate. Mitt Romney won the state by a 67-33% margin over Obama last November. The politically conservative state voted five U.S. House Representatives and 2 U.S. Senators to Congress.......all seven are Republicans. The state legislature of Oklahoma consists of 72 Republicans and 29 Democrats in the House and 36 Republicans and 12 Democrats in the state Senate. Clearly, the state should not be confused with a progressive state. GOP Nearing "Eve of Destruction?" It was interesting to read Politico's newest headline piece describing the plight of the Republican Party. The short piece is called "Eve of Destruction"...... It is almost impossible to find an establishment Republican in town who’s not downright morose about the 2013 that has been and is about to be. Most dance around it in public, but they see this year as a disaster in the making, even if most elected Republicans don’t know it or admit it. Healthcare Insurance IS Socialism No links. No references. Just The Reverend opining. Because conservatives and Teas have been pep-rallying themselves in preparation for creating yet another needless crisis over Obamacare before September is out.....I thought I would mention something about the for-profit health care insurance industry, you know, the "market-based" healthcare insurance industry. "Tool" Time Yesterday, a judge finally had the chance to rule on the egregious "stop and frisk" police policy used against citizens of New York City. Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, ruling on a class-action lawsuit, wrote that the policy violated plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights barring unreasonable searches, finding that police made at least 200,000 stops from 2004 to June 2012 without reasonable suspicion. The GOP Tantrum Over The ACA Remember when Democrats repeatedly threatened to shut the government down if Medicare Plan D wasn't defunded and/or repealed? Remember when Democrats mocked Bush and the Republicans for making seniors even more "dependent" on government with Plan D? Remember when House Democrats made a national laughing stock out of the "donut hole", a provision in Plan D which assists seniors with the costs of pharmaceuticals until total yearly costs reach $2700 or so.....and then seniors must pay out of pocket entirely until costs exceed around $5000? No, I don't remember Democrats doing those things either. Because they didn't.....do those things. Terror Threat...."Worse Than Ever" Fox's Chris Wallace and Sen. John McCain on Fox News Sunday yesterday questioning Obama's closing of 19 U.S. embassies last week.... Wallace: ....."in closing those embassies to respond to the terror threat or are some of the foreign partners say -- did it seem to be an act on retreat of the part of this country against its threats in the Middle East?" Too Many Secrets If you missed Obama's press conference yesterday at 3PM.....transcript is here. I'll have more to say about the press conference next week. But because President Obama spent a lot of time at the presser justifying and defending the Surveillance State's communications hoovering programs....insisting safeguards and blah-blah-blah are in place with checks and blah-blah.....also congressional oversight blah-blah.......I thought I'd share this story with you to disperse the cloud of smoke Obama left surrounding the Total-Recall-style Surveillance State practices as of 2013. Snowden, Obama & The Cold Warriors Edward Snowden's leaking of the details of the massive and secretive Surveillance State hasn't jeopardized national security nor placed assets in the field in danger. Yes, Surveillance State apologists will argue otherwise.....but they provide no evidence to defend their claims. Snowden's leaked material has caused tremendous embarrassment for U.S. Surveillance State leaders who, for years, have been claiming they are not "spying" on their own citizens in an unconstitutional manner. Snowden's leaks demonstrated beyone reasonable doubt that all those claims were a crock of hooey. Crazy Over Hillary RNC chairman Reince Priebus is angry. To this blogger, an angry Priebus is a humorous Priebus.....and so initially, when I read about Reince's threatening letter to entertainment channels CNN and NBC.....I was amused. Seems as though Reince doesn't really appreciate the 2014-scheduled programming decisions of entertainment channels NBC and CNN. CNN is planning to air a "documentary" on Hillary Clinton, and NBC has a four-part mini-series scheduled next year which will feature Diane Lane as the former First Lady. Because the Republican Party cherishes freedom of expression so much, the party's Chairman got out his box of Crayolas and fired off a threatening letter to the two entertainment network's bosses. Coincidence Or Calculation? On Wednesday evening, July 24th, the U.S. House of Representatives voted down an amendment that would have ended the NSA's wholesale collection without warrants of all U.S. electronic communications. The amendment was introduced by GOP Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan. He explained the amendment this way.... Be Careful What You Google Immediately after 9-11, comic Bill Maher lost his job hosting ABC's "Politically Incorrect" for saying this on air..... “We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it’s not cowardly.” Groundswelling The Propaganda If you have ever wondered how multiple charges of "scandals" against President Obama seemed to come out of nowhere a few months ago...and all at once....David Corn's recent Mother Jones articles on Groundswell will help illuminate the subject. To read more or comment...

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/753

Opinion | Commentary A lighter touch In his lecture in Rutland on Tuesday, reporter David Sanger described a moment when President Obama revealed much about his way of thinking.Sanger, chief Washington correspondent for The New York Times, told of a meeting of Obama and his advisers in 2009 when they were considering the cost of the war in Afghanistan. The Pentagon told him a war to stabilize Afghanistan would require 40,000 to 80,000 troops and would cost $1 trillion over 10 years. Obama observed that that was the cost of insuring all Americans for the same period.In Sanger�s view this was a seminal moment for the choices shaping the young Obama administration. In drawing that cost comparison Obama was accepting the reality that, especially in a time of financial crisis, choices must be made.What emerged were policies to limit the ever-increasing burden of foreign military adventures and also to ease the burden of health care costs on the American people.The Bush administration undertook foreign wars as if choices were not required � as if America could have it all. It launched the war in Afghanistan in 2001 as a response to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Most people viewed the Afghan war as a war of self-defense: The U.S. was going after al-Qaida, which had attacked us, and the Taliban, which had harbored al-Qaida. But President Bush insisted on extending the war to Iraq, which had no part in the Sept. 11 attacks, for reasons that have been lost within the fog of Bush administration lies and misinformation. The war was enormously costly to the United States in dollars and prestige. It created new instability in the Middle East and strengthened Iran, whose nuclear weapons program is now seen as a major threat. Obama made a name for himself as an early opponent of the war in Iraq and as a presidential candidate, he promised to end it. He has made good on that promise. He has also worked to create a semblance of stability in Afghanistan, initiating a temporary surge of troops that took place in the context of a withdrawal now foreseen for 2014. Obama saw that we could not stay there forever.What Sanger called a new �lighter� foreign policy has shaped his responses to upheavals in Egypt, Libya, Syria and other Middle Eastern hot spots. Libya was a case in point. As rebels took up arms against Moammar Gadhafi, Obama was determined not to allow the United States to become bogged down in another ground war. Instead he provided leadership �from behind,� as one of his aides described it. A better description was �behind the scenes.� The United States provided logistical support and backed up France and other NATO allies in providing air support. But Obama understood that U.S. troops on the ground were not necessarily a solution. He avoided another quagmire. And Gadhafi fell.Syria is another even more troubling test for his lighter foreign policy. It is tempting to believe that the U.S. could resolve the Syrian civil war by sending in the Marines. But we have learned that sending in the Marines comes with enormous complications and costs. Early in the Syrian struggle, Syrian rebels were themselves leery of U.S. involvement. Now they need humanitarian and logistical support, plus arms and ammunition, and they are getting them from various sources, such as Saudi Arabia. But Obama, no doubt recalling the blowback that occurred when the U.S. armed jihadist groups in Afghanistan, does not want U.S. arms to fall into the hands of al-Qaida again.A lighter foreign policy is also a smarter foreign policy in this instance. And it will allow the United States to regain its fiscal balance. Obama famously noted during his campaign that Bush had fought two wars on a credit card. We have enough costs to bear, for health care and everything else, without wasteful and counterproductive wars adding to the tab.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/796

MICHAEL VAN SICKLERTampa Bay TimesMonday, February 18, 2013 7:32pm The current system is not sustainable, says House Speaker Will Weatherford. TALLAHASSEE — House Speaker Will Weatherford's push to close the state's $136 billion pension system to new state employees is on hold. Proposal to cut pension benefits would hit retirees Treasure Island hits snag on north-end development rules Florida pension reform fails again despite powerful backing A report released Friday was supposed to provide an estimate of how much the change would cost to pay out benefits to the employees currently in the system while switching new state employees into 401(k)-style retirement plans. Instead, the report was deemed incomplete. Weatherford said Monday that he wants the missing information before he can decide his next move, and that won't be until at least March 1. Weatherford, R-Wesley Chapel, has made ending pensions for new employees one of his top priorities of the coming legislative session. He says change is needed because the state's current pension — which has about 145,000 current and future beneficiaries, including Hillsborough, Hernando and Pasco school and sheriff's office employees — is unsustainable and will require a mammoth taxpayer bailout sometime in the future. Unions oppose the move because they say it shifts costs and risks to workers. A report released Friday by Milliman, a Virginia actuarial firm, concluded that closing the state's pension system to future employees would endanger the benefits of those currently enrolled in the pension plan. The problem: Because Weatherford's proposal would turn away new workers, the pension plan would be forced to rely on a shrinking payroll base on which contributions to retirees are made. To make up the shortfall, either workers or taxpayers would chip in more, the report stated. Weatherford said he wasn't surprised that the $70,000 report, which he had ordered, concluded it would cost more money to reform Florida's retirement system. "We know that doesn't come free," Weatherford said. But what the report didn't include were costs associated with keeping the pension plan intact, making it difficult to compare costs between reform and status quo. Weatherford said he didn't know why that estimate wasn't included. "We do need, I believe, to have that baseline so that we can give the citizens of Florida and the Legislature all the information necessary to make a decision," Weatherford said. Ben Wolf, a spokesman for Florida's Department of Management Services, said that as soon as the report was received, state officials notified Milliman that the study was incomplete. He said another study, this one costing $25,000, will be sent to the state explaining how much the current pension system will cost. So far, at least, Senate President Don Gaetz hasn't publicly matched Weatherford's enthusiasm in reforming the retirement system for state workers, teachers and college and local government employees. Altogether, the pension system serves 1,007 different agencies across Florida, from the Tampa Sports Authority to the Pasco County Mosquito Control District to Pinellas County government. The Senate is preoccupied instead with reforming smaller pension systems that are run separately by local governments. Sen. Jeremy Ring, D-Margate, who chairs the Senate committee that is handling pension reform, said he doesn't see a pressing need to reform the state pension plan. "With municipal pensions, there's a legitimate need for reform," Ring said. "But the Florida Retirement System is a completely different discussion because it's difficult to define the urgency. I don't believe moving to a 401(k) system is a bad thing. The challenge, however, and it's a big however, is that it could be a bad thing in terms of how much it could cost to close down." Ring said he's received little guidance from Gaetz on the issue. "And that's because he wants to wait for all actuarial reports to come out," Ring said. "Ultimately, he'll have to get engaged and give us some direction." But with the confusion over the Milliman report, that would have to wait. Gaetz's spokeswoman, Katie Betta, said in an email that he was reviewing the study and couldn't comment. Michael Van Sickler can be reached at (850) 224-7263 or [email protected]. Weatherford's plan for pension reform hits a snag 02/18/13 [Last modified: Monday, February 18, 2013 9:49pm]

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/799

These politicians don't want young people to vote By Catherine Rampell, Washington Post CATHERINE RAMPELLWashington PostTuesday, July 8, 2014 5:45pm First they came for blacks, and we said nothing. Then they came for Latinos, poor people and married women, and we again ignored the warning signs. Don't complain if you don't vote Editorial: A politician in denial Politicians lied, and I got to pay Now, after our years of apathy, they're coming for us: the nation's millennials. Across the country, Republican state policymakers have hoisted barriers to voting by passing voter-ID laws and curtailing electoral accommodations such as same-day registration and early voting. These policy changes are allegedly intended to eradicate the imagined scourge of voter fraud, but the real point seems to be voter suppression. For a time, the targeted populations were primarily racial, ethnic and income groups that traditionally vote Democratic. Now they happen to include Gen-Y'ers, more specifically my college-age brethren. We millennials may be fickle in our loyalties, generally distrustful of government institutions and unaligned with any political party, but our generation's motley, liberal-to-libertarian-leaning ideological preferences still threaten red-state leadership. In response, Republicans have set out to erect creative, if potentially unconstitutional, Tough-Mudder-style obstacle courses along our path to the polls. Last year in Ohio, for example, Republican legislators proposed a measure that would effectively strip hundreds of millions of dollars from state schools if they continued to provide students paying out-of-state tuition with the paperwork necessary to register to vote in the state (as courts have said college students are legally allowed to do). In Maine, the secretary of state investigated 200 university students for voter fraud; he found no evidence of wrongdoing but then sent a threatening letter telling them that they must either obtain a Maine driver's license and register their vehicles or cancel their state voter registrations. In Texas, photo identification is required to vote and, while concealed handgun licenses count, state-school-issued student IDs don't. North Carolina's efforts have been particularly aggressive, perhaps because young people represent an especially threatening voting bloc to the Republicans in control there. Without the strong turnout of young voters in 2008, after all, Barack Obama would not have become the first Democratic presidential candidate in more than two decades to carry the Tar Heel state. Like other states, North Carolina has eliminated many accommodations disproportionately used by young people and other first-time voters, such as same-day registration, and instituted voter-ID requirements that don't recognize student IDs. But it has also stopped allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to fill out voter-registration forms early so that they can be automatically registered upon reaching majority age. Another state Senate bill last year would have effectively raised taxes on parents of students who registered to vote where they attend college. Perhaps it is unsurprising, then, that the state faces a lawsuit filed by college students, aided by several voter registration advocacy groups. The suit essentially claims that the state is engaging in age discrimination. Age discrimination accusations may be off-limits to young people in employment settings — federal law doesn't protect workers under age 40 — but when it comes to elections, the plaintiffs have a shot. The 26th Amendment, which lowered the federal voting age to 18 in 1971, guarantees that the right to vote "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age." Republican lawmakers may feel threatened by the political proclivities of millennials, but the truth is, aside from 2008, young people are not usually much of a concern to either party because our turnout rates are so poor. Of all age groups, Americans 18 to 29 consistently have the lowest participation rates — even in the 2008 election, when our generation was galvanized around an unusually inspiring presidential candidate promising hope and change. That year, just 51 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds cast ballots. Sadly, it was the first time since 1972 that a majority of young people voted. For years, get-out-the-vote groups such as Rock the Vote and Citizen Change have tried to market voting as rebellious and enviably adult (including by enlisting celebrity spokespeople who were unregistered themselves, and at least one who was possibly barred from voting due to felony records). If Paris Hilton, 50 Cent and Madonna can't convince young people to vote, maybe a bunch of old white men trying to bar their path will do the job. — Washington Post These politicians don't want young people to vote 07/08/14 [Last modified: Tuesday, July 8, 2014 5:45pm] Copyright: For copyright information, please check with the distributor of this item, Washington Post.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/861

Topic: Cecilia Munoz Obama Delivers Remarks At the Democratic Governors Association MeetingU.S. President Barack Obama, center, speaks while meeting with members of the Democratic Governors Association in the State Dining Room with John Podesta, counselor to Obama, from left, David Simas, assistant to Obama, U.S. Vice President Joseph "Joe" Biden, Valerie Jarrett, senior advisor to Obama, Cecilia Munoz, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, and Gene Sperling, director of the National Economic Council (NEC), in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Friday, Feb. 21, 2014. Obama will emphasize Democratic priorities in his next budget, dropping an offer to trim the growth of entitlement spending and proposing new tax limits for U.S.-based multi-national companies. UPI/Andrew Harrer/Pool | License Photo White House summit seeks commitment from higher ed, businesses U.S. President Barack Obama said Thursday he will use the power of the pen and persuasion to help all Americans take advantage of the nation's economic growth. Obama asks insurance commissioners for ideas on ACA implementation President Obama Wednesday told insurance commissioners he wants to hear any ideas that would improve implementation of Obamacare, the White House said. 25 service members take citizenship oath President Obama said Independence Day was the perfect day for military personnel who took an oath of service to take an oath of citizenship. Colleges commit to cost transparency College cost transparency is the discussion topic for a meeting of U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, Education Secretary Arne Duncan and 10 college system leaders. Former financial lobbyist now in Treasury A former Goldman Sachs lobbyist has been tapped as a top aide to U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. Hispanics aim to stop 'wave of hate' The nation's largest Hispanic advocacy group says it must reverse the "wave of hate" used to sink the immigration bill in the U.S. Senate last month. Greyhound draws ire of civil rights groups Greyhound Lines Inc. is causing a stir as it tries to balance between violating federal immigration law and losing Latino riders. Washington Agenda-General Washington Agenda - General For content questions, call 202-898-8291 Washington Agenda-General News Events For content questions, call 202-898-8291 Washington Agenda - General News Events For content questions, call 202-898-8291 Wiki Cecilia Muñoz (b. July 27, 1962) is a civil rights advocate. She works as Senior Vice President for the Office of Research, Advocacy and Legislation at the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), a nonprofit organization established to improve opportunities for Hispanic Americans, overseeing legislative activities that cover issues of importance to immigrants and minorities. President Barack Obama chose Muñoz to succeed Elizabeth Dial as the Director of Intergovernmental Affairs. In July 2000, she was named a MacArthur Foundation Fellow. Muñoz was born in Detroit, Michigan the youngest of four children. Her parents had moved to the United States from La Paz, Bolivia, so that her father, an automotive engineer, could go to the University of Michigan. When she was three, the family moved to Livonia, a middle-class, predominantly white Detroit suburb. Muñoz attended the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. As a volunteer, she worked as a tutor to Hispanic American inmates at the state prison in nearby Jackson. She earned undergraduate degrees in English and Latin American studies in 1984. Following graduation, Muñoz continued her education at the University of California at Berkeley, where she earned a master's degree. Muñoz is married to Amit Pandya, a human rights lawyer; the couple has two daughters. FULL ARTICLE AT WIKIPEDIA.ORG This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Cecilia Munoz." That had an extraordinary impact in the Senate, and as a nation, I don't think we should be comfortable with the fact that the U.S. Senate responded to what was largely a wave of hate Hispanics aim to stop 'wave of hate'

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/874

Jason Stanford: Can Obama Recover? Jason Stanford January 6, 2014 Despite what some called “Obama’s worst year ever” and what everyone agreed was terrible, horrible, no good, very bad Obamacare rollout, Barack Obama’s job approval rating has bounced back out of the 30s and into the mid-40s—not great, but neither the inexorable slide into oblivion that many predicted. Once again, the reports of Obama’s political death have been greatly exaggerated, begging the question as to why pundits seem so eager to pronounce his last rites. On ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos,” Matthew Dowd was the latest to eulogize the Obama presidency. “A year ago today, he was winning a 50 percent-plus victory, first person since Eisenhower to win two terms over 50 percent, everything seemed so great,” said Dowd. “Ever since the start of the second administration, it’s all gone downhill. His presidency, in my view, and the credibility of his presidency and the relevancy of his presidency is dramatically in question today, and I think he can’t recover from it.” Dowd, whom I worked for briefly almost two decades ago when he was a Democrat, wasn’t making a partisan attack. Despite him later becoming a Republican who helped elect and re-elect George W. Bush, my disagreement with him here is neither personal nor partisan. I like Matthew but suspect he could be wrong. Without ever earning a cool nickname like “the Comeback Kid” or a reputation for resiliency, Obama has made a habit of bouncing back. We turned our backs without checking for a pulse after Hillary Clinton won in New Hampshire, when Rev. Jeremy Wright god-damned America, and when Obama said “The private sector is doing fine” amid 9 percent unemployment. Pundits called him a dead man walking after his last “worst year ever” in 2011 when he tried to negotiate with congressional Republicans. We asked ourselves whether he could recover from his first debate with Mitt Romney, forgetting that Obama has rebounded more times than Dennis Rodman. Yet here he stands, the president who plays his best when he has backed himself into a corner but who never gets the reputation as a clutch performer. We should respect someone who is always proving the naysayers wrong and repeatedly beats the odds. But here’s the thing with Obama—and the reason why I suspect the insiders always seem eager to attend his political funeral: Winning has never felt worse. Obama has the bad luck to be a serious man in trivial times (Birthers, and truthers, and deniers! Oh, my!), to seek common ground with a party devoted to trench warfare, and to preside over an era of disruption that never feels like peacetime or wartime. He passed landmark laws to reform Wall Street, to make student loans cheaper, to create a new G.I. Bill, and to save the U.S. auto industry. He ended wars, torture and Osama bin Laden’s life. He recapitalized banks, repealed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and nearly doubled fuel efficiency standards. But instead of ticker-tape parades, we feel cheated of both justice and satisfaction. When Obama won in 2008 by putting red states such as Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia into his column, he dangled the possibility of a post-racial, post-partisan peace. Instead, he has had to defend the White House against a political war of attrition. We thought we were getting a Democratic Ronald Reagan and a long spell of feel-good transformation. Instead, we got the black Lyndon Johnson, leaving behind an impressive list of achievements as well as a country exhausted from tension, obstruction and fighting. We only feel good when he explains the world to us, but by now we’ve become conditioned to the disappointment that inevitably follows one of his speeches. He hasn’t lost his gifts. It’s just that we know they won’t change our lives. Instead, those who make a living watch this White House swing wildly from Obama’s political victories (“everything seemed so great”) to congressional obstruction. An improving economy is likely to continue Obama’s recovery, but bad things will happen, both real (Benghazi) and manufactured (BENGHAZI!!). And the grand marshals of the Beltway parade will ask each other whether Obama could possibly recover, ignoring the fact that he always has.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/878

> Opinions > Outlook & Opinions » Follow Opinions On: Page 4 of 4 < Back Is the Iraq War Lost? Yes, but We can't achieve our original objectives. But we still have compelling interests in denying a haven to al-Qaeda, averting genocide in Iraq and not breaking the Army and Marine ground forces. We have to draw down, but we cannot withdraw. -- Nathaniel Fick, former Marine infantry officer in Afghanistan and Iraq It's up to you The Iraq war is lost or won if the American people choose to lose or win it. With the way things are going at the moment, I perfectly understand why they might choose to give up on the war. But that is not because the war is inherently unwinnable by a country as great and rich and powerful as the United States. -- Kanan Makiya, Iraqi scholar who supported the U.S. invasion < Back 1

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/879

NEWS | LOCAL | POLITICS | SPORTS | OPINIONS | BUSINESS | ARTS & LIVING | GOING OUT GUIDE | JOBS | CARS | REAL ESTATE |SHOPPING From Obama and Boehner, duck-and-cover politics RUTH MARCUS Wednesday, February 16, 2011; Failure of political leadership knows no party. The past few days have offered an unfortunate demonstration of this sad maxim: House Speaker John Boehner ducking his appropriate role in countering the belief that President Obama is a Muslim, and the president himself, once again ducking a leadership role in dealing with the nation's fiscal crisis. Boehner first. On NBC's "Meet the Press," David Gregory pressed the Ohio Republican about a recent focus group of Iowa Republicans in which 11 of 26 indicated that they think Obama is Muslim. "As the speaker of the House, as a leader, do you not think it's your responsibility to stand up to that kind of ignorance?" Gregory asked. Good question. "David, it's not my job to tell the American people what to think," Boehner replied. "Our job in Washington is to listen to the American people." Bad answer - and Gregory didn't let up. He made seven more attempts - an eternity in television time - to get Boehner to acknowledge some responsibility to lead his misguided troops. Gregory: "I mean, you are the leader in Congress and you're not standing up to obvious facts and saying, 'These are facts. If you don't believe that, it's nonsense.' " Boehner: "I just outlined the facts as I understand them. I believe that the president is a citizen. I believe the president is a Christian. I'll take him at his word." Gregory: "But that kind of ignorance about whether he's a Muslim doesn't concern you?" Boehner: "Listen, the American people have the right to think what they want to think. I can't - it's not my job to tell them." But of course it is, and Boehner tells them all the time. Spending should be cut. The health-care law is a job-killer. Obama shouldn't be reelected. And unlike the proper level of taxation or the preferable political party, Obama's citizenship and religion are matters of fact, not opinion. The new speaker simply finds it inconvenient to tell people who just put him in that office that they are flat-out wrong. Indeed, Boehner and colleagues are the grateful beneficiaries of mass delusions about Obama's citizenship and religion. Birthers vote - and not for Democrats. This may help explain why the official Republican acknowledgment of Obama's religion feels so churlish. "The president says he's a Christian. I accept him at his word," Boehner said, echoing the grudging formulation used by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. "I must follow the people. Am I not their leader?" Benjamin Disraeli is reputed to have said. Imagine what the British prime minister could have done with the benefit of focus groups and poll-tested messaging. Obama's leadership-ducking budget can be understood in two ways, neither especially flattering. The more charitable interpretation of the president's decision not to tackle entitlement spending or the tax code is that the administration decided that leadership, in this case, was not good strategy. Administration officials argue that spelling out any specifics on say, Social Security, would diminish, not increase, any chance of bipartisan agreement. House Republicans in particular, this argument goes, need to work through their own internal divisions and calm their new Tea Party wing before they are ready to talk reality-based compromise. The bully pulpit has little value, though, if you are not prepared to stand up and preach. It's hard to get much accomplished in Washington without the public education and popular pressure that can only be generated by presidential involvement. There's a cynical interpretation of Obama's diffidence - the president and his advisers concluded that, given the long odds against forging a grand bargain with Republicans on taxes and entitlements, it made little sense for Obama to take big risks. Proposing unpopular cuts in Social Security would alienate the president's already restive base. Daring to suggest what the debt commission concluded - that even with spending cuts the country needs to generate more tax revenue than the current code will provide - would open the president to Republican accusations of being a rabid tax-raiser. The message of the budget boils down to: We'll talk in 2013, assuming I'm still around. Which brings me to another apt quote attributed to Disraeli. "Courage," he said, "is the rarest of all qualities to be found in public life." But even the canny 19th-century prime minister might have been appalled by the cowardly state of politics in 21st-century America.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/880

On Our Site Campaign 2000 Key stories on the 2000 presidential race, including news on McCain Early Returns: news from beyond the Beltway � McCain: Winning by Losing? Presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain. (AP File Photo) By Helen Dewar Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, October 13, 1999; Page A6 When Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) takes the Senate floor this week to begin another uphill fight for tougher campaign finance laws, he will find himself in a familiar position: enchanting reform advocates, infuriating Republican colleagues � and probably losing. In his 17 years on Capitol Hill, McCain � now a candidate for the GOP presidential nomination � has become one of Congress's leading cage-rattlers, a conservative with a populist and reformist bent who is better known for the fights he has lost than those he has won. While most of the focus of his latest campaign has been on his compelling personal history, including heroism and captivity during the Vietnam War, McCain's record in Congress also offers important clues to how he would perform in the White House. He has won some fights, such as banning lobbyists' gifts to lawmakers and increasing the amount that Social Security recipients can earn without losing benefits. He has lost more, including legislation to strengthen campaign fund-raising regulation and to implement the national tobacco settlement. He has been an influential internationalist in debates over military and foreign policy, a daring but less persuasive force on domestic matters and a bipartisan player in both arenas. At one time or another, the soldier-turned-lawmaker, 63, has found himself at odds with the tobacco industry, the Pentagon, defense contractors, government regulators, K Street lobbyists, campaign fund-raisers, broadcasters, tax-dodging corporations, isolationists within the GOP, conservative advocacy groups and, time after time, his own party leaders on specific issues. "I've had a lot of successes and some very significant failures. . . . This is what happens sometimes when you take on very, very big issues," McCain said in summing up his record in a recent interview. Few of his colleagues are neutral on the subject of the personally engaging but prickly McCain. Friends regard him as a gutsy, principled crusader. Foes see him as an ambitious, flashy grandstander. Renowned for his short temper and habit of going nose-to-nose with colleagues on the Senate floor, McCain acknowledges he would not win any congeniality awards. Some say this underscores his strong-willed independence. Others say it could be scary in a president. "He's one of the few people left who really gets upset about issues and he's not at all quiet about it," said Sen. Fred D. Thompson (R-Tenn.), a friend and ally. "John can be impatient sometimes and that rubs people the wrong way." Among his admirers is Rep. James P. Moran (D-Va.), who has tangled sometimes acrimoniously with McCain over the senator's campaign for more landings and takeoffs at Reagan National Airport. Much as they disagree, Moran says he believes McCain acts out of a firm belief in marketplace competition. "He's got integrity, he's got backbone, he's got guts, you know where he stands," Moran told a reporter. "I just wish he was on my side." But another GOP senator sees a very different McCain. This senator, who, like other McCain critics in the Senate, asked not to be quoted by name, calls him an "engaging rogue" who plays to the national news media, spreads himself too thin, angers too quickly and often rides roughshod over colleagues. "Once he's staked out a position, he is impossible to deal with," this senator added. More than anyone else now in the Senate, McCain is an insider who remains an outsider at heart. As chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, McCain is one of the barons of the Senate, with a respectable but not unblemished record in winning passage of legislation dealing with telecommunications and the Internet as well as more traditional aspects of commerce. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, with military experience that included 5� years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, he has criticized President Clinton's national security policies but refused to join other GOP conservatives in trying to curb his powers as commander in chief or cut off funding for controversial military missions. McCain fought unsuccessfully to authorize ground troops in Kosovo and successfully backed Clinton's decision to reestablish diplomatic relations with Vietnam. But institutional power only seems to have whetted his appetite for grander causes that burnish his reformer's image but drive his colleagues crazy. A case in point is his impassioned crusade against what he regards as unnecessary, politically inspired "pork barrel" spending. While he generally supports more money for defense, he has gone after military as well as domestic "pork," arguing it siphons funds from more worthy causes, such as military readiness and compensation for enlisted personnel. Targets have ranged from the multibillion-dollar B-2 bomber and Sea Wolf submarine to $1.1 million for a manure disposal project and $750,000 for research on grasshoppers. He lists each such project in the Congressional Record and forces votes on some of them. While he has not succeeded in reforming the spending culture of Congress, Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) � himself a target of some of McCain's pork-busting efforts � says McCain has had a salutary effect. When faced with colleagues, interest groups or constituents who are demanding more than he can deliver, Stevens tells supplicants they must be prepared to deal with McCain. Often it works. As an example, Stevens cited the case of an Alaska mayor with a 40-item wish list who, after McCain's name was invoked, settled for one project shared with a couple of other cities. In McCain's mind, his biggest failure is the bipartisan effort he has helped lead for the last four years to overhaul the country's loophole-ridden campaign fund-raising laws. While the House has twice approved the legislation and a majority of the Senate has gone on record for it, McCain and co-sponsor Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) have failed to win the 60 votes needed to break a GOP-led filibuster against it � and appear likely to fail again when it comes up this week. The 1998 bill to implement a settlement of lawsuits against the tobacco industry was another conspicuous defeat, although key players blame others more than McCain, including Republican leaders, tobacco lobbyists and public health figures who shunned compromise. McCain took over the bill at the request of GOP leaders, embracing it with characteristic zeal. He moved it out of committee only to see it implode on the Senate floor. "He got sideswiped by the Republican leadership in a way that he could hardly have anticipated," said Matthew L. Myers, executive vice president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. But McCain faults himself too. "We were driven by [former surgeon general C. Everett] Koop and [former food and drug commissioner David A.] Kessler and organizations that said we couldn't give up on anything. It's a lesson I've learned for campaign finance reform: You can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." This was a reference to his decision to concentrate on banning unregulated "soft money" donations to political parties, dropping other contentious provisions for the time being. Despite his apostasy on some issues, McCain, who votes against abortion rights and for tax cuts, ranks high on ratings by conservative groups and in party loyalty rankings. Environmentalists applaud his record for Arizona but find fault with his national environmental record. Consumer groups agree with his vote against the 1996 Telecommunications Act but disagree with his reasons: McCain wanted more deregulation; the groups wanted more regulations to protect consumers. McCain's career as a political reformer has come a long way since his first few months in the Senate in 1987, when he joined four other senators in meeting with federal regulators on behalf of Charles H. Keating Jr., a high-flying savings and loan executive who became embroiled in a long legal battle over allegations of fraud. It was an intensely painful ordeal that McCain has likened to his torture as a POW in Hanoi. In the end, the Senate ethics committee rapped McCain's knuckles for faulty judgment, while punishing three of the others more severely. More recently, he has taken some hits from other Republicans for pushing campaign finance reform while raking in money for his campaign from special interests, including telecommunications and transportation interests that have a stake in legislation before the commerce committee. It "rings a little hollow," Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) complained recently of McCain's efforts. © 1999 The Washington Post Company Back to the top

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/904

Deadly Clashes Follow Egyptian Protests By Aljazeera November 20, 2011 Change text size: [ A+ ] / [ A- ] Email this page Posted in: Activism, Egypt, Middle East, Mideast | No comments Thousands of police have clashed with demonstrators for control of Cairo's Tahrir Square, leaving at least one protester dead and hundreds others injured in the Egyptian capital and prompting protests and at least one fatality elsewhere in the country. The violence on Saturday came just nine days before Egypt's first elections since former president Hosni Mubarak was overthrown in February. In scenes reminiscent of the 18-day uprising, protesters and police forces hurled rocks at each other, and crowds swarmed an armored police vehicle, rocking it and setting it ablaze. At least one person was killed in Cairo, according to health officials. The AFP news agency said a 23-year-old man identified as Ahmed Mahmoud died from a bullet wound to the chest. Egyptian state television said 750 people had been injured in the clashes in Cairo. Security officials said that protesters also rallied outside security agency headquarters in the port city of Alexandria as well as the cities of Aswan in the south and Suez on the Red Sea coast. Media reports said at least one protester was killed in Alexandria. AFP said the man, Baha Eddin Mohamed Hussein, 25, was hit by a rubber bullet, quoting medics. Witnesses said Cairo's violence began when riot police dismantled a small tent camp set up to commemorate protesters killed in the earlier revolt and attacked around 200 peaceful demonstrators who had camped out in the square overnight. Tens of thousands of people had gathered in Tahrir Square on Friday to denounce Egypt's ruling military council, which has been criticised for its handling of Egypt's transition period. Protesters are angry with alleged attempts by the military to grant themselves special powers over the next elected government. 'Not leaving' Police fired rubber bullets, tear gas and beat protesters with batons to clear the area on Saturday, said Sahar Abdel-Mohsen, an engineer who joined in the protest after a call went out on Twitter telling people to go to Tahrir Square. Abdel-Mohsen said a friend was wounded by a rubber bullet that struck his head and that she saw another protester wounded by a pellet shot in his neck. "Violence breeds violence," Abdel-Mohsen said. "We are tired of this and we are not leaving the square." The number of protesters swelled to several thousand as news of the scuffles spread in the city, and thousands more riot police streamed into the square, blocking entrances and clashing with protesters. Al Jazeera's Sherine Tadros, reporting from Cairo, said that after six hours of clashes, police had appeared to gain control of the square itself, but the violence was spreading. "These clashes have spread to the streets and side roads coming out of Tahrir Square, and that is where all the main clashes are happening right now," she said. Crowds chanted: "Riot police are thugs and thieves" and "Down with the Marshal," referring to Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi, Egypt's military ruler. Activist Mona Seif, the sister of jailed blogger and activist Alaa Abd El Fattah, said Saturday's attacks on protesters were unwarranted. "This violence is the same as the old regime," Seif said. "Police are telling us they are carrying out orders to beat us until we leave." Al Jazeera's correspondent added: "This is the same police and state security, don't forget, that will be monitoring – or at least protecting – [upcoming] elections, standing outside the polling stations." "So, of course, it really isn't a very good sign for things to come." Critical crossroads Saturday's confrontation was one of the few since the uprising to involve police forces, which have largely stayed in the background while the military takes charge of security. There was no military presence in and around the square on Saturday. The scene was starkly different from a day earlier, when thousands of Islamists and liberals gathered to confront Egypt's military council, which promised when it took control of the country in February to restore civilian rule within six months. Most rallies since have been led by liberal- or left-leaning groups, but Islamists dominated Tahrir Square's biggest demonstration in months, which came days before elections seen as crucial in shaping the future direction of the country. While united against giving the army new powers, Islamists and liberals are competing for votes in the parliamentary vote, which is scheduled to begin on November 28. The victors in that process will help choose who will draft a new constitution that will determine the character of post-revolutionary Egypt. Leave a comment Cancel reply You must be logged in to post a comment. Aljazeera's: ZNet ArticlesOutrage as Egypt jails Al Jazeera staffThai PM Calls for End to Opposition ProtestsSyria Accepts Russian Chemical Weapons PlanSyria Lashes Out At Chemical Arms Use ClaimsOxfam Says World’s Rich Could End PovertyRead more...VideoDisputes Emerge Over Haiti Aid ControlRead more...

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/974

Election Center 2008 China • South Africa 2010 • Afghanistan • Connect The World • Amanpour • more topics » Commentary: A history lesson for Rush LimbaughStory Highlights James Carville: Rush Limbaugh is now an advocate of bipartisan government Limbaugh proposes splitting stimulus plan between Obama and GOP, Carville says Carville: If that plan had been in effect in 2000, Iraq war might have been avoided Next Article in Politics » By James Carville CNN Contributor Editor's Note: James Carville, a Democratic strategist who serves as a political contributor for CNN, was the Clinton-Gore campaign manager in 1992 and political adviser to President Clinton. He is active in Democratic politics and a party fundraiser. James Carville says Rush Limbaugh's new bipartisan strategy could have served the country well in 2000. WASHINGTON (CNN) -- On Thursday, Rush Limbaugh, the moral and intellectual leader and most influential person in the Republican Party in the United States, wrote in the august op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal, the acknowledged epicenter of right-wing thought, that President Obama should adopt a bipartisan solution to address the president's economic stimulus plan -- or as Limbaugh refers to it, "porkulus." Limbaugh proposes that because the Democrats got roughly 54 percent of the votes to the Republicans' 46 percent, the stimulus package should be allocated along his definition of ideological lines, i.e. 54 percent towards infrastructure improvement and 46 percent toward tax breaks for Limbaugh and his friends. He writes, "Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let's say the vote was 54% to 46%. "As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion -- $486 billion -- will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% -- $414 billion -- will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me." Don't Miss Commentary: A challenge to Rush Limbaugh Senate braces for "hard slog" on stimulus bill In Depth: Commentary And he is serious. However much one may disagree with the current "daddy" of all Republicans (Beg to differ? See Rep. Phil Gingrey, who apologized last week for doubting Rush), you have to admire El Rushbo's principled stance and his well-known consistent ideology. Why surely it seems like just yesterday that Al Gore won the national popular vote in 2000 (and arguably won the popular vote in Florida too). Limbaugh must have called for the incoming Bush administration to allocate ideas based on the proportion of election returns. I'm sure President Bush and the Republicans in Congress graciously accepted their 49.5 percent share of everything. (Note: We would be much better off right now had this actually happened.) With 50 percent of the federal government during President Bush's term, Democrats might have reduced the deficit (a truly Clintonista idea). Wall Street might have been more heavily regulated and K Street's lobbyists might not have been running the Capitol. Democrats might have invested money into infrastructure improvements so that bridges didn't collapse or entire cities flood. We wouldn't have spent $350 million per day in Iraq. Heck, had Democrats been able to control 50 percent of the government from 2000 to 2004, we wouldn't have even gone into Iraq in the first place. There might have been more spending on education and a fully funded No Child Left Behind Act. It is a remarkable time in American politics when a respected ideologue like Limbaugh can take to a hyperpartisan place like the pages of The Wall Street Journal, and deliver such a consistent message. We Democrats should congratulate Rush on the purity, intellectual integrity, and consistency of his positions. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of James Carville. All About Barack Obama • Rush Limbaugh • Al Gore

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/1077

A Collective Voice on CAP Today an open letter signed by Slow Food along with 276 other NGOs, including Greenpeace and WWF, has been released asking all EU Members of Parliament (MEPs) to address the way that the current reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has been managed by the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI). This is the first time in the CAP reform that so many organizations have come together to collectively voice their concerns, demonstrating the importance of the reform to civil society. Slow Food is concerned that the current reform has ignored citizens’ calls for a CAP that support small-scale sustainable farming, environmental measures and self-sustaining agriculture in developing countries. In January the European Parliament’s Agricultural Committee voted to seriously weaken the proposed ‘greening’ measures that would improve the ecological performance of farms. The NGOs’ request reflects Slow Food President Carlo Petrini’s own vision. “Our organizations support the principle of public money for public goods in agriculture and rural development policy,” the letter states. “This means public support must only be given to farmers in return for a healthy and vibrant countryside and environmentally benign food production. Subsidies which negatively affect our environment, our health, jobs, developing countries and animal welfare should be abolished.” The letter elaborates on the potential compromising of environmental benefits: “Under the AGRI Committee’s vision for the CAP, money would continue to be unfairly distributed and support would be channelled to even the most polluting farming practices, with some farmers even paid twice for the same environmental practices (a principle going against the basic treaties of the EU). In essence, the AGRI Committee’s position goes against the environment, our health, jobs, animal welfare and developing countries. This also goes against the expressed opinions of the other committees in the European Parliament.” For the first time ever, MEPs will have decision-making power along with the Council to vote for change in agricultural policy. Slow Food is hoping that this letter, and the significance of the number of NGOs that have signed, should be a wakeup call for all MEPs. In March, the full European Parliament will decide upon its final negotiating position. We ask all MEPs to grasp this last opportunity and act on behalf of real public interest. Click here to read the letter. You can get involved too! Slow Food along with more than 20 farmers’ and civil society networks from 10 countries have launched EU-wide action Go M.A.D. – Go Meet A Deputy, which calls on EU citizens to directly interact with their local Members of the European Parliament (MEP) and ask them how they will vote during the plenary decision on the CAP reform in March. We want to know which of the 754 MEPs will vote for a green, fair and local CAP!

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/1092

Home | Opinion | Juan Williams Williams: Camp tax plan needs support Greg Nash By Juan Williams - 03/10/14 06:00 AM EDT Let us quickly, loudly and repeatedly praise a brave but lonely Republican Congressman. He is sticking his neck out to get something done in this do-nothing Congress. Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, the Republican chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is the hero taking on the political inertia on both sides that has Congress locked in dysfunction.In the last two weeks, Camp opened a promising door for Congressional Republicans and Democrats to join President Obama in reforming the tax code and spurring a faster economic recovery.ADVERTISEMENTYet at this moment he is taking nasty shots from all directions.GOP leadership is telling Camp, whose term as chairman expires this year, that he does not understand politics, that the timing is wrong, that there is no chance for compromise in an election year. Democrats are treating him as if he is a problem for Republicans.The bottom line is he is being shunned. Camp’s important bipartisan work, begun with the recently-retired Montana Democrat Sen. Max Baucus, is being put in the dustbin. The effort at breaking through the political logjam in Washington with much-needed tax reform is being left to wither away.When he announced his tax reform plan at a one-man news conference, Camp gave a precise, simple description of his goal as a “simpler, fairer and flatter tax code.” His plan takes the current seven tax brackets and reduces them to “two brackets of 10 and 25 percent for virtually all taxable income, ensuring that 99 percent of taxpayers face maximum rates of 25 percent or less.”The Camp tax plan is revenue-neutral according to Congress’ independent Joint Committee on Taxation. They see Camp’s reform producing sharp economic growth and close to two million jobs.The Washington Post’s editorial page said the plan leans “in favor of GOP priorities to be sure, but incorporates some Democratic ones. And for all those reasons, no one on Capitol Hill seems interested.”President Obama, in his State of the Union address in January, said “now is our best chance for bipartisan, comprehensive tax reform that encourages job creation and helps bring down the deficit.” The new White House budget includes overhauling the corporate tax code yet the president’s plan, like Camp’s, is being dismissed on Capitol Hill.How about the juvenile response from Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio)? When he was asked about the specifics of the Camp plan he responded: “Blah, blah, blah.” He had nothing to offer on starting hearings and scheduling a vote.Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) simply dismissed the Camp plan: “I think we will not be able to finish the job, regretfully. I don’t see how we can.”Where are former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) and her Tea Party allies? Palin once said the “Tea” in Tea Party stood for “Taxed Enough Already.”It is as if Camp and his daring ideas don’t exist.Democrats have shut the door on Camp, too.Where is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) support for a timetable for a floor vote? When will the new Senate Finance Chair, Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) schedule hearings?Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) dismissed the plan by launching a political attack on Republicans. “Any proposal that eliminates the deduction for state and local taxes, as the Republican plan would do, is dead on arrival,” he said.Camp started this “tilting at windmills” crusade when he bucked his party’s leadership and insisted on releasing a tax reform package that he says will raise $126.5 billion over eight years to repair the nation’s bridges, highways, train and bus service as well as improve ports.Obama last week proposed a bill that also calls for tax reforms to put $150 billion into a four-year, $300 billion plan to restore the nation’s transportation system. The potential for a deal is there.In polls, Democrats and Republicans nationwide also agree on the need for tax reform. A Pew poll last year showed 75 percent of Republicans saying the tax system is in need of change and 69 percent of Democrats in agreement.The facts of the Camp plan invite a deal.It does not raise taxes. That is the GOP’s gold standard for reform. It does not lead to cuts in spending on entitlement programs. That is the Democrats’ requirement for a new tax system.It also allows the rival parties to renew talks on all the bills stuck in no-man’s land for lack of funding, notably infrastructure projects that both parties support.The political pieces are in place to create a rare moment in which this polarized, broken Congress could really get something done. But the forces of political inertia are killing it off.The only hope for the congressman is for the public — as well as the business community and everyone else interested in a better economy — to stand up and speak out in favor of keeping tax reform alive. Juan Williams is an author and political analyst for Fox News Channel. Share on Twitter More in Juan Williams Juan Williams: Warren towers above

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/1105

Hartzler Working to Clear Backlog of Veteran Benefit Claims By: Vicky Hartzler Date: July 19, 2012 Location: Unknown Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler (MO-4) continues to seek solutions for veterans facing lengthy wait times for their benefit claims to be processed. Hartzler expressed concern with the backlog as she met with Retired Brigadier General Allison Hickey, Under Secretary for Benefits at the Department of Veterans Affairs. "Veterans who have served this country were promised certain benefits," said Hartzler. "It is disheartening to see so many of our military heroes having to put up with delays and red tape as they wait for these benefit claims to be processed." "My conversation with General Hickey was constructive," continued Hartzler. "I thanked her for the tireless work she is doing to help ease the backlog and to solve the problem. But I stressed action must be taken to address the fact that 12 percent to 30 percent of claims need to be re-adjudicated due to errors by the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) and that 65 percent of new claims take more than 125 days to process. This is unacceptable." "I discussed a number of possible solutions with General Hickey, including their transformation plan centering on the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS), a program that is supposed to digitize disability claims and make the process more timely and accurate," added Hartzler. "America's bravest veterans should not have to endure long waits for the benefits they have earned. They deserve much better." Congresswoman Hartzler represents Missouri's Fourth District, home of Fort Leonard Wood and Whiteman Air Force Base -- home of the B-2. She serves proudly on the House Armed Services Committee. Source: http://hartzler.house.gov/press-release/hartzler-working-clear-backlog-veteran-benefit-claims

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/1139

Syria warns Israel off striking exiles Syrian President Bashar al-Asad has warned Israel that Damascus would consider any attempt to assassinate Syria-based leaders of Palestinian groups as aggression against Syria. Bashar al-Asad: We'll respond to attack on Syria-based groups Targeting leaders of anti-Israel Palestinian groups in Syria would be "an aggression that will be handled as an aggression," al-Asad said in an interview with Aljazeera aired on Saturday. Israeli officials have vowed to kill officials of guerrilla groups responsible for "terror acts", one of the most prominent of whom is Khalid Mishaal, the political leader of the Islamist resistance group Hamas, who lives in Syria. "Even if Israel did not make a threat, the threat is always there. No one trusts Israel ... the threat has been there since Israel was created," al-Asad said. "Israel expresses itself freely, not through the freedom of speech but rather through the freedom of killings," he said. In the past six weeks, Israel has assassinated Hamas' spiritual leader and co-founder Shaikh Ahmad Yasin and its Gaza leader Abd Al-Aziz al-Rantisi. The White House said on Friday it would impose sanctions on Syria soon for supporting what it described as terrorism and for failing to stop guerrillas from entering Iraq. Syria describes the armed Palestinian and Lebanese groups that it supports as freedom fighters. Legitimate resistance In his interview, al-Asad defended the Palestinian resistance against Israeli occupation forces and said it was legitimate "so long as it represents what the Palestinian people want. We do not have the right to evaluate it; only the Palestinians have that right". He told Aljazeera there was no change in his country's longstanding position on the resumption of peace talks with the Jewish state. "We have always said that we are ready to negotiate with Israel when the circumstances in Israel are suitable." He also criticised US President George Bush for his recent pledge to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that Israel could keep some West Bank land and that Palestinian refugees should not expect to reclaim their homes in what is now Israel. Bush made the pledge when presented with Sharon's controversial plan to withdrew Jewish settlements from Gaza as part of a broader separation of Israelis from Palestinians. Source: Aljazeera + Agencies Israel Palestinian Bashar al-Asad

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/1221

Iraq back in focus for campaignsStory Highlights Iraq, once overshadowed by the economy, is again a campaign issue Polls show Sen. John McCain favored over Sen. Barack Obama in handling Iraq The candidates have a heated exchange Wednesday on Iraq Next Article in Politics » Read VIDEO By Bill Schneider CNN Chief Political Analyst WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As the intense bloodshed in Iraq began to let up in recent months, so did the political spotlight on the issue in the presidential primaries -- with Iraq overshadowed by the deteriorating U.S. economy. New polls show Sen. John McCain, left, favored over Sen. Barack Obama on the issue of handling Iraq. But Iraq is back in the spotlight, and the issue has helped Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama become front-runners -- a point illustrated in Super Tuesday exit polls. Most Republicans support the war, and on Super Tuesday, Republican primary voters whose top issue was Iraq voted for McCain -- 49 percent over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's 21 percent and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's 19 percent. Democrats strongly oppose the war, and Democrats whose top issue was Iraq favored Obama, who has opposed the war from the beginning -- 54 percent to Sen. Hillary Clinton's 42 percent. If it turns out to be a race between McCain and Obama, Iraq will offer a stark choice between a staunch supporter of President Bush's troop buildup and a consistent opponent of the war. This week, McCain acknowledged he is tied to the war issue. Don't Miss McCain, Obama in heated exchange over Iraq Obama tops new national polls "I think that clearly my fortunes have a lot to do with what's happening in Iraq," McCain said. McCain even said if he can't convince war-weary Americans that U.S. policy is succeeding, he would lose, given that Americans continue to oppose the war by nearly 2-1. He later retracted the statement. McCain went on the offensive after Obama made this comment in Tuesday's MSNBC debate: "If al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad." McCain responded, "I understand that Sen. Obama says that if al Qaeda establishes a base in Iraq he would send troops back in militarily. Al Qaeda already has a base in Iraq. It is called al Qaeda in Iraq." Obama shot back, saying "I have some news for John McCain. There was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq." McCain once again responded. "That's history, that's the past, that's talking about what happened before. What we should be talking about is what we're going to do now," McCain said. Watch McCain talk about Iraq » The debate that's beginning to emerge is over which is the greater threat to U.S. security -- for the U.S. to stay in Iraq or get out. "I intend to bring [the war in Iraq] to an end so that we can actually start going after al Qaeda in Afghanistan and in the hills of Pakistan like we should have been doing in the first place," Obama said. McCain warned, "If we left Iraq, there's no doubt that al Qaeda would then gain control of Iraq and then pose a threat to the United States of America." In two recent polls, Americans were asked who would handle the Iraq issue better, Obama or McCain? Both show McCain has the edge. In a February 1-3 CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, McCain was favored 54 percent to Obama's 45 percent. In a February 21-25 Los Angeles Times-Bloomberg poll, McCain led on the issue with 47 percent to 34 percent for Obama. McCain leads on that question not because most Americans support the war, but because he is seen as having stronger national security credentials. Watch as the Iraq debate cuts both ways » Now, Democrats are pursuing a new argument: They're linking the war with the economy. "It is becoming clear to all Americans -- Republicans, Democrats and independents -- that by continuing to spend huge amounts on Iraq, we are prevented from spending on desired goals and needs here at home," New York Sen. Chuck Schumer said at a congressional hearing investigating the economic impact of the war. Obama put it this way in Tuesday's debate: "We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years, spending $12 billion a month that could be invested in the kinds of programs that both Sen. Clinton and I are talking about." With McCain as the Republican nominee, you can bet the Iraq issue will come roaring back into the campaign -- one way or another. E-mail to a friend All About Iraq War • Barack Obama • John McCain

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/1240

Doing business with Arkansas LITTLE ROCK — The value of products exported overseas by Arkansas companies rose by 6.5 percent last year, according to government agencies that help local businesses take advantage of opportunities in foreign markets. Even better news is that for the first half of this year, Arkansas exports are on a pace that would result in even greater increases. During the first nine months of 2012 exports increased by 28.3 percent over the first nine mon... Sen. Michael Lamoureux Letters to the editor (Dec. 26, 2012) City Council lack of responsibility In a recent editorial Mr. Mike Roark of the Courier staff chastised the Russellville City Council for tabling until January the issue of the Walmart Neighborhood Market proposed for Vancouver Avenue. At the end of the piece Mr. Roark encouraged readers to send in letters of their own telling how they feel about this non-action on the part of the Council. I look forward to reading those responses. But unlike ... We cannot stay divided The loss of 20 children and six adults in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 14 brought a divided nation together, but for how long? Remember Election Night, when maps of the United States on every TV screen showed half the states colored in blue, and the other half in red? I thought about it even more this week after the passing of U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, 88, on Dec. 17. He was remembered Friday inside the National Cathedral in Washington by President ... Responsibility to residents not met with lack of vote Last Sunday, in this space, I urged the residents of Russellville to get involved in the process by attending both the Planning Commission and the City Council meetings to voice their opinions of the proposed zoning change request that would allowed a Walmart Neighborhood Market to be build in western Russellville. Residents turned out in large numbers at both meetings to voice their opinions of the plan. The Planning Commission listened to mo... Mike Roark As sunlight fades, look out for SAD Seasonal affective disorder sets in in the fall and winter. If your mood, energy level, and motivation decline in January but bounces back to normal in April, you may have seasonal affective disorder (SAD). “SAD is thought to be related to a chemical imbalance in the brain brought on by lack of light due to winter’s shorter days and typically overcast skies,” said Dr. Angelos Halaris, chief of the psychiatry and behavioral sciences department ... Nicholle Dorn Adding new Bubba dogs to the family The Roark family has added another Bubba dog to the stable of pups that live with us. Let me explain ... About two months ago we adopted Daisy, a beagle puppy from a foster home. Then our old lab, King, went to be with the angels when we had to put him down as he was struggling with heart failure. That adventure broke our hearts. Then two weeks ago, we adopted Duke from another foster home. Duke is a black lab, just like King. He is about 4, I... A column for Alex I don’t want to write this column. It hurts and is difficult to compose, but I have to write it, somewhat for myself but mostly for Alex. You see, Alex read my columns and always commented on them, good or bad. He would tell me how much he enjoyed them even when I thought they were less than stellar, and he encouraged me to write more often. That was Alex, always supportive and encouraging. Our boys met playing peewee football, both being big ... Letter to the editor (Dec. 20, 2012) A big thank you The Main Street Mission wants to give a big thank you to all the motorcycle riders who participated in this year’s motorcycle parade. There was approximately 100 cycles that participated and delivered toys that will be used for this year’s Christmas. This is the 19th year that the riders have blessed the mission with toys for those who need the help. This week a child came in with her parents to pick out some toys. When they we... Subway owner responds to health safety concerns Editor's note — The following published as a letter to the editor on Dec. 18, 2012. After the recent article “Local Sub Shop reopens after health concerns” was published on Dec. 14, 2012, I feel that as the owner of the Subway shop, I need to clarify a few things to the community. The health concerns that the article mentions was an isolated occurrence. We had prepared party platters for two local businesses that went out on the same day. Ther... God of Love is the Answer The recent column by Jim Davidson titled “Please don’t blame the unbelievers” was disturbing to me as a Christian. His basic premise seems to be that people will not act morally or correctly toward their fellow man unless they believe in the consequence of eternal damnation in Hell. To me, the God that Jesus spoke about is a God of love and forgiveness not a vengeful God who demands obedience or else there will be tor... Guest column: Fair play A recent news item noted that some slogans being displayed in public aren’t fair in regard to their content. The particular subject cited, I think, was the anti/pro abortion issue. In a similar vein, the commentator noted that if someone is going to display a decal advocating saving sea turtles, there should be an equal number of decals displayed that advocate killing sea turtles. I’m all in favor of fair play, but do we need a law that dictat... Roy Morris Thank you for your public service The December Council Meeting on 12/20/2012, will complete a two-year term for all eight alderman. In January 2011, six inexperienced (public service related) but eager men joined two veteran council members and a newly elected mayor. This group of nine people have dedicated themselves in many ways to making the best choices and decisions for the City of Russellville. I believe and hope that we, as a council, have succeeded in making Russellvil... Mark Tripp The power in your mind The first step we took together was talking about how to make changes to your diet without traumatizing yourself in the process so it could be a lifestyle change rather than a fad diet you wouldn’t follow more than a week or two. The second step was how to start a progressive exercise routine that you could see benefits from early on in the comfort of your own home and maintain without a lot of special equipment. The third step is related to u... SE of Disorder: A day to be thankful for We gave much thanks and then made it through the Thanksgiving holiday Thursday. For my young bride, Rosemary, and I, Thursday was a work day, so we didn’t have all the at-home craziness of cooking until you drop, loads of family and company hanging around and getting on one another’s nerves, or the boredom that comes with a holiday on a weekday and the reality that everything is closed and there’s nowhere to go. We did manage to get the Friday... You survived Thanksgiving and hopefully fought off the crowds during Black Friday. Did you know today is Small Business Saturday? First celebrated two years ago, everyone is encouraged to take a break from the big retailers in Russellville or Clarksville or Conway or Fort Smith or Little Rock, and do some shopping at your brick-and-mortar businesses in Russellville, Dardanelle, Pottsville, Atkins, Dover, Danville, Ola, Lamar, Hector or Ozone. ... Taking a moment How can one possibly be in the mood to give thanks when football season in the River Valley has come to a close? Wait, did I just write that? At least we still have some college ball and the NFL — right? So high school football season is over. And it’s hard to believe. I got this job just as football season was preparing to take off. We was just starting to work on our preview section and I was thrown in with very little idea what I was doing.... Despite wins, GOP has own rifts to heal LITTLE ROCK (AP) — Taking over the state House for the first time in 138 years was the easy part for Arkansas Republicans. The bigger challenge may be healing the rifts within their ranks. Republican Rep. Davy Carter’s surprising and rapid election as incoming speaker last week highlighted the divides within the GOP as it transitions into its new role as the legislative majority. It also shows the opening that Democrats believe they have even ... Letters to the editor (Nov. 17, 2012) Coming together The humility and graciousness in which Mitt Romney accepted defeat should have been an example for all to follow. He not only expressed his love of America but expressed a desire for all to be successful. Unfortunately, just days later there was a one-paragraph letter to the editor in our paper that was not as conciliatory. While one person’s opinion doesn’t reflect the whole it does beg the question ... are we as tolerant as w... Disappointment with school board, attorney I want to express my grave disappointment and quite frankly, my disgust, with the behavior that was exhibited by Richard Peel and the Russellville School Board at Coach Thompson’s public hearing. It was absolutely horrifying to watch a man who is so greatly loved and highly respected by the majority, be disrespected and humiliated in front of the entire community. I do not believe that Mr. Peel had th... Southeast of Disorder Scatter shooting while still wondering who will be the next football coach at the University of Arkansas. The election is over and we as a community and a nation are moving forward. That’s a good thing. The rhetoric got pretty deep in the national and state elections, but hopefully, all will get back to some semblance of normality in our lives. There will still be plenty of people telling everyone what is wrong and how bad some elected officia...

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/1246

Fiscal Cliff Could Kill Holiday Plans But Help Privacy Bill December 12, 2012 • Reprints Slow-moving fiscal cliff negotiations could keep members of Congress in Washington past Christmas and even into 2013, which could mean good news for pending legislation supported by credit unions. Brad Thaler, NAFCU vice president of legislative affairs, said the current word on Capitol Hill is that Congress could work through this weekend up until Christmas Eve, and could also return for the week between Christmas and New Year’s Day. That’s a change from the House and Senate 2012 calendars, which show both bodies would adjourn for the year on Friday. Washington publication The Hill backed up Thaler’s observation, reporting today that GOP leaders have told their members in the House to be prepared to return to Washington after Christmas because “serious differences” remain in fiscal cliff negotiations. H.R. 5817, which would eliminate the required annual privacy notice mailing, is scheduled for a vote in the House today, Thaler said. The bill was supposed to be considered last week, but the bill’s language triggered Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.V.) to withdraw her motion to take the bill to a vote. That language has been resolved, Thaler said. If the bill passes the House today, it would still need to be considered and passed by the Senate before the new Congress is sworn in Jan. 3. Any extra session time could mean the bill has a better chance of becoming law this year. Despite the extra days in Washington, Thaler said the privacy notice bill still faces an uphill battle in the Senate, because the upper chamber isn’t very familiar with it. “It would probably have to go by unanimous consent in the Senate,” Thaler said. “It’s been in the House for a number of months, not in the Senate, so I don’t know how much attention folks in the Senate have paid to it. The challenge will be getting people comfortable with it in a short amount of time.” The bill is sponsored by Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.) and currently has 43 sponsors. Show Comments

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/1413

The Carmen Warschaw way http://www.jewishjournal.com/rob_eshman/article/the_carmen_warschaw_way Carmen Warschaw My most telling Carmen Warschaw memory is this: I greeted her at a fancy, crowded event at The Beverly Hills Hotel celebrating Israel’s 60th birthday. Soon, a group of her VIPs gathered around Carmen, talking politics and pleasantries. An elegantly dressed man approached. “Well, hello, Carmen,” he said, and extended his hand to her. Carmen kept her hands at her side. “Carmen, aren’t you going to greet me?” the man said. The moment stretched on. The color drained from his face. We were all quiet, and uncomfortable. “Pardon me,” Carmen said, fixing him in her gaze, her voice direct and clear. “I don’t shake hands with welchers.” The man stammered an apology. He said it was all a mix-up; that his large pledge to her favorite charity was on its way. “When I get the check,” Carmen said, “I’ll shake your hand.” She turned back to another conversation. It’s one thing to say someone calls ’em as she sees them. But when you’re in the presence of someone who really does that, hang on. Carmen Warschaw’s life was a no-spin zone. She had money and beauty and a relentless work ethic, but her greatest power was she knew the difference between reality and fantasy, between the ideal and the real. In Carmen’s world, you pay up or shut up. Carmen, a woman who spent much of her life at the center of Democratic Party politics — died on Election Day, just three hours before President Barack Obama was declared the winner, but as the predictions were already coming in. I don’t know if that made saying goodbye easier or harder — but I hope it gave her one last, comforting sense of vindication. Not vindication for her guy over the other guy, but for reality over make-believe. In her long, rich 95 years, Carmen supported, advised, chastised and strategized with every Democratic pol. As Tom Tugend points out in his obituary of Carmen on page 43, she pioneered women’s political involvement on the state and national level. What motivated Carmen were her ideals: equality of opportunity, caring for those less fortunate, the power of Israel as a force for good in the world. But what guided her was a very concrete sense of how to manifest those ideals in a world of people that is messy, fallible, self-interested, limited. She was interested in political fact, not theory. The chair she established at USC focused on the practice of politics in the real world — horse-trading, deal-making, compromise, fundraising and, I imagine, how to collect on pledges. The last election Carmen witnessed will stand as a monument to her emphasis on reality-based politics. While the Republicans chose to believe gut feelings, hunches, discredited pollsters and the echo chamber of Fox News, Democrats turned to an army of social scientists and analysts like Nate Silver, the boy genius behind The New York Times’ FiveThirtyEight blog. Vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan confirmed earlier this week that on election night he was genuinely shocked by the results. He had come to believe he and Gov. Mitt Romney would win. For Silver, belief didn’t enter into it. “The numbers are the numbers,” Silver said on “The Daily Show.” If you want to understand why Jews voted in large numbers for the Democrat in this election, it helps to understand why they also turned with such fervor to Nate Silver. Jews saw Obama as the more reality-based candidate, and the Democrats as the more reality-based party. As more Republicans spoke out against evolution, against climate change, as if it’s a matter of belief not of fact, against stem cell research and reproductive rights, many Jews who would otherwise be attracted to the conservative movement’s approach to economic and foreign policy issues stayed away. Jews like science. It’s reality. You could even say the Republican take on marriage equality and gay rights, on immigration, didn’t match the Jewish view of reality: that however much you might wish people were one way or another, they are who they are. You might wish millions of people didn’t sneak across the border, but they’re here, many of them children who had no choice in the matter. I’m not saying the Democrats had all the answers to these problems or others, or that Obama was the perfect candidate or that he adhered wholly to the facts. I’m saying that, on balance, the perception grew that this Republican Party, at this time, had veered farther away from science, from common sense, from reality. It didn’t surprise me at all to wake up the day after the election and read David Brooks, the conservative Jewish columnist for The New York Times, who wrote: “This might be a good time for Republicans to redouble their commitment to the reality-based community.” The answer for the Republicans is to return to the reality of science and economics. Their future success lies less in Karl Rove, and more in Carmen Warschaw. Rob Eshman is publisher and editor-in-chief of TRIBE Media Corp./Jewish Journal. E-mail him at [email protected]. You can follow him on Twitter @foodaism. JewishJournal.com is produced by TRIBE Media Corp., a non-profit media company whose mission is to inform, connect and enlighten community

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/1528

Site Search powered by Ajax Asia-Pacfic Central/S. Asia Recommend MWC Focus Politics Back in the USSA Back in the USSA | Print | E-mail Friday, 16 December 2011 10:55 By MWC News Share Link: View Comments by Jacob G. Hornberger With congressional passage of the new military-detention bill, and President Obama’s unsurprising flip-flop decision to sign it into law, perhaps this would be a good time to review where we are as a country. We now live in a country in which the military has the legal authority to arrest or round up Americans (and non-Americans), place them into military dungeons or concentration camps, torture them, and keep them incarcerated for life without a trial. All they have to do is label people as terrorists. By the way, that’s the same legal authority that the U.S.-supported military dictatorship in Egypt has. In fact, it’s that authority that the Egyptian demonstrators have been trying to get lifted ever since the demonstrations began. The Egyptian military refuses to lift this extraordinary emergency authority on the same basis that U.S. officials insist on such authority — that it’s necessary to keep the people safe. That’s not to say that the U.S. Constitution permits such extraordinary power. In fact, it expressly prohibits it in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. But U.S. officials claim that the president is not bound by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights because, they say, he is at war against the terrorists of the world. Let’s face it: the war on terrorism is a much bigger bonanza than the war on communism and the war on drugs — perpetual, more power, more money, less freedom, and ever-growing budgets for the military-industrial complex and CIA. Of course, they tell us that as soon as the war on terrorism is over, the emergency authority will be lifted. Unfortunately, however, they also tell us that it will be several generations before that will happen. In other words, those of us living under such authority will all be dead by the time the emergency will be over. We also live in a country in which the president wields the authority to take the entire nation into war on his own initiative. He does not need a declaration of war from Congress. If he decides he wants to go to war, he just orders his military forces to attack, and his forces will loyally follow his orders. That’s not to say, of course, that the law permits the president to do so. In fact, it doesn’t. The Constitution, which is the highest law of the land, delegates to Congress the power to declare war. Thus, the law prohibits the president from waging war without a declaration of war from Congress. But U.S. officials say that the president is no longer required to comply with that section of the Constitution. They say that the reason is that past presidents haven’t complied with that section of the Constitution and, therefore, no presidents have to comply with that section of the Constitution. But if the president doesn’t have to comply with one constitutional restriction, why does he have to comply with any constitutional restrictions? And if the president now has the authority to ignore constitutional restrictions on power, what’s the difference between that and dictatorship? On the domestic side, we have long lived in a country in which the government wields the authority to jail people for ingesting substances that the government hasn’t approved. And, hey, we’re not just talking 30 days or so in the slammer. We’re talking about the authority to send people away for 30 years or more. We also live in a country in which the government wields the authority to take money from us in order to give it to other people. They say that it’s in our best interests because it makes us good, caring, and compassionate. Otherwise, if we weren’t forced to share our money with others, they say, we would be no-good, worthless, selfish, self-centered people. We also live in a country in which government officials have the authority to go into any country in the world and kidnap people and deliver them into the hands of brutal dictatorships to be tortured. They say that this is necessary to keep us safe. Indeed, that’s where much of the money goes to that they take from us and give to others — to brutal dictatorships. They say that it’s necessary to maintain order and stability, which are supposed to keep us safe. Of course, this was not the type of country our American ancestors lived in. It’s certainly not the type of country the Framers had in mind when the Constitution brought the federal government into existence. Meanwhile, American statists, deluded that this is all just part of living in a free society, just keep singing to themselves, “Thank God I’m an American because at least I know I’m free” or “Back in the USSA.” Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation. Subscribe via RSS or Email: Education and Indoctrination in Pakistan Remembering 2014 (Badly) Aleppo’s Synagogues Have Not Been Destroyed The Greatest Threat to Cultural Heritage in Syria #China detains #Uighurs 'fleeing to Vietnam' #ISIL captures pilot of plane downed in #Syria More illegal settlements approved by #Israel Girl says father gave her to Boko Haram Sierra Leone orders lockdown over #Ebola Israeli forces kill Palestinian man in #Gaza Make a donation to MWC News Enter Amount:$CAD A Cold War Breakthrough Judicial Deference to the Torturers Make the CIA Release Its Chile Torture Files Reduce Police Abuse of Blacks The Nazis Had Social Security Too Why Not Pardon Drug-War Victims in Addition to Turkeys? Featured_Author Shahram Vahdany Opinion Predictions Based on the 2015 Federal Budget Lawrence Davidson My Glorious Brothers Uri Avnery Pakistan patron and victim of terror Proloy Bagchi The Greatest Threat to Cultural Heritage in Syria Franklin Lamb Israeli Good Tidings for Palestinians Stephen Lendman Remembering 2014 (Badly) Richard Falk Ready For a Nuclear War Sherwood Ross Antisémitox & French Survival Instinct Gilad Atzmon Ran Greenstein, Zionism and its Discontents Ludwig Watzal Alice in Wonderland Toby Cadman Login Media With ConscienceJavaScript must be enabled in order to use KA Facebook Fanbox. Refresh Page. Coupon Code: mwcnews2114 dish network waterloo iowa Dr. Richard Keller Subscribe to MWC News AlertEmail Address About MWCFocusNewsContactTerms & ConditionsPrivacy Policy Back to Top This work by MWC News is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.Based on a work at mwcnews.net.Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at [email protected].

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/1546

NATO’s relations with Belarus Last updated: 05 Mar. 2012 15:12 Belarus joined NATO’s Partnership for Peace (PfP) in 1995. NATO and Belarus have established a relationship based on the pursuit of common interests, while also keeping open channels for dialogue. Belarus has developed an Individual Partnership Programme (IPP) and participates in the Planning and Review Process (PARP). NATO Allies have expressed their concern at the lack of progress in democratic reforms in Belarus. Nonetheless, NATO Allies believe that keeping open channels of communication, practical cooperation and dialogue is in the best interest of regional security. NATO and Belarus cooperate in a number of areas, including civil emergency planning, scientific cooperation, and defence reforms. NATO will continue to work with Belarus to implement reforms in these areas, while continuing to call on Belarus to increase the pace of its democratic reforms. Framework for cooperation The belief that there is value in communication and practical cooperation is put into practice in several ways. Dialogue takes place within the framework of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) and is facilitated by the existence of Belarus’ diplomatic mission to NATO, which was opened in April 1998. Under the Partnership for Peace, NATO and Belarus are developing practical cooperation in a number of areas through Belarus’ Individual Partnership Programme (IPP). On the basis of the IPP, Belarusian personnel are attending courses in NATO countries and practical cooperation is being developed in areas such as civil emergency planning, crisis management, arms control, air defence and air traffic control, telecommunications and information processing, as well as language training and military education. Key areas of cooperation Security cooperation In 2009, Belarus extended an offer of rail transit to nations participating in NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. Completed in 2010, the agreement allows for the shipment of non-lethal cargo by rail through Belarus, Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Another important aspect of security cooperation is Belarus’ participation in the PfP Planning and Review Process (PARP). This is aimed at encouraging transparency and at assisting the country in developing capabilities and interoperability for international peace-support operations. NATO helps set planning targets that will enable Belarus to develop some of its forces and capabilities for potential participation in PfP activities, including NATO-led PfP operations, and in this way contribute to security and stability. Demilitarization project A good example of the tangible benefits of practical cooperation is a PfP Trust Fund project, aimed at helping Belarus meet its obligations under the Ottawa Convention on the prohibition of the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines and on their destruction. Completed in January 2007, this joint project, led by Canada and co-funded by Lithuania and Belarus, involved the destruction of some 700,000 anti-personnel mines in Belarus. Science and environment NATO and Belarus also cooperate on security-related science. Scientists from Belarus have taken leading roles in 125 activities, including collaborating with experts from the Czech Republic on exploring safer methods to destroy stockpiles of persistent organic pesticides and holding an advanced study institute course in May 2010 on advanced training of architects of secure networks. Since 2001, Belarus has received grant awards for about 40 cooperative activities under NATO’s Science for Peace and Security Programme. Areas include telecommunications, Chernobyl-related risk assessment studies and explosive material detection systems. An ongoing project has brought together scientists from Belarus, Norway and Ukraine to assess the hazards posed by radioactive contamination in the Polessie State Radiation-Ecological Reserve. In addition, over 75 science fellowships have been awarded to Belarusian scientists to study in NATO countries since 1993. NATO also seeks to contribute to the development of Belarusian civil society. This takes place primarily through public diplomacy activities. Belarusian non-governmental and civil society organisations are encouraged to engage with NATO’s Public Diplomacy Division. In every partner country an embassy of one of the NATO member states serves as a contact point and operates as a channel for disseminating information about the role and policies of the Alliance. The current NATO Contact Point Embassy in Belarus is the embassy of Estonia. Milestones in relations 1992 Belarus joins the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC, later renamed the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council in 1997). Belarus joins the Partnership for Peace, a programme aimed at increasing security and defence cooperation between NATO and individual Partner countries.. Belarus takes part in a NACC meeting, for the first time, in June, in Oslo, Norway. Belarus opens a permanent mission at NATO Headquarters. 1999 Belarus temporarily halts all cooperation with NATO, including the PfP programme and EAPC, in protest at NATO’s Kosovo air campaign. Belarus joins the PfP Planning and Review Process (PARP). NATO Allies condemn the presidential election in Belarus as failing to meet international standards and conduct a review of NATO-Belarus relations. 2007 NATO and Belarus complete the first PfP trust fund project in Belarus, which destroyed some 700,000 anti-personnel mines. NATO completes the arrangements with several countries, including Belarus, for the transit of non-lethal ISAF cargo to Afghanistan by rail. NATO sponsors new flood risk monitoring system in Ukraine and Belarus News NATO helps Belarus and Ukraine cope with flood risks29 Nov. 2011 NATO sponsors new flood risk monitoring system in Ukraine and Belarus18 Feb. 2011 NATO-supported destruction of landmines on track in Belarus05 Dec. 2006 Secretary General condemns Belarusian sentencing19 Jul. 2006 NATO condemns detention of Belarus opposition leader27 Apr. 2006 The Partnership for Peace programme The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) Statement by NATO Secretary General on elections in Belarus20 Mar. 2006 Intervention by the First Deputy Foreign Minister of the Republic of Belarus at the meeting of the EAPC08 Dec. 2005 Statement by H.E.Mr. Sergey MartynovMinister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Belarusat the meeting of the Euro-Atlanti...09 Dec. 2004 SPS Country Flyers - Science for Peace and Security (SPS)

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/1577

Staniszewski to start New Castle job this month (Updated Sep 3, 2013 at 10:34 pm) Matt Staniszewski Washington City Councilman Matt Staniszewski is scheduled to begin his new job as New Castle’s economic development director later this month, meaning he’ll have to make a decision on his residency early next year. New Castle Mayor Anthony Mastrangelo confirmed Staniszewski will start his “full-time, five-days-a-week” job on Sept. 16 and will be responsible for economic development, grant writing, code enforcement and zoning. The job requires him to establish residency in the Lawrence County town within six months of starting the position, meaning he would not be permitted to serve in both New Castle and Washington at the same time without a waiver. Staniszewski, 36, declined to comment on the new job or say if he would resign from his council position. He also would not comment on whether he will continue running for re-election as a Republican in the upcoming November election. “Every council member, they all have full-time jobs as part of their private life, and I’m just trying to make a living,” Staniszewski said. However, in an interview the day New Castle Council formally hired him, Staniszewski said he would “look at the options” in the town and was considering whether to “invest into some properties” there. New Castle is about 75 miles north of Washington and has a population of 23,273, according to the 2010 Census. New Castle solicitor Jason Medure said the economic development director position requires Staniszewski to establish residency within six months, but he could ask for a delay of that timetable. “He hasn’t asked for any type of special dispensation at this point,” Medure said. “We have no role to play nor any comment regarding his Washington position. But to take the job, he must establish residency within the City of New Castle within six months.” That timetable would allow Staniszewski to stay on the November ballot, but he would almost certainly have to resign his seat early in the term if re-elected. Washington Mayor Brenda Davis said the city’s own residency requirements wouldn’t allow Staniszewski to keep both jobs and commute. “Mr. Staniszewski has a decision to make. Does he want to take the job up there or does he want to be a city councilman down here?” Davis said. “We have a residency requirement ourselves here in the city.” Staniszewski was hired for the New Castle position on July 26 on a 3-2 vote by New Castle City Council. He will be paid a prorated portion of the $65,000 annual salary for the remainder of this year. Staniszewski gets a new job Washington councilman accepts new job in New Castle New Castle revokes job offer to Staniszewski

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/1599

Home > POLITICS AS USUAL (By Jim Baron) Tax increases vs. pensions POLITICS AS USUAL (By Jim Baron) Tax increases vs. pensions By eedition The battle lines are being drawn. In the fight to close the state’s cavernous budget deficits, it’s coming down to tax increases vs. pensions. That’s it. There simply are no other piles of money large enough to fill the $300 million hole in Rhode Island’s finances by June 30. Some people point to human services, which in the minds of many equates to stuff for the poor – welfare. Well, we have taken several whacks at that in recent years, lowering the income levels below which people are able to tap the services and otherwise putting them out of the reach of some people who legitimately need them. Add to that the fact that Rhode Island is still trying to claw its way out of the Great Recession, which hit us earlier and harder than many other places, and you have a convincing argument that our meager remaining resources to help the poor, unemployed, homeless and disabled ain’t the place we are going to find $300 million. Gov. Lincoln Chafee’s flawed plan to raise the sales tax got shot down before it got off the ground. As even some of the business people grudgingly acknowledged at that six-hour, hang-the-governor-in-effigy House Finance Committee hearing a couple of weeks ago, a small increase in the income tax would be a better and fairer way to hike revenue. But that couldn’t come close to filling the $300 million. Which brings us back to pensions. If you listen to talk radio, read the blogs, the op-ed pages and letters to the editor, you will find throngs of people who would happily hack away at pensions for public employees. It is a perverse form of class warfare: instead of the poor fighting the rich, we have the middle class fighting a shirts-and-skins battle amongst themselves to bring each other down. The problem is, at its root, jealousy, always a self-destructive emotion. Workers in the private sector have seen Corporate America steadily erode our standard of living. The pensions were the first to go, but that was OK, because we had these shiny new instruments called 401(k)s. They would be just as good as pensions to provide for us all in our old age, because we’d make all kinds of dough in the stock market. We’d be the captains of our own retirement destiny. Well, if there was one good thing about the Great Recession, it is that it finally proved once and for all that all the claims about 401(k)s were BIG FAT FREAKN’ LIES. Employer-paid health insurance was next to go, as the benign-sounding “co-shares” crept up and up and up, taking an ever-bigger bite out of workers’ paychecks. Not only did regular pay raises go down the toilet, but wages were cut for many in the middle class (while CEO and other top executive pay rocketed through the stratosphere), workers were tossed out onto the unemployment lines by the millions and many of those who managed to hang onto their now lower-paying jobs saw their hours reduced, further diminishing their ability to provide for their families. These people should properly turn their anger at their employers and the politicians (Republican AND Democrat) who were complicit in this redistribution of wealth from the middle class that had once made America the envy of the entire world, to the uber-rich, mimicking third-world hellholes that have a small class of spectacularly wealthy and everyone else is dirt-poor. I read an article just last week which told about how, after decades of Corporate America shipping our jobs to China and Indonesia and Vietnam where the work can be done by 13-year-olds for 30 cents a week with no environmental or job safety protections, European companies are now locating factories in America because our pay is lower and our workers enjoy fewer benefits. That’s right, America is becoming Germany’s Indonesia. That is the level to which we have sunk. But instead of turning their righteous anger where it belongs, to the plutocrats who have lessened their lot in life, too many of the middle class have allowed jealousy to turn them against their neighbors who work in the public sector who have, until now, managed to maintain their standard of living. I look at public sector unions like those African game preserves where endangered species are protected from extinction. Let’s face it, pensions are in danger of becoming extinct. Employer-paid health care is in danger of becoming extinct. Retiree health benefits are just about extinct. If these things are yanked away from the last workers who have them, they will be gone forever and none of us will be able to enjoy them ever again. Being old will once again be a horrible time, even if Congressman Paul Ryan isn’t able to dismantle Medicare. We are constantly told that Social Security was never meant to be the sole provider of resources for the elderly. It was meant to be one-third of a three-legged stool: Social Security, private savings and pensions. Well, for too many Americans one of those legs – pensions -- has been violently kicked away from the stool. They are left to their own devices in the brutal jungle of the stock market. If you are like those who came to their retirement age in 2008 when the Great Recession hit and the bottom dropped out of everyone’s 401(k)s, you will eat dog food in your old age, and not that fancy, expensive dog food you see advertised on TV, but the cheap, stinky kind of dog food, something the CEO of the company you worked for wouldn’t feed to his dog. As for the second leg of that stool, when was the last time you were able to put away any significant savings after you finished paying the bills every month? But there is one big problem with this populist screed you have been reading. The pensions for many public sector workers, while worth preserving in concept, are, alas, unsustainable. The public sector unions made many deals with the devil (politicians), and when you make a deal with the devil you are sooner or later going to get burned (not to mention often losing your soul). Put the state and municipal pensions together and you can never raise taxes enough to make them viable. The pension deals were made in the spirit of agreeing to something now and worrying how to pay for it later. Well, it is now later. But much in the same way that the benefits were granted and the day of reckoning put off to the future, part of the solution to the unfunded liabilities can also (actually, for legal and moral reasons must) be put off to the future. Unless we want to be sued (and lose) we have to start with people who are not yet vested in their respective pension plans. One of the few half-measures the General Assembly took in dealing with state worker pensions was raising the retirement age, bringing it to 62. Increase that to 65 (not out of line), adding three more years to which employees would have to work – and pay into the system -- before they start drawing out. And those cost of living increases? Make them payable once every three years, an average of the inflation rate for the prior three years with a 3 percent cap. That should change the calculations of unfunded liabilities. Same thing goes for municipal pensions, although you probably have to keep a lower retirement age for police officers and firefighters. Would you want a 64-year-old fireman carrying you up a flight of stairs to safety? And if there are any municipalities who still let their town and city councilors or school committee members collect pensions, that should stop, post haste. That goes for health benefits as well. Attending a meeting once a month for a two-year term shouldn’t entitle you to a pension or paid health insurance. While we are at it, take away the paid health care for the General Assembly. The General Assembly is always moaning about being a part time legislature and they must have day jobs as well. Correct, so why are they burdening the taxpayers with their health insurance costs? That should come from their real jobs. Believe it or not, we would have to amend the state constitution to take away legislators’ paid health benefits. Of course, if that notion could get anywhere near a ballot, it would pass in a landslide. It’s a tiny dollar amount, but if we are going to cut fat and waste out of the budget, that seems like a place to start. The same goes at the federal level for congressional pensions. A drop in the bucket dollar-wise, but it would have strong symbolic significance in slashing waste and abuse. It might also address the concerns of those people who are always squawking about term limits without messing with the U.S. Constitution. Pensions and health benefits should be there for people who make a career working full time for a company, not as a gimme for greedy politicians who can write their own rules, whether they are in the U.S. Senate or your local school committee. Governor Chafee said he wanted to hear alternative solutions. That’s mine. Source URL: http://www.pawtuckettimes.com/content/politics-usual-jim-baron-tax-increases-vs-pensions

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/1685

Continued: GOP spent $900,000 to help Coleman pay legal bills Last update: June 23, 2009 - 8:15 PM In another sign of the high stakes in Minnesota's disputed U.S. Senate election, Republicans are giving big donations to a national fundraising organization to help Norm Coleman fight to reclaim his seat. The National Republican Senatorial Committee spent nearly $938,000 in May to help Coleman, with most of it going to pay legal bills to firms in Minneapolis and Washington. The organization's Democratic counterpart, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, reported raising more than $282,000 in May contributions earmarked for the recount. Finding new sources of revenue has become increasingly important as legal fees and other expenses associated with the election recount and courtroom proceedings are believed to have exceeded $12 million for Coleman and DFLer Al Franken. A ruling is expected any day from the Minnesota Supreme Court on Coleman's appeal of an election trial ruling that Franken finished on top by 312 votes. Among those earmarking money to the recount through the Republican organization is Sheldon Adelson, CEO of the Venetian Resort and Hotel in Las Vegas. He gave the maximum of $30,400. Home builder Bob Perry of Houston, a contributor to the Swift Boat campaign against 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, also contributed $30,400. On the Democratic side, much of the donated money came from California entertainment industry figures. David Geffen, a founder of Dreamworks movies, gave $5,000, and other industry moguls also contributed. Singer Barbra Streisand and composer Burt Bacharach also gave money. FEC ruling helped In March, the national organizations became new vehicles for paying expenses of the two candidates. That's when Franken and Coleman, through their allies, persuaded the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to clear the way for national party organizations to pay some of the millions of dollars in expenses for lawyers and other workers during the recount and election trial. The ruling will help them pay bills remaining from the seven-week trial, as well as expenses from the battle before the Minnesota Supreme Court. The decision gave the candidates another chance to tap their most affluent and passionate supporters even if they already gave maximum contributions during the election year. National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesman Brian Walsh said the organization is "making sure that the right person, the person with the most votes, is declared the winner." Hamline law Prof. David Schultz, who has followed campaign financing, sees another motive in the fundraising: rallying the troops. The fight against Franken could do more to rally support than fundraising for the 2010 congressional elections, he said. "It keeps the Republican base hot and bothered," he said. "It says, 'We're fighting this thing and making sure Democrats don't get their way.'" The disbursements appear to be for immediate expenses, however. The Minneapolis law firm Dorsey and Whitney got $360,000 and Patton Boggs of Washington got $246,000. Pat Doyle • 651-222-1210 more from politics

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/1701

‘Legalize it’ has impact outside US States’ pot votes prompt regional policy questions A worker inspects a marijuana plant at a grow house in Denver, Colo. (THE ASSOCIATED PRESS) By E. Eduardo Castillo and Michael Weissenstein THE ASSOCIATED PRESS MEXICO CITY — A group of Latin American leaders declared Monday that votes by two U.S. states to legalize marijuana have important implications for efforts to quash drug smuggling, offering the first government reaction from a region increasingly frustrated with the U.S.-backed war on drugs. The declaration by the leaders of Mexico, Belize, Honduras and Costa Rica did not explicitly say they were considering weakening their governments� efforts against marijuana smuggling, but it strongly implied the votes last week in Colorado and Washington state would make enforcement of marijuana bans more difficult. The Obama administration has yet to make clear how strongly it will enforce a federal ban on marijuana that is not affected by the Colorado and Washington votes. The four called for the Organization of American States to study the impact of the Colorado and Washington votes and said the United Nations� General Assembly should hold a special session on the prohibition of drugs by 2015 at the latest. President-elect Enrique Pena Nieto has promised to shift Mexico�s focus to preventing violence against ordinary citizens, although he says he intends to keep battling cartels and is opposed to drug legalization. Guatemala�s president has advocated the international legalization of drugs. Last week, the most influential adviser to Mexico�s president-elect, who takes office Dec. 1, questioned how the country will enforce a ban on growing and smuggling a drug that is now legal under some U.S. state laws. �It has become necessary to analyze in depth the implications for public policy and health in our nations emerging from the state and local moves to allow the legal production, consumption and distribution of marijuana in some countries of our continent,� Mexican President Felipe Calderon said after a meeting with Honduran President Porfirio Lobo, Costa Rican President Laura Chinchilla and Prime Minister Dean Barrow of Belize. Marijuana legalization by U.S. states is �a paradigm change on the part of those entities in respect to the current international system,� Calderon said. Mexico has seen tens of thousands of people killed over the last six years during a militarized government campaign against the country�s drug cartels. Monday�s statement by the four leaders �is an important indicator of the desire to engage in a more robust discussion of policy,� said Eric Olson, associate director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington. The call by the four presidents was welcomed by marijuana activists in the U.S. Forcing international review of drug policies was a stated goal of the campaigns for legalization in Colorado and Washington. �Marijuana prohibition in this country has been detrimental � but it�s been absolutely catastrophic to our southern neighbors,� said Dan Riffle, an analyst and lobbying for the Marijuana Policy Project, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group that largely financed the two campaigns. Mexico is one of the primary suppliers of marijuana to the U.S., while Honduras and Belize are important stops on the northward passage of cocaine from South America. Costa Rica is seeing increasing use of its territory by drug traffickers. Luis Videgaray, head of Pena Nieto�s transition team, told Radio Formula on Wednesday that the votes in the two states complicated his country�s commitment to stopping the growing and smuggling of marijuana.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/1711

Murphy takes down McMahon in Senate matchup U.S. senatorial Democratic candidate Chris Murphy hugs his wife catherine as he announces his victory at the Hartford Hilton in Hartford, Conn., Tuesday, Nov. 6, 2012. By Brian Hallenbeck and JC Reindl Hartford — Beaming and triumphant, U.S. Rep. Chris Murphy took the stage at a Hilton Hartford ballroom late Tuesday night to acknowledge the thunderous applause of supporters who helped him win a U.S. Senate seat in an often bitter campaign against Republican Linda McMahon.Joined by friends and close family, a graceful and well-composed McMahon came on stage in the ballroom at the Stamford Hilton at about 10:15 p.m. to concede defeat to a crowd of cheering supporters. At 11 p.m., The Associated Press was reporting 332,256 votes for Murphy and 284,747 for McMahon.The winner, standing in front of more than 20 members of his extended family and the state's Democratic royalty — U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman and Attorney General George Jepsen — said his victory "proved that what matters most in life is the measure of your ideas, the measure of your determination and the measure of your friends and family, not the measure of your wallet."McMahon, the Greenwich multimillionaire who poured nearly $100 million of her own money into back-to-back attempts to win a Senate seat, failed to shake Murphy's hold on union members and other pockets of traditional support in Connecticut's cities."This campaign was about ideas," Murphy said, "the idea that government can create good jobs, that manufacturing is not dead ... the idea we need to bring our men and women home from Afghanistan."Blumenthal, who defeated McMahon in a U.S. Senate race two years ago, said Murphy had "something money can't buy. He had his family and people like you in this room.""Tonight, we begin a new era with someone who will be my partner in fighting cuts to Social Security ... and fighting for a woman's right to choose," Blumenthal said. "We're going to be fighting to put Connecticut back to work — creating jobs and economic growth."McMahon said she has no regrets about how she ran the race."I will repeat what Governor Rell had told me when I first started running. She said, 'You are going to love the people of Connecticut when you go out to meet them,' and I do, from the bottom of my heart," McMahon said. "I would really love to have won, but we gave it an incredibly, incredibly good fight."I don't think we left a stone unturned, I don't think we would have done anything differently in the campaign," she said.Speaking with reporters afterward, McMahon dispelled speculation that she may be back in 2014 to challenge Gov. Dannel P. Malloy."I do not have any plans to run for office again at this time," McMahon said. "I am not considering running for governor. I looked at that, and we had some really good candidates to run for governor. That's not an office that I'll be seeking."McMahon also addressed whether the nearly $100 million she has spent campaigning was wasted."I got into this race because when I looked into the faces of my little grandchildren, I wanted to make sure that they had America's promise of opportunity, and I don't think that I could put a price on that."McMahon thanked the crowd of supporters along with WWE employees and her husband, Vince, "who stood beside and behind me all the way through this."Yet Vince McMahon, who rarely appeared at his wife's public events, happened to be off near the back of the crowded stage. The WWE ringmaster visibly blushed at the sudden attention."He's very shy — he doesn't want to come out," McMahon said, smiling.Tuesday's vote count heralds a rough and costly failure for McMahon, who stepped down in late 2009 as CEO of Stamford-based WWE to declare herself a Senate candidate, her first go at elective office.McMahon, who would have been Connecticut's first female senator, faced the inherent challenge of being a Republican candidate in a deep-blue state that hasn't sent a Republican to the U.S. Senate since Lowell P. Weicker Jr.'s 1982 re-election.The 64-year-old Greenwich resident is now back where she was on election night two years ago — but with $42 million less to her purse.Tuesday night concluded a strikingly bitter Senate contest in which both sides deployed a succession of attack ads against the other. But it was McMahon's mostly self-funded campaign that filled the majority of the television and radio campaign ads, including Spanish language channels.Although McMahon endorsed Republican Mitt Romney for president, in the race's final stretch, she used TV ads, pamphlets and door-to-door canvassing to urge inner-city minorities in Hartford, New Haven and Bridgeport to vote for President Obama and then her under the Independent Party line."Good for Chris Murphy, good for Connecticut," Malloy said in a statement. "Tonight's victory by Chris shows that we have elections in Connecticut, not auctions. Chris is a smart, decent, thoughtful guy, and he's exactly the right kind of person to represent the people of Connecticut in the U.S. Senate. He knows that although we've begun to turn things around in Connecticut, choices that are made in Washington DC impact all of us. I'm confident that when it comes time to make those choices in the U.S. Senate, Chris will make the right ones for Connecticut."Sen. Patty Murray, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, also congratulated Murphy."This is a great night for Connecticut and for middle class Americans across the country. Chris Murphy went up against a mountain of money and beat an opponent who spent more than anyone else in history to win a seat in the U.S. Senate," he said. U.S. senatorial Democratic candidate Chris Murphy announces his victory at the Hartford Hilton in Hartford, Conn., Tuesday, Nov. 6, 2012. Tim Martin/The Day Linda McMahon greets A.J. Bernardo, 13, center, and Ajay Ramirez, 15, after her concession speech to a crowd gathered Tuesday night, Nov. 6, 2012, at the Hilton in Stamford. Vince McMahon watches as his wife Linda McMahon gives her concession speech to a crowd gathered Tuesday night, Nov. 6, 2012, at the Hilton in Stamford. Republican candidate for U.S. Senate Linda McMahon walks with her ballot in hand while voting in Greenwich, Conn., Tuesday, Nov. 6, 2012. McMahon and Democratic opponent Chris Murphy are vying for the Senate seat now held by Joe Lieberman, an independent who's retiring. Charles Krupa/AP Photo Rep. Chris Murphy, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, fourth from right, prepares to vote with his sons Rider Murphy, 1, and Owen Murphy, 4, in a polling station at Cheshire High School, in Cheshire, Conn., on Election Day, Nov. 6, 2012. Doug Mills/The New York Times Senator-elect stops in New London to say thanks Definitive, quick victory took Murphy by surprise It's about more than money McMahon concedes to Murphy; full length video

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/1717

GOP went too far Both parties are to blame for the weakening of the filibuster rule in the Senate and inviting the potential for more ideological and partisan appointments to the federal courts in years to come.It was the Democrats, by a 52-48 vote, who changed the rules, ending filibusters for judicial and executive appointments. Confirmation of a president's nominations to direct federal agencies or fill court vacancies will now require a simple majority, not the 60 votes to break a filibuster.But it was the Republican minority, by abusing the filibuster rule, which invited this reaction by frustrated Democrats. The latest and among the most egregious examples was the Republican use of the filibuster to block all of the president's appointments to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, for no other reason than they wanted to keep a conservative majority in control of the court.The intent of the filibuster in the Senate is to give the minority party the ability to oppose the appointment of government officials or judges that it considers ideologically extreme or not equipped for a position. In that respect, it has served as a good rule. The Senate minority should not however use the rule to prevent the president from leading or to bring courts and agencies to a standstill. That has been the GOP strategy. Acceleration of the filibuster to block appointments arguably began when Democrats were in the minority 2003-2005 and sought to stop or delay several nominations by President George W. Bush. Over the last several years, however, Republicans have taken things to another level. Half of all filibusters waged against court nominees in the Senate's history have taken place since the election of President Obama in 2008.While the Democrats decision is understandable, it is still reason for concern. Exempted from the decision were U.S. Supreme Court nominations, which can still be subject to filibuster. However, will that stand, or will the party in control when future Supreme Court appointments arise - be it Democrats or Republicans - now be tempted to kill the filibuster and pave the way for a strong liberal or conservative choice?The better option may have been a return to the "talking filibuster," requiring senators to stand up and keep talking unless 60 votes could be found to stop the debate. That would encourage the minority to employ the powerful rule only for extreme circumstances.The filibuster rule remains in place for legislation, a good thing.History will judge the import of this historic decision. Senate Democrats better hope they keep winning elections.

时政

2014-41/1934/en_head.json.gz/18141

Fredrick "David" Haase Libertarian candidate for the U.S. Senate Meet the 2008 Libertarian Candidate for President of the United States Meet the first Libertarian to be President of the USA. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and thinking the results will be different. Albert Einstein. Take a look at David on the issues Give David some advise or criticism Take the smallest political quiz. http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html Find out where you fit. Far Leftist, who wants people to have all social freedoms, but no economic freedoms. Far Rightist, who wants people to have all economic freedoms, but no social freedoms. Far Upist, who wants people to have all freedoms (a pure libertarian). Far Downist, who wants people to have no freedoms (a pure totalitarian). It takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. Albert Einstein. Left versus right see a short video about the inventor of the Nolan Chart regarding the world of politics. http://www.libertariantv.com/libertarian_alternative/nolan_chart/index.asp official site of the party http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others. We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized. Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power. For Liberty For All Fredrick "David" Haase CCIM, GIA 200 West 34th pmb 587 [email protected]

时政

2014-41/1934/en_head.json.gz/18529

Palestine Mandate Produced by the Palestine Bureau in Ramallah, Jerusalem and elsewhere The Road Map: Israel’s reservations From the Balfour Declaration to Partition … to Two States? The Palestinian news agency Ma’an called the Balfour Declaration “117 words that changed the face of the Middle East”. In an article published on Friday 2 November 2007, 90 years after the Balfour Declaration was made, Ma’an wrote that “Despite the condition that the creation of the Jewish homeland should not prejudice the rights of Palestinian communities, that ill-fated decision has led to a continuing state of conflict, the deaths of thousands of people and created a huge refugee problem, with many Palestinians exiled from their ancestral homeland”. The Ma’an article on the 90th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration is here. International Law Professor Marcelo G. Kohen has written that “The 1922 Mandate of Palestine recognized for the first time in an international instrument that the Jews constituted a People”. He also wrote that “Zionist policy did not aim at the subjugation of the Arab population of Palestine”. Professor Kohen expressed these views in a chapter he wrote, “La Longue Marche vers la reconnaissance territoriale de l’autre” (”The Long March towards the territorial recognition of the other”, contributing to the book Israel et l’Autre (Israel and the Other), edited by William Ossipow, and published by Labor et Fides in Geneva in 2005. (Translation is by this writer). The Balfour Declaration was written at the height of the First World War, when Britain and the Allied powers were fighting Germany and its ally, the Ottoman Empire. By the time World War I ended, the Ottoman Empire had disintegrated, and it was agreed at the San Remo Conference held in 1920 that the Palestine Mandate would be assigned to Britain. The Palestine Mandate formally incorporated the terms of the Balfour Declaration, and stated: “…the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and … recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country…” It also stated that “The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes”. The Palestine Mandate is reproduced here. After the Second World War, Britain informed the new United Nations Organization, founded in 1946 as the successor to the League of Nations, that it wanted to end its Mandatory responsibilites — and asked the UN to find a solution. On 29 November 1947, the UN General Assembly voted to partition Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. On 14 May 1948, Britain withdrew from Palestine, and representatives of the Jewish community in Palestine and the Zionist movement abroad met in Tel Aviv to declare the establishment of the State of Israel. The Declaration states that “the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country … was recognized in the Balfour Declaration of the 2nd November, 1917, and re-affirmed in the Mandate of the League of Nations which, in particular, gave international sanction to the historic connection between the Jewish people and Eretz-Israel and to the right of the Jewish people to rebuild its National Home … On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable”. The full text of The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, mentioning the endorsement, in the Balfour Declaration, of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, can be found here. Professor Kohen also argued, in his chapter in Israel and the Other, that “The 1922 White Paper said that Palestine was not meant to become as Jewish as England is English – this was not the objective. It did not mean that all of Palestine would be converted into the Jewish National Home, but that the Jewish national home would be established in Palestine. The form that the Jewish national home was not a question that the League of Nations mandate dealt with…” “The UK had a great/heavy responsibility as a Mandatory power. The British Government showed itself incapable of leading Palestine to independence, which would have meant taking into account the interests of two peoples that were on the territory … When the UN was created, the UK it did not put Palestine under the newly-created Trusteeship regime, but instead seized the UN General Assembly of the question, and said it was putting a unilateral end to its administration. The UK tried to free itself, unilaterally, of its treaty responsibilities. The Mandate constituted an international regime, which could only be ended by a competent international body (the UNGA—as determined by the League of Nations in its resolution of 18 April 1946.) The (British) seized the UNGA of the matter in February 1947, and a Special Session started in April 1947. On 29 November 1947, the UNGA voted to adopt a Partition Plan – UN GA Resolution 181 (II), which called for the creation of two states in Palestine — one Jewish and one Arab (Jerusalem was to remain under UN rule for at least 10 years)…” Professor Kohen made the following points about the legal basis of the Partition Plan: (1) the UNGA was competent to adopt it (it was the only body competent, and it asked the UN Security Council to take measures necessary to put it into effect), and it did not go beyond its competences; (2) the Partition Plan recognized two peoples (this dated from the League of Nations Mandate); (3) the principle of territorial integrity is not affected by a decision to distribute a territory between its two title-holders; (4) the Partition Plan is in full conformity with the UN Charter and with international law; (5) it explained to the parties the procedure to follow for the creation of their State (singular? Is this just French grammar?), to define the frontiers, and it mentioned guarantees that all the citizens of the two states must respect, etc. (6) even if the parties arrived at a bilaterally negotiated accord, the UNGA would have to approve it. On the night of 14 May 1948, as the last British troops withdrew, the establishment of the state of Israel was declared, according to historic rights of the Jewish people on the territory, the Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations Mandate, and UNGA Resolution 181. “Once the Jewish national home was created in one part of Palestine, there was no justification for Jewish settlement in other parts of Palestine”, Professor Kohen wrote. The “Arab” State envisaged in the 1947 UN Partition Resolution 181 has yet to come into existence — and is still sorely lacking, as Haidar Abdel Shafei said at the opening of the Madrid Peace Conference in 1991. The creation of a Palestinian State is supposed to be the aim — or eventual goal — of the Middle East peace conference– or “meeting” — that the U.S. is supposed to convene by the end of this year in Annapolis.

时政

2014-41/1934/en_head.json.gz/18693

Thinking Outside the Blog Thinking Outside the Blog, written by Louis Lapides offers readers a much - needed pit stop to help us refine our thinking on life's big issues. In his blog Louis steers us outside those comfortable mental roads we often travel on when it comes to the way we think about God, religion, politics and culture. Thinking Outside the Blog maps out a highway of wisdom that must be revisited over and over. Arab Mufti Admitted: The Arabs Sold the Land to the Jews In contrast to the current lie being promoted by pro- Palestinian supporters, the Jewish people did not steal the land from the Arabs and kick them out. Rather, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj al-Amin al-Husseini, a man who found friendship with Adolph Hitler in their hatred of the Jewish people, seventy years ago admitted the Arabs sold the land of Israel to the Jewish people. Here is a reposting of the blog Israel Matzav entitled: The Mufti tells the truth: The Arabs sold the land to the Jews The Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj al-Amin al-Husseini, will never be accused of loving Jews. In fact, 70 years ago today, the Mufti, who was Yasser Arafat's uncle,met with Adolph Hitler in Berlin to discuss the 'final solution' to the 'Jewish problem.' In 1937, the Mufti testified before the Peel Commission, which was looking into the causes of unrest between Jews and Arabs in what was then known as 'Palestine.' The Mufti made a stunning admission: Most of the land that belonged to the Jews, which we are constantly accused of 'stealing,' had actually been purchased by the Jews from the Arabs. And the Arabs were what we lawyers call willing sellers. The Peel Commission report had some very salutary things to say about the Zionists and their impact on the land and on Arab society and economy. One of the most important for debunking Arab anti-Israel accusations is: “The Arab population shows a remarkable increase since 1920, and it has had some share in the increased prosperity of Palestine. Many Arab landowners have benefited from the sale of land and the profitable investment of the purchase money. The fellaheen (Arab peasants) are better off on the whole than they were in 1920. This Arab progress has been partly due to the import of Jewish capital into Palestine and other factors associated with the growth of the (Jewish) National Home. In particular, the Arabs have benefited from social services which could not have been provided on the existing scale without the revenue obtained from the Jews…Much of the land (being farmed by the Jews) now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased…There was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land.” The land shortage decried by the Arabs “…was due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.” (Chapter V in the report). El-Husseini’s interview on January 12, 1937 was preserved in the Commission’s notes and referenced, although not published, in the full report. It has been summarized by a number of scholars, including Kenneth Stein, The Land Question in Palestine 1917-1939 (Univ. of North Carolina Press, 2009) and Howard M. Sachar, A History of Israel from the Rise of Zionism to our Time (Alfred A. Knopf, 1976); and a detailed analysis with quotations from the interview can be found in Aaron Kleiman’s The Palestine Royal Commission, 1937 (Garland Publications, 1987, pp. 298ff.). The selections from the interview presented below can be found on line here and here. Sir Laurie Hammond, a member of the Peel Commission, interviewed the Mufti about his insistence to the Commission that Zionists were stealing Arab land and driving peasants into homelessness. He spoke through an interpreter. SIR L. HAMMOND: Would you give me the figures again for the land. I want to know how much land was held by the Jews before the Occupation. MUFTI: At the time of the Occupation the Jews held about 100,000 dunams. SIR L. HAMMOND: What year? MUFTI: At the date of the British Occupation. SIR L. HAMMOND: And now they hold how much? MUFTI: About 1,500,000 dunams: 1,200,000 dunams already registered in the name of the Jewish holders, but there are 300,000 dunams which are the subject of written agreements, and which have not yet been registered in the Land Registry. That does not, of course, include the land which was assigned, about 100,000 dunams. SIR L. HAMMOND: What 100,000 dunams was assigned? Is that not included in, the 1,200,000 dunams? The point is this. He says that in 1920 at the time of the Occupation, the Jews only held 100,000 dunams, is that so? I asked the figures from the Land Registry, how much land the Jews owned at the time of the Occupation. Would he be surprised to hear that the figure is not 100,000 but 650,000 dunams? MUFTI: It may be that the difference was due to the fact that many lands were bought by contract which were not registered. SIR L. HAMMOND: There is a lot of difference between 100,000 and 650,000. MUFTI: In one case they sold about 400,000 dunams in one lot. SIR L. HAMMOND: Who? An Arab? MUFTI: Sarsuk. An Arab of Beyrouth. SIR L. HAMMOND: His Eminence gave us a picture of the Arabs being evicted from their land and villages being wiped out. What I want to know is, did the Government of Palestine, the Administration, acquire the land and then hand it over to the Jews? MUFTI: In most cases the lands were acquired. SIR L. HAMMOND: I mean forcibly acquired-compulsory acquisition as land would be acquired for public purposes?< MUFTI: No, it wasn’t. SIR L. HAMMOND: Not taken by compulsory acquisition? MUFTI: No. SIR L. HAMMOND: But these lands amounting to some 700,000 dunams were actually sold? MUFTI: Yes, they were sold, but the country was placed in such conditions as would facilitate such purchases. SIR I HAMMOND: I don’t quite understand what you mean by that. They were sold. Who sold them? MUFTI: Land owners. SIR I HAMMOND: Arabs? MUFTI: In most cases they were Arabs. SIR L. HAMMOND: Was any compulsion put on them to sell? If so, by whom? MUFTI: As in other countries, there are people who by force of circumstances, economic forces, sell their land. SIR L. HAMMOND: Is that all he said? MUFTI: A large part of these lands belong to absentee landlords who sold the land over the heads of their tenants, who were forcibly evicted. The majority of these landlords were absentees who sold their land over the heads of their tenants. Not Palestinians but Lebanese. SIR L. HAMMOND: Is His Eminence in a position to give the Commission a list of the people, the Arabs who have sold lands, apart from those absentee landlords? MUFTI: It is possible for me to supply such a list. SIR L. HAMMOND: I ask him now this: does he think that as compared with the standard of life under the Turkish rule the position of the fellahin in the villages has improved or deteriorated? MUFTI: Generally speaking I think their situation has got worse. SIR L. HAMMOND: Is taxation heavier or lighter? MUFTI: Taxation was much heavier then, but now there are additional burdens. SIR L. HAMMOND: I am asking him if it is now, the present day, as we are sitting together here, is it a fact that the fellahin has a much lighter tax than he had under the Turkish rule? Or is he taxed more heavily? MUFTI: The present taxation is lighter, but the Arabs nevertheless have now other taxation, for instance, customs. LORD PEEL: And the condition of the fellahin as regards, for example, education. Are there more schools or fewer schools now? MUFTI: They may have more schools, comparatively, but at the same time there has been an increase in their numbers. The Hajj Amin el-Husseini, the intractable opponent of Zionism, a Jew-hater on par with Hitler, admitted under questioning that no Arab land was stolen; no Arabs were wiped out, no villages destroyed. Rather, the Jews bought hundreds of thousands of dunam (about ¼ of an acre) of land from willing sellers, often from absentee Arab landowners. Moreover, thanks in part to the Zionists and the British, the quality of life for Palestine’s Arab peasantry was vastly improved, with less taxation, more schools, and an increase in Arab population. The next time someone spouts the Arab line about how Zionists came and stole Arab land and drove Arabs out, just quote the Mufti. Louis Lapides Adolph Hitler, anti-Israel, jerusalem, Mufti, ScriptureSolutions Facebook Page If I didn't believe God has His foot on both the brakes and the accelerator of my life, I would do everything I could to move out of the fast lane. Yet I see every experience I face as His design to bring change and growth into my life. Vietnam. My love of music. Artistic abilities. Devotion to God's word. My desire to help others. Fascination with the possibilities with the Internet. Disappointments. Solving problems. Making both good and bad decisions. Everyone of my heartbreaks and heartfelt joys motivate me to rely more and more on God's grace especially when my life is moving faster than the posted speed limit. Sometimes I wonder how cool it would be to live a boring life where not much happens. But then I wouldn't have much to write about. To know me is to know a person who hasn't figured out how to buffer myself from life's suffering and pain. Nor am I able to do that for others. And for that I am thankful . . . . most of the time. ScriptureSolutions Committee For Accuracy In Middle East Reporting in America The David Horowitz Freedom Center NewAntisemitism Seismic-Shock Rosh Pina Project ThinkingOutsidetheBlog Followers Fight The New Anti-Semitism!: Truth, Half-Truths a... Arab Mufti Admitted: The Arabs Sold the Land to th... Louis Lapides" New Book Burying the Jesus Family Tomb Controversy

时政

2014-41/1934/en_head.json.gz/19012

California Political ReviewNew Ideas for California's FutureHome Cali-Culture Publisher’s Corner California Political News And Views You are here: Home / Top Stories / Gov. Brown Legislating by Legacy and VanityGov. Brown Legislating by Legacy and Vanity July 28, 2012 By Katy Grimes 21 Comments First there was the bullet train to nowhere. Now there are the tunnels to nowhere. Gov. Jerry Brown is hell-bent on creating a legacy. Unfortunately, it also appears that most of California’s legislators make decisions based on legacy as well. But lawmaking by legacy rarely bodes well. Photo courtesy of DonkeyHotey, flickr Brown announced Wednesday that the state intends to build two large tunnels to move water under the very fragile Delta, from Northern California to Southern California. Where is Jake Gittes when you need him? Gittes was the hard-boiled private investigator in “Chinatown,” the 1974 movie about the historical California battle over water. Set in Los Angeles in 1937, “Chinatown” was inspired by the California Water Wars, the historical disputes over land and water rights that raged in southern California during the 1910s and 1920s. Gittes, played by Jack Nicholson, discovers that water is illegally being diverted, and that that agents of the water department have been demolishing farmers’ water tanks and poisoning their wells. “Either you bring the water to L.A. or you bring L.A. to the water,” Noah Cross says, played by John Houston. Cross was the movie’s villain, and tried to gain control of all the water in Los Angeles. It appears that like a character out of the movie, Gov. Jerry Brown has reignited California’s North-vs.-South battle over fresh water. Water water everywhere, but not a drop to drink Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and Brown held a Sacramento news conference at the California Natural Resources Agency to announce a massive, multibillion-dollar water diversion plan, which many are saying is only another version of the peripheral canal plan that voters rejected in 1982, 30 years ago, during Brown’s last run as governor. Brown is acting like a woman scorned. “Analysis paralysis is not why I came back 30 years later to handle some of the same issues,” Brown said. “At this stage, as I see many of my friends dying… I want to get s— done.” How eloquent. Brown called the plan “a big idea for a big state.” But the plan to funnel water from the Sacramento River to pumps that supply water to parts of Southern California, the Central Valley and the Bay Area, has many worried that Northern California will be faced with shortages. Farmers, fishermen, and environmentalists, oppose the plan, and rallied at the Capitol. They say diverting Northern California water would be the final death blow to the fragile Delta. Water Politics Devastating environmental litigation resulted in cutbacks on one third of all water deliveries to California’s Central Valley, causing agricultural production losses, thousands of jobs, and hundreds of millions of dollars in crops. Three years ago, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ordered major pumping cutbacks into the California Aqueduct that delivers water to the state’s farms, based on arbitrary concerns that the giant water pumps killed the Delta Smelt, a tiny fish not even indigenous to the Delta. The Fish and Wildlife Service ordered 81 billion gallons of water, enough to put 85,000 acres of farmland back into production, to flow out to the ocean each year, instead of feeding California’s Central Valley farms. Instead of fighting to feed California’s crops and farm families, and to repair the state’s agricultural lifeblood, Brown has created another public works project to feed unions and high-cost union jobs. This is the second giant public works project deal this month that Brown has sealed. Just two weeks ago, he signed bills to authorize spending to begin on the phony high-speed rail project, which will tear up valuable Central Valley farmland. Brown’s political vanity is taking precedence over reforms; his need for a legacy is apparently more important than the 37 million residents of the state. Brown should have done the right thing instead. Because as Chinatown’s Noah Cross is also famous for saying,”Course I’m respectable. I’m old. Politicians, ugly buildings, and whores all get respectable if they last long enough.” (Katy Grimes is a longtime political analyst, writer and journalist, and CalWatchdog’s news reporter. Originally posted on CalWatchdog.) Share this:FacebookTwitterEmailDiggReddit

时政

2014-41/1934/en_head.json.gz/19645

Granholm's DNC Performance Full of Tall Tales Posted by Manny Lopez on September 10, 2012 at 8:40am Former Gov. Jennifer GranholmFormer Gov. Jennifer Granholm never met a stage she didn’t like. But she might have finally landed on one that got the best of her. In a wild and rambling speech Thursday night at the Democratic National Convention, Granholm winked and swayed and waved her way through a series of statements that excited an audience of loyalists but was short on facts. We can forgive DNC organizers for introducing her as the “governor of Michigan” and even bypass the Canadian and former governor’s amnesia about her lineage when she claimed she was “from the great state of Michigan.” Those are just nuances built in to a speech to help establish some connection with the people in the cheap seats. But her claims about the auto industry were as off-base as was her over-hyped delivery. “President Obama? With the auto rescue, he saved more than one million middle-class jobs all across America,” she said before rattling off a list that is neither real nor able to be confirmed because it uses the false and ambiguous “saved” jobs claim. Additionally, the claim that 1 million jobs were saved is dubious. This assumes that the collapse of GM and Chrysler would have taken down all automakers. GM employs about 77,000 people in the United States; about 48,000 hourly and 29,000 salaried. Her math simply doesn't work. It was Barack Obama, she said, who “organized a rescue, made the tough calls and saved the American auto industry.” Only it wasn’t. Former President George W. Bush was the first president to step in and provide money to General Motors and Chrysler to keep them afloat. He allocated $17.4 billion to the companies in December 2008. Obama took office in January 2009 and provided further relief, which helped the United Auto Workers at the expense of secured creditors, non-union pensioners at Delphi and others. In another tall tale repeated at the convention by a litany of speakers, President Obama kept GM and Chrysler from going bankrupt. Except that they did go bankrupt. Obama forced them into Chapter 363 filings. Granholm chided Mitt Romney for saying he wanted to “Let Detroit go bankrupt,” a reference to a headline written by the New York Times – not Romney – and said his suggestion of a structured, traditional bankruptcy filing would have devastated workers. All this from a former governor who saw double-digit unemployment numbers during her terms as governor and had to use gimmicks to balance the state’s budget. Left out of all the cheerleading for President Obama, Granholm conveniently ignored the thousands of auto dealers across the nation who were forced out of business and the tens of thousands of auto dealer workers who lost their jobs when the dealerships were shut down. The fact is that much of the auto industry was bloated and inefficient. And GM and Chrysler were in desperate need of intervention by their boards of directors. Instead, President Obama orchestrated a deal that helped the UAW and kept GM and Chrysler from liquidating. But GM is still in trouble and its stock will have to hit $55 a share (it closed at $23 on Friday) so that taxpayers won’t lose any of their investment in the bailout. That kind of math doesn’t add up to success. (Editor's note: This commentary has been slightly edited for clarity.) Manny Lopez MEA Rhetoric Aimed At Misdirecting Teachers From Focusing On August Opt Out Supreme Court Rules Unionization Schemes Involving Home-Based Care Providers Are Illegal

时政

2014-41/1934/en_head.json.gz/19743

February-03-98 U.S. Feminist Organizations and European Parliament Join Forces to End Gender Apartheid in Afghanistan BRUSSELS -- Feminist Majority President Eleanor Smeal today joined Emma Bonino, European Commissioner for Humanitarian Affairs, other members of the European Parliament, international non-governmental organizations and women from Afghanistan in launching an international campaign, "A Flower for the Women of Kabul," to end gender apartheid in Afghanistan. "Today, American feminists join with the European Parliament and the international feminist community in expressing our outrage at the situation of women in Afghanistan and in intensifying our campaign to compel the Taliban to cease and desist their abhorrent treatment of women. We cannot stand silently by as Afghan women become victims of inhumane gender apartheid. If this were happening to any other class of people around the world, there would be an international concerted government response. We must make sure human rights standards are applied when it is women and girls who are brutally treated. How can women be safe anywhere if some governments can carry out gender apartheid with impunity?" Smeal said. "Over thirty national organizations in the United States -- including the YWCA, American Nurses Association, National Organization for Women, and the Council of Presidents which represents all major women's organizations -- and thousands of individuals have joined the Feminist Majority's campaign to stop gender apartheid in Afghanistan. We are demanding that neither the United Nations nor the United States recognize the Taliban government until the human rights of women and girls are restored," added Smeal. "Moreover, U.S. women's groups are urging American oil and gas companies not to proceed with plans to build a multi-million dollar pipeline from the oil fields of Turmenkistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan until this outrageous gender apartheid is ended in Afghanistan. The price of a pipeline cannot be the enslavement women. Thus far, Unocal, a California-based company, with a 46.5% stake in the pipeline consortium has announced it will not move forward with the project until Afghanistan has an internationally recognized government. But women's groups, which have been credited with stalling the pipeline, must remain vigilant because rumors persist that the pipeline is going forward." On September 27, 1996, the Taliban, a fundamentalist Islamic militia group, overthrew the government of Afghanistan and unilaterally declared an end to women's basic human rights. Women can now no longer work outside of the home. Afghan women have been prohibited from working and attending school. The Taliban has since increased restrictions on women, beating women who leave their homes without the required "burqa," a restrictive head-to-toe garment. Women can only leave their homes if they are accompanied by a close male relative. And windows in homes have been painted over so that women cannot be seen from the outside. Women are effectively under house arrest. Additionally, women are often denied medical care, since they cannot be treated by male doctors. Tens of thousands of families have been thrown into destitution because thousands of Afghan women, widowed during decades of civil war, are prevented from earning a living. "We have heard reports from journalist Jan Goodwin, that girls at the state orphanage in Kabul, already living without a sewage system or adequate food, have not been allowed to go outside of the building since September, 1996. Meanwhile, boys at the same orphanage go outside every day to attend school and to play," said Smeal. Founded by Smeal in 1987, the mission of The Feminist Majority is to encourage feminists to take power and to win equal representation for women in decision-making in all arenas. Today, the Feminist Majority is one of the most prominent non-government organizations in the United States dedicated to the equality of women. The Feminist Majority's name is its message. Inspired by a 1986 Newsweek/Gallup poll, which showed th Media Resources: << Back to Feminist Wire home | about | contact | join ms. | current issue | feminist wire | back issues | resources | store Copyright � Ms. Magazine 2009

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/1836

Senate Passes Immigration Reform JIM AVILA, ARLETTE SAENZ and SERENA MARSHALL Arlette Saenz More from Arlette » Digital Journalist Follow @arlettesaenz Serena Marshall More from Serena » Follow @SerenaMarsh Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, left, speaks with reporters about immigration reform on Capitol Hill in Washington, June 11, 2013. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell delivers a speech about threats to the First Amendment at the American Enterprise Institute's downtown offices, June 21, 2013. J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo | Tom Williams/Getty Images A supermajority of senators passed a bipartisan immigration reform bill that would grant 11 million undocumented immigrants immediate legal status and a path to citizenship while sending $30 billion to the southern border to beef up security. Supporters hope the historic vote in the Senate, where lawmakers have been debating the bill for weeks, will put some wind at the back of a proposal to bring undocumented immigrants out of the shadows. But the future of a comprehensive reform bill -- even one that includes a "border surge" to double the border patrol and flow new money into security -- is anything but certain. The border security provision was added Wednesday and helped win the support of more Republicans. The final vote was 68-32 with support from 14 Republicans. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D, N.Y.), an author of the bill, said the strong vote would create a "drum beat" of pressure for his Republican colleagues over in the House of Representatives to act on immigration reform. President Obama, in a written statement from his trip to Africa, praised the Senate for "bringing us a critical step closer to fixing our broken immigration system once and for all." Senators sat at their desks to demonstrate the historic nature of the vote. Vice President Joe Biden presided over the vote. Asked afterward if he thought the bill could pass the House, Biden said, "Well, I'm hopeful." "We're poised to pass a historic immigration bill. It's landmark legislation that will secure our borders and help 11 million people get right with the law," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) on Thursday before the vote. Immigration reform has split Republicans, still smarting after a bitter defeat in the 2012 general election. Sen. Marco Rubio, the party's young star from Florida, and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), its 2008 presidential nominee, joined in with a "Gang of 8" bipartisan senators to write the first draft of the legislation that passed Thursday. He called his own immigrant story a reminder, "sometimes, that we focus so much on how immigrants could change America, that we forget that America has always changed immigrants even more," said Rubio, the child of immigrants from Cuba, in a speech in support of the bill on Thursday. Related: Rubio Speaks From the Heart for Immigration Reform But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, Ky.) said he would not vote for the plan and predicted it would not pass the House of Representatives in its current form. But he argued that the current immigration bill before the Senate highlights the importance of strengthening the border and called it the key to achieving immigration reform. In order for a bill to even be considered in the House, Speaker John Boehner (R, Ohio) has said it would need to have support from a majority of Republicans. Today's vote in the Senate, while bipartisan with 14 GOP votes, fell well short of gaining support from a majority of half of the chamber's 46 Republicans. No Democrats opposed the bill in the Senate. In the House, where Republicans are more keen on a piecemeal rather than a comprehensive approach, there are efforts by the House Judiciary Committee and also a bipartisan group of Congressmen to write their own version of immigration reform. If some version of immigration reform can pass the House, it would have to be reconciled with the legislation that passed the Senate today. Major Move for 11 Million Undocumented Immigrants Bush Inst. Backs Immigration ReformCan Immigration Reform Help Economy?Senate Passes Border Security Amendment'Gang of 8' Reaches Immigration DealRubio Takes Heat at Immigration Rally

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/1842

Jul 26th (Tue) Jul 25th (Mon) Jul 20th (Wed) Jul 2nd (Sat) geithner moody 's ahmad wali karzai betty ford Jul 26, 2011 7:00am EDT at these countries, that they are not radicals connected to terrorists like al qaeda or the taliban, or the muslim brotherhood. in egypt, for instance, right now, and tunisia and other countries in the middle east, we do not know who is going to be in charge. we are talking about supporting various governments, when they have an election. until we see what happens in the elections, we should not be giving money to those who are sympathetic in working with terrorist organizations in do not have our interests at stake. or want to destroy the state of israel. so, right now, for instance, in egypt the barrier between egypt and gaza has been broken down, in effect. hamas, in control of gaza right now, can bring in more weapons to attack israel. a signal that really bothers me, because it indicates to the muslim but -- brotherhood that they have more influence than people realize. in the past they have asked for the destruction of israel. and host: the muslim brotherhood is not considered a terrorist group. guest: if you look at their history, they have been committed to changes in the middle east, incl × associated allies, especially the taliban, of course. he also felt like there had been progress in developing and training the afghan national security forces, the army and the national police, especially in the past year-and-a-half. still a long way to go. he did not make any comments specifically yesterday about the killing of ahmad karzai. he let those comments to the white house. it expressed regret and condemn the assassination of president karzai's half-brothers. i think there is concern generally that there could be some instability, beahmad wali karzai in its prominent position in canada are what ikan -- kandahar, he was a key figure in keeping control there. that may have been more of a concern a year ago before the u.s. had managed to reclaim control of that area with its afghan allies and partners on the ground. so there may not be as much ramification now as there might have been a year ago. still there is likely to be jockeying for position and power among the local forces there. host: finally, the defense secretary did not cut a pakistan on this particular trip. did he talk abou × Jul 2, 2011 7:00am EDT on with the taliban. do you feel the taliban should be part of afghanistan going forward? guest: the reconciliation is one of the major national programs our government already initiated. we have agreed with our international partners to have this reconciliation program. our president a couple of weeks back mentioned talks with different people going on through different channels. we have a high peace council the mainly responsible for the reconciliation. they have opened to the channel of communications. when you want to reconcile with people, you have to talk to them and open the channels for communication. there are different channels that want to reach out to opposition forces for the success of the reconciliation program. host: what about separating the taliban and al qaeda? guest: this is an afghan national program. is supported by the international community. our partners are saying it is an afghan-led reconciliation program. the afghans should be in the driving seat. we have three principles for that. the first one is to cut ties with al qaeda. the second one is to renounce violence. the th × happen in kandahar province, which is the real former stronghold of the taliban. he has a lot of enemies, both among the insurgency and also among the various criminal networks that work in that area. he himself has been accused of drug ties, criminal ties, and even of being on the payroll of the cia. all things that ahmad wali karzai denies. he has a very murky reputation. it's hard to know, even though the taliban claims responsibility, what happened and who is behind it. host: how does the u.s. view him? guest: the u.s. has most recently seen him as an unsolvable problem. he has been a friend to the u.s. for a long time. because he has been someone who has been hard to bring on board with some of the programs to develop the province, to work with the military -- no one says this directly, granted, because he is a relative of hamid karzai. in private talks, u.s. officials would say they do not know exactly how to handle him. at the same time, he was also someone who was exerting a certain amount of control over the area and able to pass by areas that may not have otherwise been passed × salary cuts. host: let's take a look at some other stories. u.s. cash said to be reaching the taliban, yearlong military that investigation concluded u.s. taxpayer money has been indirectly funneled to the taliban under 2.1 $6 billion transportation contacted the u.s. has funded in part to promote afghan business. another piece in international news, the u.s. has invited a north korean official to new york for talks. the vice foreign minister will visit for a rare meeting that could pave the way for resumption of multinational denuclearization talks secretary of state clinton said on sunday. and politics, congressman wu faces calls to step down print reports the democratic u.s. representative and the portland, oregon area, calls for his resignation from some in his own party after the state's largest newspaper published reports this week in of an alleged unwanted advances in november by a mr.wu for the young, california woman, the daughter of a longtime supporter. one last jury in politics from the washington times politics section, dnc targeting hispanic votes with 8 spanishad. both × radio address and she addressed the issue of the taliban and women in afghanistan. she focused on the challenges related in afghanistan. it is not something she intended to focus on when she went to the white house in 2001, but certainly history change the course of all about. she immersed herself and found a way to make a difference in women's lives and girls' lives are on the world. she has taken these opportunities to speak to the communities. host: i noticed yesterday at the funeral in palm desert, calif. that two of the speakers talked about the sisterhood of the first ladies. barbara bush will be there in grand rapids when lynn cheney is speaking to it. is there a sisterhood of the former first ladies? guest: i think there is. it is a very small club. many dead get to serve as first lady. -- there are not many that get to serve as first lady. at the betty ford funeral, they turned out to show their respect. they show that there is a way to be friends and set aside the differences in politics. it was really heartwarming to see rosalynn carter be a part of that service. and × with explosives. the taliban have claimed responsibility for the attacks. there were 19 people killed. among them, pbc says, was one of its reporters, -- bbc says, was one of its reporters, a 25-year- old person who has been with the agency since 2008. those are some headlines from c- span radio. >> ann coulter has something to say. sunday, august 7, your chance to talk to, at emailed adn -- your chance to e-mail i and tweet the best-selling author. this weekend, on american history tv on a c-span3, the national portrait gallery celebrates modeled reagan's birthday -- ronald reagan's birthday. then, a stanford university professor, the great migration. we will be in charleston, south carolina, as we look at the city's history, including a talk on the role of the city during the american revolution. get a complete weekend schedule on c-span.org/history. >> you are watching c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs. every morning, it is "washington journal," connecting you with elected officials, policymakers and journalists. watch live coverage of the u.s. house, and weak dots, hearings and × , please? thank you. guest: recently, one fellow, who is an american, who joined the taliban and is a prominent publicist in some of the al qaeda videos recently told americans to take up a jihad against the united states by going to gun shows and purchasing weapons there. he made the point that many critics of gun control policy have made that guns are easily available there. i think his wording is, "it is well known, so go out there and arm up." mayor michael bloomberg is against guns. he is a member of one of the groups that was spearheading that movement. host: next up from alabama on the independent line. you are on "washington journal." caller: good morning. i would like to comment about guns on college campuses. there was a time in this country when you had high school students with guns in their lockers so they could go to rotc after school. it was not uncommon that a little boy did not have a knife in his show. i am not suggesting a correlation between the two, but crime is higher now than it was then. i am not certain it is all a matter of gun control, but rather as × /11, the al qaeda, telescan thing -- the taliban thing, and now this is a big media thing with it spilling over our borders. it's 2011. we have the technology. we need to secure our borders. beating around the bush is not the problem. it is a south american issue. it is an issue for us. we have to do something about it. host: what is the next chapter when it comes too fast and furious? guest: the next chapter will be the conclusion or the corporate progress of the congressional investigation and the department of justice's and inspector general's report. once these come out and conclude i think we will have a very accurate picture of what fast and furious was all about. there are a lot of blanks that are not filled in yet and i would really caution everyone calling in viewing this show to not rush to judgment on this. do i have told my sources that there are more indictments coming down in this case has not entirely played out yet. there will be higher ups and it will not just be a question of straw purchasers, the smaller fish. the caller did raise a good question about the corruption in × on fuel and provide more enticing amenities to passengers. from afghanistan, the taliban says that their leader is alive and that a text message an internet posting announcing -- end internet posting announcing his death are fake. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> is weakened on "booktv," on c-span -- and this weekend on "booktv," on c-span2. on afterwards -- "after words," ben mezrich. look for the complete schedule at booktv.org. sign up for our e-mail alerts to get the schedule in your in box. -- inbox. >> "the supreme court" -- the new edition includes an interview with the newest supreme court justice, elena kagen, and you can add -- elena kagan. and you can add to your experience with -- "washington journal" continues. host: as we continue our precision about the debt ceiling and other related issues, we're pleased -- are, were stationed about the debt ceiling and other related issues, we're pleased to be joined by the chief deputy whip on the house side, peter welch. tell us why you voted against cut, cap, and balance ac yest today in the house Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/1843

agenting agnus t. jones amber lee andrew ian dodge angus king anna post ayatollah khomeini bakers union that is critical is because egypt is involved profoundly in this problem. morici, the new le elely electe president of egypt, is in the muslim brothers. the muslim brothers and hamas are directly related. this is about egypt and the 1979 peace treaty. >> right. i'm going to get back to the whole issue of the spreading war. but i'm just real interested in the assessment, ambassador williamson, welcome back, that israel can just inflict massive, permanent damage on hamas and their alleged military. >> well, larry, first of all, i think it's really important to take a step back. we've been involved in a presidential election that sucked up the oxygen. hamas is a group that's recognized as a terrorist organization by the u.s. government, the israeli government and the european union, has increased shelling in areas of israel over recent weeks. they now have shelled tel aviv and 180 missiles went into southern israel. so israel for its own self-defense, its right of self-defense is organizing, rallying more reserve troops, getting ready for more permanent action. it can and should do what's necessary to × for reasons that have little to do with libya. even in a town that rewards sharp el lows and sometime obscenities. near nearly 100 house republicans have sent a letter to the president urging them not to nominate her. is he willing to spend the political capital? >> i think he will if he decides she's the choice. we need to remember the house republicans have nothing to do with confirming secretary of states. i know susan rice, worked with her in the john kerry campaign in 2004. she has the skill and the judgment to be secretary of state if president obama wants her to be. >> it's unfair? >> completely unfair. it's a tough town and lots of people want to be secretary of state i suspect. and the press has a role to play here, but at the end of the day i think if barack obama, who's just been rere elected, would like susan rice to be his secretary of state, she will be. >> steve, chip, happy thanksgiving. >> happy thanksgiving. >> also making news this morning, investigators say they're questioning people in connection with an explosion that killed two residents and virtually leveled a × wet this morning as el people are headed out the door and it's just round one. >> you are right. this is the first of two storms. the first one about, passing on. we have just the back side, few lingering showers morning but at this hour if you have an early morning drive it is slick out there. dealing with a very slick roads, breezy at times, little fog in some spots, but you can see the scattered showers are just that. hit or miss as they move through the area as they push in to the east we have them from the north bayh long the peninsula into south bay. east bay as well and again on the back side of this first storm the second one coming in by this evening. still about 280 miles off shore. how much rain have we seen? impressive in some spots. santa rosa with an inch and two tenths. nearly three tenths in oakland. six tenths for san rafael. for the afternoon, mostly cloudy, maybe a few sprinkles but a lull for afternoon. upper 50s, low 60's for the forecast. it'll be breezia heaved the next storm -- ahead of the next storm and winds 10 to 20 miles an hour. the extended foreca × Nov 27, 2012 10:00am PST that includes the classified information. megyn: right. so she knew more than she was el telling us. i see your point. it's not that she just withheld the information about al-qaeda, she made statements that seemed to say al-qaeda had been decimated. of course, in the written statement she provided today to the public, which i want to tell our viewers we have, and in her meetings with you as well came out and did say the talking points provided by the intelligence community were incorrect in a key mr. mr. prest respect. there was no -- in a key respect. she's admitting now that what she said -- in right. megyn: she's blaming it on the intelligence committee. who told her to go on the sunday talk shows, and who specifically gave her this information? >> well, she was asked -- which i think has already been talked about earlier -- she was asked to go on the sunday talk shows by the white house. and the talking points were given to her by the intelligence community. let me just be clear, the information that was given by the intelligence community about the protests of the video, that was wrong, a × the option of five 1/6 talk shows there has not yet then a news channel in egypt. in the past you've go to el jazeera but not any more. the same with to the show. you can devote half an hour to local issue in tunisia. i think eventually was prepared for workday concept of i want to be strong again. the saudi arabia is the largest economy particularly with advertising. the market really needs a difference diode news channel with four or six hours of business. that is picking up. that also introduces us. with the programming i would go through business. that would interest the people. >> sens i feel there is a need for more cooperation between arab media for erred train a and a journalist and media people selling to the un qualified journalist. with interest in these groups there is a great demand or a great need. i have no problem -- but qualified ones are few were the american organization could help us and assure the news organizations would be welcomed to team up with the arab media organization in the arab world of. thank you very much. [applause] >> i a do not know if you can see me. i ca × Nov 5, 2012 11:00pm EST . stone. if you had 60 secondses with me in an el visit for and had to describe yourself, what would you say? >> i probably wouldn't say anything, but let me try. almost 78 years old. been a candidate a number of times. represent a party that stands for peace, and individual liberty. and social justice, and i'm a member of the socialist party. the american legion, the veterans for peace, and liberty union. i'm an officer of liberty union. i live with my spouse of 55 years. i have four children. and jesse, paula, ian, and 15 grandchildren, and they all live within area code 05301, except for one who is about 17 miles away. so my whole social life revolves around them. >> we're all product office our families and we have two branches on our family tree, our mother's side eurasian father's side, and today i wore some family heirlooms, niecetive american indian heads and my earrings to remind me tell you tonight that we have to take care of mother earth. my great-great-great grandmother on one family line was the leader of a tribe of a branch of virginians al gone quinn. so it's important to × have -- we have, the president of the united states, comes to the university of texas in el paso and makes jokes about the safety and security of our country and joking about the border, you know, we have the secretary of homeland security saying that. we've had 140 dead bodies that have been discovered in the last year alone in two rural texas counties. the statistics cited are great statistics, but no amount of statistics can cover up the bloodshed at the hands of drug cartel members, no amount of stats can be manipulated to cover -- >> statistics cited black and white numbers, they are not always accurate, the u crime report, why are not not showing up? >> ucr data covers eight categories. they do not cover drug trafficking. ucr data gus not cover money laundering, human trafficking, kidnapping, extortion not included in that data, and think about this, we have 12 # 41 miles between texas and mexico. we have great communities there. i go there often. 93% of our texas-mexico border is unincorporated and largely rural. that's the reality of the there was a run around occurring o × a president of united states coast university of texas in el paso and makes jokes about the border. we have 140 dead bodies discovered in the last year in two rural counties. the statistics are great but no amount can cover the blood is shed from the drug cartel members. know about could be manipulated. >> use if those are black and white but they're not accurate why are they not? >> you see are dated covers eight major crime categories. they do not covered drug trafficking are money-laundering. human trafficking trafficking, kidnapping or extortion and not included. if we have 1241 miles. there are great communities. 93% of the texas mexico border is unincorporated allot of cross-border running civic the videos are on your district how you respond? >> i will not dispute anybody in the video any personal experience our feelings i will not dispute them at all. at all. right after that conversation wave brought in different ranchers, todd staples could not make it but we asked ranchers what else can we do? we came up with a series of solutions i am more interested to find solutions how we do × Nov 15, 2012 7:00am EST analyst at kaiser's commission on medicaid and the uninsured. el dorado, kansas, on our line for independents. caller: i was born disabled. i have worked all my life. kansas is starting a kan-care, they're trying to enroll people in it. i saw on your map did not have anything set up yet. without going on these programs -- i do not trust them, i have in home services were hired a person through medicaid to come in and do chores and stuff -- i would like to keep the person i have. i have had other people who came in who would steal from me and take things. i have that night support. i wonder if all of that will change, or if i can stay on the medicaid plan. guest: you will be able to remain on the medicaid program and maintain the same providers that are assisting you now. this is an important point. when it comes to getting coverage to the exchange's, people have to not have access to other coverage. if you're currently eligible for medicaid or medicare, you would not be eligible to come into the exchange and receive subsidies to help purchase coverage. in addition, if you hav × 's cleaned up. i will say, though, that i'm troubled by -- you know, this is not your father's iaea. el baradei, like him or don't like him, i'm troubled by the nature of the relationship the agency seems to have with rapp. every time you try to negotiate with iran, you walk away angry and distrustful. i mean, the europeans did it in 2003, the agency's going through it now. but that's a relationship where there will also have to be a refurbishing of trust, or it's going to be difficult down the line. at the end of the day, it's the big powers at the u.s., russia and france, whatever, if they decide to get a deal, they'll get a deal. but iaea is an independent agency, and that relationship has to be addressed as well. >> and just very quickly, jim, is -- do you think the iaea and iran are going to resolve these issues before the p5+1 and iran work out a broader framework for resolving this, or is it dependent on that? are the iranians going to stonewall the agency until they see -- >> yeah. my, my true answer is i have no idea, and then my guess is the iaea's going to come at the end of × politics, the fifth biggest county is el paso county, home to colorado springs. that is typically viewed as a republican stronghold. it is, but is also a big vote a bank for democrats. increasingly we have seen the ski areas that have started to trended democrat. the southwest corner of the state are two other ski resort communities that tented a democrat. host: a lot of focus on early voting in this contest. does colorado have it? what is it looking like? guest: we do, we have mailed ballots and early voting. we have already had more people vote overseas this year than all of 2008. but as a, we had a hundred thousand ballots returned. the republicans had a 20,000 ballot advantage. nobody knows how the unaffiliated voters are breaking. about 2 million people voted early are absentee and enter the 2008 election. that is expected to grow to 2.5 million this election cycle. keep in mind colorado has 2.8 active voters, more when you look at inactive voters. about three-quarters of the vote should be conducted in colorado, maybe a little more prior to november 6. host: on election day, what i Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/1883

OSCE Participating States & Partners Organigram Contact OSCE back to About the Commission Statements & Speeches Hearings & Briefings Hon. Christopher H. Smith, Chairman Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, Co-Chairman THE OSCE 2011 HUMAN DIMENSION IMPLEMENTATION MEETING By Erika B. Schlager, Counsel for International Law Overview From September 26 to October 7, 2011, the OSCE participating States met in Warsaw, Poland, for the annual Human Dimension Implementation Meeting (HDIM). The meeting was organized by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, according to an agenda approved by consensus of all 56 participating States. The HDIM is Europe’s largest annual human rights gathering and provides a venue for participating States and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to review the implementation of the full range of core human rights and fundamental freedoms (e.g., freedoms of speech, assembly and association; prevention of torture; right to a fair trial), as well as rule of law, free elections and democracy-building issues. National minorities, Roma, tolerance and non-discrimination are also on the agenda. In accordance with OSCE procedures, the agenda included three specially selected topics, each of which was given a full day of review. In 2011, those subjects were: 1) “Democratic elections and electoral observation,” 2) “Freedom of movement,” and 3) “Enhancing implementation of OSCE commitments regarding Roma and Sinti.” U.S. Delegation The U.S. Delegation was headed by Ambassador David Johnson. Other members of the delegation included Ambassador Ian Kelly, Head of the U.S. Mission to the OSCE; Ambassador Cynthia Efird, Senior State Department Advisor to the Helsinki Commission; Ambassador Suzan Johnson Cook, Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom; and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Thomas Melia. Helsinki Commission staff participated in all aspects of the delegation’s work. Patrick Merloe, National Democratic Institute, Kathleen Newland, Migration Policy Institute, and Ethel Brooks, Rutgers University, served as Public Members of the delegation, addressing democratic elections, freedom of movement, and the situation of Romani people in the OSCE region respectively. Public Members have traditionally been included in U.S. delegations to OSCE human dimension meetings as a means of bringing special expertise to the U.S. delegations and to promote greater knowledge of the OSCE process in civil society. Highlights of This Year’s Meeting The severe crackdown in Belarus which followed elections last December was a focus of attention throughout the two-week meeting, both in formal sessions and special side events. During the final session, the United States delivered a statement focused on the use of the Moscow Mechanism regarding Belarus -- an OSCE tool used in exceptional circumstances to conduct fact-finding regarding extreme human rights concerns. The mechanism had been invoked in April by 14 participating States and a report was presented to the OSCE Permanent Council by the Mechanism Rapporteur, Professor Emmanuel Decaux, on May 28. NGOs also demonstrated throughout the meeting on behalf of Belarusian political prisoner Alex Bielatskiy. The United States also raised issues which remain unresolved following the 2003 invocation of the Moscow Mechanism regarding Turkmenistan. In particular, Ambassador Johnson drew attention to the continued disappearance of Ambassador Batyr Berdiev, the former representative of Turkmenistan to the OSCE. Although Turkmenistan officials did not to participate in the HDIM, human rights groups concerned with Turkmenistan were present and members of the opposition-in-exile made a statement expressing their willingness to return to Turkmenistan and participate in the February 2012 presidential elections. They also called for the OSCE to conduct a full election observation mission for those elections. In its opening statement, the United States observed that Kazakhstan had failed to fully implement the commitments on domestic reform it had made in 2007 in Madrid upon receiving the Chairmanship for 2010, that leading human rights activist Yevgeniy Zhovtis remained in prison as a result of a trial that lacked due process, that Kazakhstan had adopted measures in a one-party parliament giving the current president continued power and immunity from prosecution for life and had held a poorly-conducted snap presidential election following an attempt to push through a referendum to obviate future elections for the incumbent. Although Kazakhstan protested the U. S. characterization of 2010 as “a year of missed opportunities for reform,” Kazakhstan’s adoption of a new restrictive religion law during the course of the human dimension meeting illustrated the very point the United States was making. In fact, of the topics restricted to three-hour sessions, the subject of religious liberties was the most oversubscribed, with Kazakhstan’s new religion law generating particular criticism. As at previous meetings, the allocation of time during the meeting was highly problematic, with speaking time at some of the sessions limited to only one or two minutes to accommodate dozens desiring the floor, while other sessions ended early with time unused. Other real-time developments during the HDIM also found their way into discussions. Following the outbreak of fighting on September 27 at a Kosovo border crossing with Serbia, Serbian representatives at the meeting engaged in a sharply worded exchange with Albanian officials. (Serbia's engagement at the meeting was of particular note in light of Belgrade's bid to serve as OSCE Chair-in-Office in 2014.) The outbreak of anti-Roma rioting in every major Bulgarian town or city during the HDIM underscored the urgency of addressing the chronic human rights problems affecting Roma as well as the acute and escalating crises. Many participants also raised concern regarding continuing human rights abuses against ethnic Uzbeks in southern Kyrgyzstan in the wake of widespread violence last year and in advance of Kyrgyzstani elections in October. During the formal sessions, NGOs demonstrated on behalf of Kyrgyzstani political prisoner Azhimzhon Askarov. The United States engaged fully in all aspects of the meeting, holding bilateral meetings with other OSCE participating States and extensive consultations with NGOs. The United States also organized two side events. The first focused on on the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Professor Louise Teitz from the Hague Permanent Bureau (an intergovernmental organization that administers this and other Hague Conventions), and Corrin Ferber from the Department of State, made presentations, with additional comments provided by Consul General Linda Hoover, U.S. Embassy Warsaw. The second event focused on fundamental freedoms in the digital age. DAS Thomas Melia moderated the discussion, which included comments by the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, Dunja Mijatovic; Agata Waclik-Wejman, policy counsel for Google; and Nataliya Radzina, a Belarusian journalist who faces a lengthy prison sentence in Belarus. Conclusions The Human Dimension Implementation Meeting served as an important forum for the United States to raise issues of concern, both formally and informally, and to hold extensive consultations with governments, OSCE officials, and representatives of civil society. That said, this year's HDIM was somewhat diminished relative to past meetings. First, member states of the European Union appeared divided or preoccupied (or both). As a consequence, on a number of subjects – for example, the session that included migrant workers, refugees, and displaced persons -- there was neither a coordinated European Union statement nor statements by individual EU member states speaking in their national capacity. This voice was missed. Second, the level of participation on the part of governments as well as civil society was reduced. This may be in part due to economic factors. But it may also reflect other factors. Prior to the HDIM, for example, Belarus and Russia dragged out the adoption of an agenda until the last possible moment, making it especially hard for NGOs to plan their participation. In addition, OSCE has, in recent years, scheduled so many human dimension meetings throughout the year that it is difficult for government and non-governmental experts to cover them all. (In addition to the discussion of tolerance and non-discrimination at the HDIM, those issues have been or will be addressed at three different ad hoc meetings, as well as one of the Supplementary Human Dimension Implementation Meetings.) The Lithuanian Chairmanship also scheduled some meetings in Vienna during the HDIM, although the modalities call for all Vienna meetings to be suspended during the HDIM to facilitate participation by the representatives to the OSCE. Similarly, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly fall meeting overlapped with the final sessions of the HDIM. In fact, the modalities for the OSCE's human dimension activities were a dominant theme during the HDIM's closing session -- presaging the opening of discussions in Vienna on that issue held immediately after the HDIM at the insistence of Belarus. While many governments, including the U.S., believe the way in which the OSCE organizes its human dimension activities could be improved, the discussions themselves risk being held hostage by those countries inimical to the OSCE's human rights work. Filter by: -- Issue -- Citizenship and Political Rights Conflict Prevention/Rehabilitation Confidence and Security Building Measures Economic Cooperation Equality of Opportunity for Men and Women Freedom of Association Freedom of the Media Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion or Belief International Humanitarian Law Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons Military Aspects of Security National Minorities OSCE Institutions/Structures/Meetings Right of Peaceful Assembly Prevention of Torture Property Restitution Racism/Anti-Semitism Rule of Law/Independence of Judiciary Trafficking in Human Beings -- Country -- -- Participating States -- -- Mediterranean Partners for Cooperation -- -- Partners for Cooperation -- -- Month -- January -- Year -- Helsinki Commission Digest: Diversity on the Rise 8 Helsinki Commission Digest: OSCE Must Act on Anti-Semitism Helsinki Commission Digest: Bipartisan U.S. Helsinki Commission Defends Ukraine, Raises Concerns about Russia at OSCE Parliamentary Session Helsinki Commission Digest: Annual OSCE Human Rights Meeting Dominated by Russia and Ukraine U.S. Helsinki Commission Brochure The Helsinki Process - A Four Decade Overview January 2014 Kyiv Ministerial Held Amid Protests; Switzerland Takes on OSCE Leadership as Situation In Ukraine Deteriorates Bulgaria Holds Early Parliamentary Elections; OSCE Mounts Full-Scale Election Observation Mission Helsinki Commission Chairman Leads Delegation to Israel and Turkey Before Attending OSCE Parliamentary Assembly Session Click here for the previous year's Articles 234 Ford House Office Building | 3rd and D Streets SW | Washington, DC 20515 Subscribe for Email Updates Search for Legislation Text Size a A

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/1960

Strasbourg, 24 January 2013 Joint declaration by the President of the PACE, Mr Jean-Claude Mignon, and European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy, Mr Štefan Füle Mr Jean-Claude Mignon, President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), and Mr Štefan Füle, European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy, issued today the following statement, on the occasion of Commissioner Füle’s visit to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe : “Our close and joint cooperation and engagement with our partners in the East and in the Southern neighbourhood represents a powerful instrument to support their process of transformation and the development of deep rooted democracy. Our co-operation is part of a well-defined strategy and the European Union-Council of Europe joint programmes provide the countries with real support and practical, visible results. In order to boost the impact of our action still further, we wish to expand the parliamentary side of our joint assistance and co-operation programmes, focusing in particular on increasing the capacity of national parliaments in the areas of drafting legislation and developing the skills of parliamentary staff, as well as the establishment of parliamentary procedures which fully respect political pluralism in parliaments. We are also determined to offer our support and assistance to countries in our immediate neighbourhood that share our values and seek to implement our standards. Our cooperation through the EU-funded Council of Europe Eastern Partnership Facility is already making a real difference in partner countries. We are engaged in the same spirit also with our neighbours to the South in particular through the Programme “Strengthening democratic reform in the Southern neighbourhood” (South Programme), launched in January 2012 by the European Union and the Council of Europe Parliamentary diplomacy makes a major contribution to building dialogue between elected representatives in countries affected by “frozen” conflicts. Confidence-building measures and direct dialogue between elected representatives are the best ways of establishing a climate conducive to resolving these conflicts and we warmly encourage any corresponding initiatives. The accession process requires far-reaching reforms to be carried out in terms of institutions, legislation and administrative practices so that the countries concerned fully take on board the ‘acquis communautaire’, and the Council of Europe is one of the right institutional frameworks for helping move forward such reforms. The future and the success of the European project depends both upon deepening the integration and being able to offer a clear European perspective for all European countries which show an unequivocal will to make real progress in respecting our common values. Although this is a long and complex process, it is both rewarding and responds to the most fundamental needs and wishes of the citizens of those countries."

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/2057

ACLJ Applauded Call For Abedini’s Release : The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) which focuses on constitutional and human rights law applauded a bi-partisan Congressional call for Secretary of State John Kerry to “exhaust every option” in seeking the release of American Pastor Saeed Abedini. More than 80 U.S. Senators and Representatives have sent a letter to Secretary of State Kerry urging him “to exhaust every possible option to secure Mr. Abedini’s immediate release.” Abedini is facing a lengthy prison sentence in Iran because of his Christian faith. The ACLJ, led by Chief Counsel: Jay Sekulow: represents Pastor Saeed’s wife, Naghmeh, and their two children who live in the United States. “This is a significant bi-partisan effort to secure the freedom of a U.S. citizen who faces incredible torture and life-threatening punishment in one of Iran’s most brutal prisons — simply because of his Christian beliefs,” said Jordan Sekulow, Executive Director of the ACLJ. “This letter from a politically broad spectrum of members of Congress underscores the real issue here: the U.S. government must protect its citizens and exercise every diplomatic tool available to secure the freedom of Pastor Saeed. We are very grateful for this Congressional support and urge Secretary Kerry to act without delay. Pastor Saeed’s life hangs in the balance. Secretary Kerry’s personal involvement in this case is critical to securing the freedom of this American.” The letter, calls on Secretary of State Kerry to engage this case directly and without delay. “As an American citizen, Mr. Abedini deserves nothing less than the exercising of every diplomatic tool of the U.S. government to defend his basic human rights,” the letter states. “Every American citizen traveling or living abroad should have the assurance that the U.S. government will come vigorously to his or her defense if they are unjustly detained or imprisoned. We respectfully request that you continue to use every diplomatic avenue possible, in cooperation with our allies and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, to secure Mr. Abedini’s unconditional release and personally and publically condemn his arbitrary detention in a statement.” Taking the lead in this Congressional request is Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ), Co-Chairman of the International Religious Freedom Caucus, Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA), Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), and Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL), along with over 80 members of the House and Senate, including Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Congressman Robert Aderholt (R-AL) and Congresswoman Shea-Porter (D-NH). Led by ECLJ and ACLJ the American Center for Law and Justice is headquartered in Washington, D.C. and has affiliated offices in: Israel, Russia, Kenya, France, Pakistan, and Zimbabwe. Blowing up history In the Arabic media, there are reports that Muslim clerics — energized by the sudden emergence of Egypt’s new president, Race Fatigue Help me, I’m suffering from acute race fatigue! After gavel-to-gavel coverage of the George Zimmerman trial, I need a break. The Same Old Obama President Obama’s various remarks at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation CEO business summit in Honolulu over the weekend show he is

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/2058

Invincible Ignorance Must every tragic mass shooting bring out the shrill ignorance of “gun control” advocates? The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available. If gun control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered this long ago, because there have been too many factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt about gun control laws being not merely futile but counterproductive. Places and times with the strongest gun control laws have often been places and times with high murder rates. Washington, D.C., is a classic example, but just one among many. When it comes to the rate of gun ownership, that is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas. The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than among blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks. For the country as a whole, hand gun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down. The few counter-examples offered by gun control zealots do not stand up under scrutiny. Perhaps their strongest talking point is that Britain has stronger gun control laws than the United States and lower murder rates. But, if you look back through history, you will find that Britain has had a lower murder rate than the United States for more than two centuries– and, for most of that time, the British had no more stringent gun control laws than the United States. Indeed, neither country had stringent gun control for most of that time. In the middle of the 20th century, you could buy a shotgun in London with no questions asked. New York, which at that time had had the stringent Sullivan Law restricting gun ownership since 1911, still had several times the gun murder rate of London, as well as several times the London murder rate with other weapons. Neither guns nor gun control was the reason for the difference in murder rates. People were the difference. Yet many of the most zealous advocates of gun control laws, on both sides of the Atlantic, have also been advocates of leniency toward criminals. In Britain, such people have been so successful that legal gun ownership has been reduced almost to the vanishing point, while even most convicted felons in Britain are not put behind bars. The crime rate, including the rate of crimes committed with guns, is far higher in Britain now than it was back in the days when there were few restrictions on Britons buying firearms. In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s– after decades of ever tightening gun ownership restrictions– there were more than a hundred times as many armed robberies. Gun control zealots’ choice of Britain for comparison with the United States has been wholly tendentious, not only because it ignored the history of the two countries, but also because it ignored other countries with stronger gun control laws than the United States, such as Russia, Brazil and Mexico. All of these countries have higher murder rates than the United States. You could compare other sets of countries and get similar results. Gun ownership has been three times as high in Switzerland as in Germany, but the Swiss have had lower murder rates. Other countries with high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand, and Finland. Guns are not the problem. People are the problem– including people who are determined to push gun control laws, either in ignorance of the facts or in defiance of the facts. There is innocent ignorance and there is invincible, dogmatic and self-righteous ignorance. Every tragic mass shooting seems to bring out examples of both among gun control advocates. Some years back, there was a professor whose advocacy of gun control led him to produce a “study” that became so discredited that he resigned from his university. This column predicted at the time that this discredited study would continue to be cited by gun control advocates. But I had no idea that this would happen the very next week in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. : Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is: www.tsowell.com. More articles by Thomas Sowell It Was Probably Never About Bergdahl Everything about this horrendous Bowe Bergdahl affair reminds us just how out of touch President Obama is with ordinary Americans Why Have Americans Stopped Asking These 5 Vital Questions? “Remember, it’s not only the questions you ask, but the questions you fail to ask, that shape your destiny.”: —: Tony ISIS ‘a national security threat’ BELFAST, Northern Ireland — U.S. airstrikes that have helped Iraqi and Kurdish forces recapture a strategic dam and halt, at

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/2098

Why Are Americans Afraid Of China? Share Tweet E-mail Comments Print By editor Originally published on Wed June 5, 2013 3:54 pm Transcript MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: This is TELL ME MORE from NPR News. I'm Michel Martin. We were talking about movies earlier in the program, so later we'll find out which movie rapper and actor Common could watch a million times. That's coming up. For now, though, we are continuing to focus on China in advance of President Obama's meeting with China's leaders. We wanted to conclude by putting some of the questions and concerns many Americans have about China to someone who knows the country well. He's Bruce Pickering. He's a vice president of Global Programs and executive director of the Asia Society, and he's with us now from San Francisco. Welcome. Thanks so much for joining us. BRUCE PICKERING: Thank you very much for having me. MARTIN: Now you had a chance to listen to our program today. I think you hear both excitement and anxiety. A lot of people are excited about doing business with China, about China doing business with the U.S., but you also hear anxiety. And I'm - now as you travel across the country, I'm wondering what you think is the predominate attitude Americans have about China. PICKERING: I think it's probably something closer to insecurity. I don't think they know exactly what to expect. They know that China is a rising power in Asia. They know that - and a rising power globally. They know that China has, in many ways, become the workshop of the world. And they know that they've - that America's position as the only real superpower no longer is as clear as it was even 10 years ago. So I think a lot of this is kind of an insecurity over what this portends for the United States itself. MARTIN: What about the other way, Chinese attitudes toward the United States? PICKERING: It's interesting. There's - they are sometimes rather contradictory. The Chinese quite - I think it's difficult to generalize. I mean, you're generalizing about a country of 1.3 billion people. But I think, you know, on one hand, there's great admiration for what the United States has accomplished. America has a long history - a long history in the last 300 years because of course we're young by Chinese standards, but we have a history of working in China, working with the Chinese. So on the one hand, I think there's a sense of positive belief that the United States actually represents something that the Chinese aspire to in terms of lifestyle and, frequently, how we go about our business, but there is also a negative side. There's also a belief in China amongst, I think, many, especially in the educated classes, that the United States is trying to hold back China, that the United States is afraid of what a strong China means. So those somewhat contradictory terms, I think, are often played out in the media, the press, and even private conversations. MARTIN: You know, but there's also the human rights issue. For example, in advance of this meeting, we got news today that a Chinese-American businessman and engineer who specializes in catalytic converters and got involved in dispute with a Chinese competitor, he wasn't allowed to leave Shanghai for almost five years. You know, Americans hear stories like this and they're not sure what to believe. How do you think a story like this should be framed and discussed? PICKERING: Well, I think, first of all, you know, China is not the United States. It doesn't have the same legal systems we do. It doesn't have the same governmental structure we do. So you have to be aware whenever you do business anywhere, whether it's Mexico or Great Britain or Canada, I mean, you're dealing with a different set of rules and regulations. That being said, I mean, one of the points that has been made to us consistently by commentators in Asia, which is something you don't hear much in the United States, is that much of our moral authority, much of our, I think, rule of law that the sort of - the intellectual and moral supremacy, that adherence to the rule of law we had was to some degree, and I think it's to some degree, was damaged by our use of, basically, torture techniques in Iraq. I mean, a lot of people don't want to call it that. But these enhanced interrogation techniques were seen widely across Asia as torture, and that had an impact on how we're viewed as a moral actor on the world stage today. It's something we have to be aware of. But that being said, you know, that the rule of law still is paramount in the United States. It's still admired by many and by - you know, I think most people really do admire what the United States stands for. And in a case where this happens - you know, the business leader in China, there's - the problem we have is that there's a limit to how much you can really, really do. I mean, we're not - the United States Consulate in Shanghai can make a counsel representation, but at the end of the day, this guy, our businessman, is actually, you know, in the Chinese legal system and it's limited to what you can do about that. MARTIN: And what about the whole question of workplace conditions? That's something I spoke about early with the mayor of Toledo, Michael Bell, and his argument, which is the argument that a lot of municipal leaders have - they have the same argument about American companies, by the way, when they go into different communities and sometimes communities don't welcome them as much as the companies wish they would or as much as local leaders wish they would. And they say, you know what, that's what the laws are for. But when you hear that the reporting that's coming out now about the working conditions in some sort of - in some Chinese factories, and a lot of Americans look at that and think, what's our responsibility here? And I'm curious about how that conversation plays out in China, recognizing, as of course you said, this is a very big country, that's a very big country, a much bigger country. But how are those, the kind of the American interest in the conditions of Chinese workers, how is that playing out overseas? PICKERING: Well, we have - I think we have an interest. And the American consumer, by and large, I mean, there are sometimes competing priorities because the American consumer, on the one hand, wants inexpensive products. That's why the Chinese have, you know, so much of our trading has been with China is that they've been able to produce so many products Americans want comparatively inexpensively. And there is a concern, I think, on the part of companies that also, though, the American consumer doesn't just simply want products without any kind of ethical, you know, handling. And the more they know, of course, the more likely people are to make educated choices. So I think, when operating in Asia, given a choice, Americans would like to get low-cost products with ethical, you know, kind of ethical sourcing. And when information comes out, they tend to make decisions, I think, that move away from, you know, kind of workplace conditions that are inhuman or at least not very nice. I think one critical point to make here is that China is evolving very fast. I mean, it's hard for us understand because we've been a pretty settled power for quite a while. For China, coming from where it did in 1950, which was a real kind of low point where it really accounted for only about 6 percent of the global GDP, gross domestic product, to where it is now, it's an amazing evolution. It's very fast, and it was - I think you have to look back historically and say, well, in the United States, you know, it was a little erratic for long time until we set a - we created a sort of level playing field for our companies operating in the United States. So China's moving in that direction, but it's a very big country. The economic situation is moving very fast and what's true today will probably not be true in five years and hasn't been true - and what's true today wasn't true five years ago. So you have to kind of keep that sense of mobility in mind. MARTIN: If you're just joining with us, I'm speaking with Bruce Pickering. He's a vice president at Global Programs and executive director for the Asia Society. What about the other way? Now that Chinese companies are buying stakes in American companies, in some cases buying up whole companies - I mean, their effort to buy Smithfield Hams is something that has gotten a lot of attention. What do we know about what happens when Chinese investors take over a company? Do they bring a lot of people with them? I mean, do their families stay here? What track record - what do we see from where Chinese businesspeople have taken over companies and established stakes in - elsewhere around the world? I think, you know, in the United States we're used to thinking of the fact that well, when people come here, they become Americans. Their kids start eating pizza and arguing over curfew like everyone else. You know, that's just what happens. Kind of - what do we know about this? PICKERING: Well, that's a good question. I think it's going to be different. You know, the Chinese have been very active in South America and Africa and other places, and they have tended to move. But they've tended to be - I think one gets the impression a bit more of an enclave. In the United States, it's a relatively new phenomenon. We just did a study - we've done two studies, actually, on inbound direct investment from China into the United States two years ago, and then into California this last year. In both cases, it's - the motivations are a little different because it's not resources so much as it's intellectual property that the Chinese are looking to. So if they come to California, they're likely involved in some element of either trade or investment and to things like technology industries, service, things like that. If they're moving to other states, it'll be heavier industry and things. But it all depends on what - I mean, they're businesses and they make rational business decisions. But part of the reason they're coming is that it's a stable investment platform. They know that there's a rule of law, that intellectual property is protected, that it is a healthy environment for their families. And increasingly, China is facing some massive environmental issues, and so when they come to United States, you know, it's much more difficult to create an enclave. And I know that where I live, in the Bay Area, and of course in our area, we have a lot of incoming Chinese. They live in the neighborhoods. They send their kids to the schools. I mean, they're actually looking, I think, to re-create basically what Americans want, which is a kind of a good, solid, you know, middle-class lifestyle with the amenities that Americans have enjoyed. And I think that's - you're going to see a lot of that over time as they invest in companies across America. MARTIN: A question which you might find sensitive, but I'm going ask it anyway. Often, people who have relationships with China - you heard from Mayor Michael Bell - kind of imply or say that there seems to be a level of bias associated with the hesitation that many people have about America's growing relationship with China. So I want to ask you, a - how much of it is bias and, b - is there something, rationally and appropriately, that Americans should be worried about as the ties with China get closer? PICKERING: Well, you always have to be aware of the security concerns, and those are there and they're - but there is a mechanism, the Syphius mechanism, for dealing with that. And it's a pretty rational - from what I understand, it's a pretty rational mechanism that's relatively unbiased. I think part of the problem for Americans is we haven't really defined what we're looking for in an inbound direct investment from China, and a key element of this, of course, is jobs. I mean, the Chinese, if they invest in American companies are capitalizing those companies, they're creating wealth, they're creating jobs in America. And so they're reversing, in a lot of ways, the trade flows of the last 10, 20 years, where a lot of money has gone out of the United States without coming back in. And if one looks at - for example, I grew up in the central valley of California, which is, economically, still very depressed. And on the one hand, there is concern - what do the Chinese mean when they come to California? What are they - why, you know, why are they coming? What are they bringing? But if you look at what they're purchasing, for example, in the central valley, if they invest in agriculture, which is something that the area needs now, I mean, they're going to be bringing jobs to an area that needs those jobs, and that's true all across the United States. So, a lot of this depends on how you look at it. If they're investing in a technology firm, sure, you do want to make sure that the laws and regulations are followed carefully but if they're investing in agriculture, there it's a pretty straightforward deal. MARTIN: But what about national... (CROSSTALK) MARTIN: Forgive me, what about national security concerns? PICKERING: Well those are going to be monitored carefully. MARTIN: Is the main issue technology? Is the main issue technology transfers which then might be used in the aid of regimes that we don't support, with values that we do not support, for aggressive intentions? Is that the main concern? PICKERING: I think that's what is on a lot of people's minds and certainly the cyber-security issues are in the forefront. But if a Chinese company's operating in America, it's operating under American laws and regulations. I mean, I think that's really important. They don't come and create a, you know, some kind of an alien presence. I mean, when they're actually in Silicon Valley or in Austin, Texas, or wherever they invest, I mean, they are subject to all the laws and regulations that any American company is involved with because they are operating in the United States. So I think we have to realize that it's probably a good thing in the long run that they do come here, because they are operating under a set of protocols that we, as Americans, understand pretty clearly, I think. MARTIN: Finally, in the time that we have left, we have about a minute and a half left. You are immersed in this subject. You've spent time in both places, but what would you recommend to people who just want to know more? They are interested, they just want to know more about our relationship with China. They want to know more about China but they can't focus on it full time, as you do. What do you recommend? PICKERING: Well, I think there's a wealth of sources out there. I mean, there's some terrific, I mean, I would say get involved in organizations like the Asia Society. We do a lot of work on this. And check our website out. But also, you know, read the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, because they are full of - and the Economist Magazine - they are full of good information about it. And you do have to sort out all these different voices and there are, you know, there are a widespread, you know, wide range of ideas, but I think the most important thing is, keep an open mind and read as much as you can because there's a lot out there right now. And the enemy of this, of ignorance, is education. MARTIN: You forgot to mention NPR, since we're, you know, sharing. PICKERING: Oh, you know what, I always listen to NPR, every - I do, actually. So I'm really sorry. (CROSSTALK) MARTIN: Bruce Pickering is Vice President of Global Programs and Executive Director of the Asia Society. He was kind enough to join us from San Francisco. Bruce Pickering, thank you so much for speaking with us. PICKERING: It was a real pleasure. Thank you. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR. Related ProgramTell Me More on Xtra HD

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/2103

Egypt's Former Dictator May Be Released Share Tweet E-mail Print By editor Originally published on Mon August 19, 2013 3:47 pm In this April 13, 2013, photo, former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak waves to his supporters from behind bars as he attends a hearing in his retrial on appeal in Cairo, Egypt. (AP) Officials in Egypt say they have no grounds to hold former President Hosni Mubarak in custody, and he could be released this week. That notice came with news that Islamic militants killed 25 policemen in the Sinai peninsula this morning, after ambushing their mini-buses. An Egyptian court has ruled that the government must release the country’s former ruler, Hosni Mubarak, because it had reached the two year limit for holding someone in custody pending a verdict. Mubarak is being re-tried for the killings of pro-democracy demonstrators during the protests that brought down his rule. He was found guilty at an initial trial and sentenced to life in prison. That sentence was overturned and he is now being tried again on the same charges. The news that he might be released adds to the volatility in the country where nearly 1,000 people have been killed since the government conducted violent raids on peaceful Islamist demonstrators and declared a month long state of emergency six days ago. Over the weekend, the government admitted that security forces had killed 36 prisoners while transporting them. Tensions have been on the rise since the Egyptian army ousted and arrested the country’s democratically-elected President Mohammed Morsi on July 3. Morsi is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the group has fought back against the government since that coup, with peaceful demonstrations and sit-ins, and now with increasingly violent actions.Guest Leila Fadel, Cairo bureau chief for NPR. She tweets @LeilaFadel. Copyright 2013 WBUR-FM. To see more, visit http://www.wbur.org. Transcript JEREMY HOBSON, HOST: From NPR and WBUR Boston, I'm Jeremy Hobson. MEGHNA CHAKRABARTI, HOST: I'm Meghna Chakrabarti, in for Robin Young. It's HERE AND NOW. Coming up, we'll take a closer look at one of the most powerful but least understood people in Egypt, General Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi, the head of the Egyptian military who's believed to be running the country these days. HOBSON: But first to some news about the man who used to run Egypt, Hosni Mubarak. Officials say they may release him a little more than two years after he was arrested. He was charged with corruption and for his part in the deaths of hundreds of pro-democracy protestors during the demonstrations that brought him down just a couple of years ago. News of his possible release comes amid historic levels of violence and unrest in the country after the ouster of Mubarak's democratically-elected successor, Mohamed Morsi. NPR's Leila Fadel is in Cairo and joins us now. And Leila, let's start with the news of Mubarak's possible release. What's going on here? LEILA FADEL, BYLINE: Well basically he is still on trial for his role in the killing of some 900 pro-democracy protestors almost three years ago. But the ability for the state to keep him in jail over that ran out a while ago. And today a judge ordered his release on another case in which he's being investigated for misusing public funds and property. His lawyers say this may pave the way for his release. There's only one more case that he can be held on, a case of bribery, and it's unclear if that will also be overturned. And so therefore we may see the sort of the final indication of a full reversal of most of the gains of that uprising almost three years ago. HOBSON: And this comes just as there are new allegations against Mohamed Morsi. What are those? FADEL: So now he's being accused of inciting violence outside the presidential palace in December during another crisis here over the constitution. He's already under investigation for a slew of what many observers and supporters of Morsi call trumped-up charges, working with al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, the United States to destabilize Egypt, to hurt Egypt, for murder, for kidnapping. And so you may see a situation here in Egypt where Egypt's elected but now unpopular and hated president by many Egyptians will stay in prison or in detention, and Mubarak could possibly be released. HOBSON: Leila, talk about the violence that we have seen there over the past few days. Just in the past 24 hours, militants have ambushed and shot at least 25 policemen in Northern Sinai, not far from the Gaza Strip. Also the Egyptian government admitted that security forces had killed at least 36 Islamist prisoners. FADEL: Well, more than 950 people have died here since Wednesday, 950. The morgues are - the morgue is so overwhelmed there are ice trucks outside the morgue to put bodies in. There have been bodies in the streets, people having difficulty getting the certification they need to bury people. It is extremely violent. This latest incident with the Islamist prisoners has been among the most disturbing for human rights group, who look at it suspiciously. The Ministry of Interior is saying there was a riot. They took an officer. They had to use tear gas, and many of them suffocated. Meanwhile, the Muslim Brotherhood, from which ousted President Mohamed Morsi hails, say these men were tortured to death. It's really unclear what happened last night. And also in Sinai, that has been sort of a low-level insurgency for weeks now. HOBSON: And we're hearing the words civil war. Are you hearing that? Is that what people are talking about on the streets of Cairo? FADEL: I would say for the first time there is a true fear of civil war, Egyptians asking themselves could we be Syria, could we be Iraq, something they never thought could happen here in Egypt. But over the last few days we've seen civilian-on-civilian violence. We've seen a serious crackdown from the state on these Morsi supporters some of which have - are armed, but the majority of which are not. And so people are starting to wonder if Egypt could slip into that. Also attacks on churches. Much of Egypt behind the military, but so many worried that this battle between the military and the Muslim Brotherhood, both not very democratic organizations, could drag Egypt into a civil war. HOBSON: NPR's Cairo bureau chief Leila Fadel, who is doing great reporting on Egypt morning, noon and night. Leila, thank you so much. FADEL: Thank you. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR. Related ProgramHere and Now

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/2117

Iran president visits Egypt in warming of ties By MAGGIE MICHAELAssociated Press Feb 6 2013 7:46 am Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, center, and Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, center right, participate in an arrival ceremony at the airport in Cairo, Egypt. CAIRO — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad discussed the crisis in Syria with his Egyptian counterpart Tuesday in the first visit by an Iranian leader to Cairo in more than three decades, marking a historic departure from years of frigid ties between the regional heavyweights. Ahmadinejad’s three-day visit, which is centered around an Islamic summit, is the latest sign of efforts by Egypt’s Islamist President Mohammed Morsi to improve relations, which have been cut since Iran’s 1979 revolution. Morsi’s flirtation with Iran is seen as aiming to strike an independent foreign policy and broaden Egypt’s connections after the ouster two years ago of longtime leader Hosni Mubarak, who kept close to the line of the United States. Such a visit by an Iranian leader would have been unthinkable under Mubarak, who was a close ally of the U.S. and shared Washington’s deep suspicions of Tehran. But the limits to how far Morsi can go were on display during Tuesday’s visit. There are deep suspicions in overwhelmingly Sunni Muslim Egypt toward Iran and its Shiite clergy leadership. Also, Morsi’s government was quick to reassure Arab Gulf nations, which are bitter rivals of Tehran and are concerned over the spread of its influence, that Egypt is intent on their security. Sunni-Shiite tensions dominated talks Ahmadinejad held with Egypt’s most prominent cleric, Sheik Ahmed el-Tayeb, who heads the Sunni world’s most prestigious religious institution, Al-Azhar. El-Tayeb upbraided Ahmedinejad on a string of issues. He warned against Iranian interference in Gulf nations, particularly Bahrain, where the ruling Sunni minority has faced protests by the Shiite majority. He also said attempts to spread Shiite Islam in mainly Sunni Arab nations were unacceptable and demanded a halt to bloodshed in Syria, where Tehran’s ally President Bashar Assad has been battling rebels, according to a statement by Al-Azhar about the meeting. He also demanded Ahmedinejad come out against insults against the first caliphs who succeeded the Prophet Muhammad and other figures close to the prophet in the 7th Century. Those figures are widely resented among Shiites because they are seen as having pushed aside Ali, the prophet’s son-in-law who Shiites consider his rightful successor. The dispute over succession is at the root of the centuries-old split between Islam’s Shiite and Sunni sects. The meeting was “tense,” acknowledged an aide to the sheik, Hussein al-Shafie, at a press conference with Ahmadinejad afterward – which el-Tayeb did not join. Morsi gave the Iranian leader a red-carpet welcome on the tarmac at Cairo airport, shaking his hand and exchanging a kiss on each cheek as a military honor guard stood at attention. The two leaders then sat down for a 20-minute talk that focused on the civil war in Syria, security officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to brief the media. Iran is Damascus’ closes regional ally, while Egypt is among those that have called on Assad to step down. In September, Morsi offered a package of incentives to Tehran to end its support for Assad. The proposal included the restoration of full diplomatic ties, which would be a significant prize for Iran given that Egypt is the most populous Arab nation and a regional Sunni powerhouse. Morsi’s offer garnered no response from Iran, although officials from both countries have continued to hold talks on the Syrian conflict in recent months. Such diplomatic overtures have raised concerns among Sunni Gulf nations, who are keeping a close eye on the Iranian leader’s visit. The Gulf states, who are opposed to Iran’s regional policies, accuse Iran of supporting Shiite minorities in the Gulf and harbor concerns about Tehran’s disputed nuclear program. Morsi and the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood group from which he hails have sought to ease Gulf concerns about its improved ties with Iran and have stressed that the security of the Gulf nations – which Egypt has relied upon for financial aid to help prop up its faltering economy – is directly linked to Cairo’s own. Foreign Minister Mohammed Amr Kamel reiterated that on Tuesday, saying, “Egypt’s relationship with Iran will never come at the expense of Gulf nations.” Egypt was once closely allied to Iran’s former ruling shah. The two countries severed relations after the 1979 Islamic Revolution brought a clerical rule to power in Iran and Egypt offered refuge to the deposed shah. In fact, Ahmadinejad’s visit to Al-Azhar’s sheik brought him not far from a grandiose Cairo mosque where the shah – despised by Iran’s clerical rulers – is buried. Relations further deteriorated after Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel. Morsi’s government has presented the moves to improve ties as a policy of greater independence from the United States. He may also have geopolitical considerations: Gulf powerhouses Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are cool to Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood and his rule, and several experts said Morsi wants to keep the option of ties with Iran open as an alternative. “Now relations with Gulf Countries are not that good. You need to make some balance and to play with all cards you have,” Egypt’s former ambassador to Syria, Mahmoud Shukri, told The Associated Press. Still, he and others said they don’t expect normal relations to be restored between the two countries. “This phase is to open channels and have dialogue,” Shukri said. Morsi is also reluctant to go too far with Iran and alienate the United States, whose help Egypt is hoping for in rescuing a faltering economy, or hurt ties with Israel, with which his government has maintained cooperation despite the Brotherhood’s deep enmity to the Jewish state. “I don’t see that Egypt will make a decision separate from the course of its relationship with the U.S. and Israel, for whom Iran is now the main issue,” said Mohammed Abbas Nagi, an Egyptian expert on Iran. The Syria issue is also a complication between Morsi and Tehran. While Iran staunchly backs Assad’s bloody suppression of the revolt, Cairo is home to the offices of the main Syrian opposition council, in which the Brotherhood’s Syrian branch has a strong presence. At home, ultraconservative Islamists known as Salafis, who are largely backers of Morsi, see Iran as Sunni Islam’s greatest enemy. Salafi clerics often rail against Shiites and Iran in their sermons. On Tuesday, Egypt’s hardline Daawa Salafiya, which is the foundation of the main Salafi political Al-Nour Party, released a statement calling on Morsi to confront Ahmadinejad on Tehran’s support for the Syrian regime and make clear that “Egypt is committed to the protection of all Sunni nations.” On the other end of the political spectrum, liberal politician Mohamed Anwar Esmat Sadat, nephew of the late President Anwar Sadat, said in a statement Tuesday that he is concerned about the Brotherhood’s ties with Iran. President Sadat was assassinated after signing Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel. Iran then outraged Egyptian officials when it named a street in honor of his assassin, Khaled al-Islambouli. Ahmadinejad is scheduled to attend the summit of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in Cairo, which starts Wednesday. Security officials said Ahmadinejad also will tour the Pyramids in Giza. Morsi visited Tehran last year to attend an international summit in the first visit by an Egyptian leader to Iran in years. But Morsi used the opportunity in Tehran to lash out at Iran’s ally, calling the Damascus regime “oppressive.” Egypt’s leader has spearheaded an “Islamic quartet” of nations to try and resolve the Syrian crisis. The grouping includes Iran, as well as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, which are two of the most vocal critics of the Syrian president. Saudi Arabia has largely abstained from the group’s meetings in an apparent snub to Iran’s Syria policies. Egyptian officials said they will try to revive those talks on the sidelines of this week’s OIC summit.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/2125

United Nations Development Programme: UAE ranks first in Human Development among the Arab countries During the Regional launch of the Global Human Development Report 2010 . The United Arab Emirates has ranked first regionally and 32nd globally in the Human Development Report 2010. It was also rated as one of only two countries from the region in the most advanced category or the category of "very high human development". United Nations Development Programme announced the new rankings during a special ceremony held today in Abu Dhabi to launch the 20th anniversary edition of the report. The ceremony included a review of the main findings of the report for the year 2010, and an illustration of the long-term progress in the UAE, in particular and the region in general, as documented in the 20th anniversary edition of the report. On this occasion, Hazza Mohammed Falah Al Qahtani, Director-General of the Office for the Coordination of Foreign Aid said: "We are pleased to see the UAE is now the highest ranking Arab country and has moved up to 32nd globally in the UN Development Programme's Human Development Index for 2010. Since its foundation in 1971, the UAE has always prioritized the development of its people, thanks largely to the enlightened vision of Sheikh Zayed, who believed development is about releasing human potential. The fact that the UAE was rated in the category "very high human development" reflects once again the country's continuous efforts to develop and raise the quality of life of its people." Dr. Elissar Sarrouh, the UN Resident Coordinator and UNDP Resident Representative in the UAE said "It is only fitting to launch the 20th anniversary edition of the Human Development Report here in the capital of the United Arab Emirates, which leads the region in human development terms and is working to build further on its impressive achievements in health care, educational opportunities and overall quality of life.". "We at UNDP look forward to working to assist the UAE in its visionary pursuit of continued human development progress," Dr. Sarrouh added. Mohammed Omar Abdullah, the Undersecretary, of the Department of Economic Development in Abu Dhabi in a speech during the ceremony, expressed in turn, his delight on the results of the Human Development Report 2010 for the UAE which occupied the first place at the level of the Arab World, and the 32nd place worldwide, amongst 169 countries covered by the Report, as UAE climbed up five ranks from its position in 2009. He also expressed that "such remarkable progress has been achieved, thanks to God Almighty and the guidance of the wise leadership, headed by His Highness Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, President of the UAE; and his brothers their Highnesses the Sheikhs, Rulers of the Emirates, in the various fields of life, placing the UAE within the category of countries with high human development; based on the principles of sustainability and empowerment of community members, which constitute some of the mainstays and values of Abu Dhabi Economic Vision 2030, and the other strategies adopted in different emirates. " For the first time, the 2010 Report measures human development in terms of the distribution of achievements and opportunities within societies, with an inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (HDI) assessing relative progress among national groups in health, education and income. The Arab countries together suffer a large HDI decline of 27% because of substantial inequality in all the said three areas. In addition to the new HDI, which includes some technical refinements of its traditional indicators for income, health and education, the 2010 Human Development Report introduces three new indices to measure the extent and impact of inequality, gender gaps, and extreme poverty. The UAE ranked first regionally and 45th globally among 138 countries covered by the Gender Inequality Index, which measure gender gaps in reproductive health, empowerment and participation in the labor force. This performance is attributable to gender equality in education, with 77% of adult women in the UAE attaining secondary or higher level of education, the same as for men. The Multidimensional Poverty Index, which identifies serious simultaneous deprivations in health, education and living standards, shows that the Arab region is home for an estimated 39 million poor people. © 2010 Al Bawaba (www.albawaba.com [1]) Source URL: http://www.albawaba.com/main-headlines/united-nations-development-programme-uae-ranks-first-human-development-among-arab-cou

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/2231

John Avlon: Commentaries The rigged game of redistricting By John Avlon, Special to CNN STORY HIGHLIGHTS Redrawing political district lines being debated across the country Two New York politicians hired lobbyists to influence redistricting At least 15 states have citizens groups fighting for redistricting reform RELATED TOPICS Voting Methods Editor's note: John P. Avlon is a CNN contributor and senior political columnist for The Daily Beast. He is the author of "Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe Is Hijacking America." (CNN) -- Across the country, state legislatures are debating redistricting right now. It's a once-a-decade proposition: the opportunity and obligation to redraw political district lines to reflect the latest census. The problem is that the system is rigged -- politicians choose their voters, instead of voters choosing their politicians. The result is the rise of "safe seats" designed to drive the real election away from the all access general election to low-turnout, closed partisan primaries. It amounts to an end-run around democracy. The bottom line is this: If you're frustrated with the bitter polarization afflicting American politics, you should be pushing for redistricting reform right now. Redistricting -- also known as "Gerrymandering" (the title of a great documentary of on the subject ) -- has a long and sordid history in America, but lately it has gotten much worse. There was the infamous Tom DeLay-driven, mid-decade Texas redistricting that was designed to drive Democrats out of office. But it's a bipartisan problem: In 2005, the influential Democratic Speaker of the Massachusetts State House Tom Finneran plead guilty to obstruction of justice after accusations that he manipulated redistricting efforts. The ethical swamp still hasn't been drained and shamelessly trying to manipulate the process is considered business as usual. Earlier this year, Politico's Maggie Haberman reported that two New York Democratic Congressmen --Joe Crowley and Brian Higgins --had already hired lobbyists to look after their interests in the current round of redistricting. This is pathetic, but far from unprecedented. In 2001, Democratic Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez told the Orange County Register, "$20,000 is nothing to keep your seat. ... I spend $2 million (campaigning) every election. If my colleagues are smart, they'll pay their $20,000 and (lobbyist Michael Berman) will draw the district they can win in. Those who have refused to pay? God help them." This kind of cronyism and collusion definitely isn't democracy as the founding fathers imagined. Redistricting reform has been gaining momentum in recent years despite strenuous opposition from the partisan establishment. In 2008, California voters overwhelmingly approved an independent citizens redistricting commission after the two parties blocked an effort led by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005 to remove lawmakers from the drawing of districts. In 2010, Florida voters passed a ballot referendum that would require the state legislators to put forward a plan that does not favor one party or the other. But the Sunshine state redistricting appears to be on a rocky and partisan a path. In 2010, former New York City Mayor Ed Koch led a group called New York Uprising to get Empire State politicians to pledge support for independent redistricting. The reform message gained urgency because of a spate of Albany scandals. Now, two-thirds of New Yorkers believe that a nonpartisan redistricting system should be put in place -- with margins equally high among Democrats, Republicans and Independents. But signing the pledge has proven easier than actually taking action, as the Republican-controlled State Senate has attempted to weasel out of the deal, kicking the can down the road for another 10 years. In response, a citizens reform group known as ReShape New York has been formed (I serve on its advisory board) to push for follow-through, because delay is denial when it comes to redistricting reform. In all, there are at least 15 states where citizens groups are fighting for redistricting reform this spring, according to the website BallotNews. In the Midwest, a coalition called "Draw the Line Midwest" is organizing redistricting reform efforts in Minnesota, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin. In other states with bipartisan redistricting plans -- like New Jersey and Utah -- independent voters are not represented in the commissions, ignoring the interests of a plurality of voters who are most committed to the principles of nonpartisanship. This can lead to a form of collusion sometimes called "sweetheart redistricting" because it protects incumbents from both parties. Professional partisans cynically dismiss redistricting reform as an issue Main Street voters don't know or don't care about. It is an excuse for inaction, fueled by self-interest. They like the system as it is because incumbents benefit from a lack of competitive general elections. It's just our democracy that suffers. Consider that the average turnout for closed partisan primaries is 12% -- that means 6.1% of the electorate makes a majority. It is a paradise for activists, ideologues and special interests -- but it leaves average citizens essentially disenfranchised. At the same time, it creates an incentive for members of Congress to pander to the special interests of their party instead of reaching out to the center and winning over the reasonable edge of the opposition to form new coalitions and actually solve problems. The hyper-partisan status quo leads to gridlock and encourages polarization. So if you're among the 93% of Americans who believe that there is too much partisan infighting in Washington, understand that the rigged system of redistricting is at the root of the dysfunction. Redistricting reform is an essential part of the cure. And the time is now -- decisions about redistricting are being made in state capitals across the country this spring and summer. Politicians are hoping that citizens will forget their campaign promises and they can quietly re-impose the self-dealing status quo. If we let this moment pass, it will be another decade before redistricting reform has a chance at being implemented. The ugliness and incivility of our politics will get only worse in the interim. Redistricting reform matters. Along with open primaries, the competitive general elections it would create could heal the harsh, artificial polarization of American politics. It is the reform that could guarantee all others -- empowering the vast vital center instead of the extremes. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of John Avlon.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/2399

Kenya became a Member of the United Nations after attaining independence in December 1963. It was a giant step in the exercise of independence and sovereignty in the arena of the community of nations. The role of Kenya Mission to the United Nations is to effectively represent Kenya at the diplomatic apex of interactions in the global community of nations. The multilateral character of the Kenya Mission in New York poses very unique diplomatic challenges. All States in the world with their diverse ideological, cultural, political and strategic characteristics intermingle in the halls of negotiations, in the corridors and in receptions. It is a setting which tests diplomatic skills to the limit. Kenya mission to the United Nations has and continue to discharge her obligations at the United Nations with an efficiency which has earned her great admiration. The country has not only adhered to and upheld the principles enshrined in the Charter of the organization but has also contributed tremendously in the furtherance of shared goals. The passage of time since 1945 has witnessed many transformations globally. The political, economic, social, military and strategic spheres have seen tremendous changes. As a result, the United Nations has had to adjust to face the emerging challenges. Organs, Agencies and Programmes of the United Nations take on an ever-expanding agenda shaped by fresh and changing challenges in a most complex situation. Kenya has a special place within the United Nations as it is the only developing country hosting two United Nations programmes. As the United Nations evolves, especially with the end of the Cold War and the bi-polar nature of politics and strategic alliances, other forces have come to the fore. Globalization and WTO rounds of negotiations, United Nations Special Sessions and Global Summits have enmeshed States, regions and groups in a most complex web of negotiations which focus on the work of the United Nations and its Subsidiary organs, Agencies and Programmes. There are also six (6) Standing Committees of the United Nations charged with issues of Security and Disarmament; Economic and Finance; Social and Humanitarian; Decolonization and special political; Budgetary and administrative Legal Matters. The background negotiations which later transform themselves into formal negotiations, resolutions and programmes of action are as a result of negotiations undertaken by all these committees. The Kenya Mission ensures that the interests of Kenya as enshrined in the national goals and the country’s foreign policy are protected and furthered in all these negotiations. the Kenya Mission works very closely with the government ministries and departments on positions regarding key issues and policy matters. From time to time, the Ministers and the Head of State address the United Nations either in Special Sessions or during the General Assembly. At all other times, the Ambassador/Permanent Representative is in-charge of all activities giving guidance to the staff as they undertake their duties and responsibilities. The placing of Kenya in important Committees is another prerogative. Over the years, Kenya has been very proud to join the privileged group of States in the Security Council as a temporary member periodically. Kenya has been a member of committees and commissions including statistics, population and development, programme coordination, ECOSOC and many others at different times. While in 1963, African countries championed the cause of decolonization and the abolition of apartheid, the 21st century has witnessed a emergence of new challenges. The Millennium Summit in 2000 identified special needs of Africa, which the African Union through the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), has put in proper perspective. Through the African Union, NEPAD and other continental frameworks, Africa has demonstrated its readiness to embrace democracy, prosperity and contribute to the ideals of the United Nations. The Kenya Mission to the United Nations is at the center of efforts in the realization of this dream through national, sub regional and regional arrangements. Kenya is committed to the noble course of the United Nations. The country is fully engaged in follow-up, discussions and implementation of the outcome of major United Nations conferences and summits, including internationally agreed development goals including Millennium Development goals.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/2494

Justin Sullivan / Getty Images, file NEW ORLEANS, LA - JUNE 18: Texas governor Rick Perry speaks during the 2011 Republican Leadership Conference on June 18, 2011 in New Orleans, Louisiana. The 2011 Republican Leadership Conference features keynote addresses from most of the major republican candidates for president as well as numerous republican leaders from across the country. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images) Texas Gov. Rick Perry Not About 'To Ride Off Into the Sunset' By Carrie Dann Rick Perry may be retiring from the job he's had for fourteen years, but he isn't slowing down."I'm not going to ride off into the sunset," he told NBC News in an interview in Washington D.C. "I'm pretty sure I'm not going to go back to Paint Creek, Texas, and shut my doors."The Texas governor, 11 months away from the end of his record-setting tenure at the helm of the state, is sunny about a political future that could include another run for president. That decision won't come until next year, he says, but Perry insists he'll remain active in the political debate over the role of government in American life, whether he runs or not."We'll continue to travel," he promises. "I hope to continue -- after I am governor -- to have the discussion about red state versus blue state policies and to push the concept that Washington needs to be less consequential," he told NBC News.Trying to push Americans into a relatively small box and say, 'here is how you all are going to perform and act and function' is not a productive or positive way to lead this country.It's not a new m

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/2499

Assembly Democrats unveil post-Sandy jobs package December 04. 2012 2:16PM One week after leading a bipartisan delegation to tour Hurricane Sandy's devastation on the Jersey Shore, the assembly speaker today unveiled a package of job-creation bills she hopes will receive a bipartisan reception. Sheila Y. Oliver (D-East Orange) said the Legislature and Gov. Chris Christie need to deal with the state’s high unemployment rate in order to ensure that the Sandy recovery coincides with a more substantial economic recovery.“Nothing is going to get us there more quickly than if we get more New Jerseyans back to work,” Oliver said.The package contains a number of bills that already have been passed and vetoed by Christie, though Oliver said the majority are new bills.“We are today throwing out a hand of bipartisan participation and cooperation to the administration to sit down with the general Assembly and let us revisit many of those bills that we know will lead to growing and expanding and creating jobs in the state,” she said.Even with the talk of bipartisanship, the Democrats didn’t shy away from laying blame for what they see as a too-slow economic recovery in the state.Assembly Majority Leader Lou Greenwald (D-Voorhees) said the state’s unemployment rate remains near 10 percent, and said many of the private-sector jobs created during Christie’s tenure have been low-paying jobs.“No amount of press conferences or talking points is going to obscure the fact that in the last three years, New Jersey’s economy continues to get worse,” he said.The package includes legislation to support high-paying manufacturing jobs and collaboration between business and higher education. Other bills encourage hiring of veterans and the long-term unemployed. The package also contains tax credits for investment in biotechnology, and a revamped version of the Back to Work NJ program, a plan previously vetoed by Christie and based on a jobs program in Georgia.Assembly Budget Chair Vincent Prieto (D-Secaucus) said he plans to have hearings on the bills Dec. 11 in order to allow floor votes Dec. 17.Oliver said the total cost of the package is about $20 million. Greenwald noted that price tag is far less than the $183 million income tax plan proposed by Christie, which Greenwald charged would have “overwhelmingly rewarded the wealthiest 1 percent in the state.”Greenwald said the Democratic plan is wiser investment, because businesses would first have to commit to jobs and growth before the state would have to spend money.Asked if the timing of the package was related to the Assembly’s vote Monday to raise the state’s minimum wage, a move opposed by business groups, Oliver said the Assembly has already done much to support businesses and said her jobs package would also be helpful to businesses.“This is not designed to deflect away or cushion the aggressiveness around wanting to raise the minimum wage,” she said. “This is just another component of what is necessary to get New Jersey’s economy working.” www.NJBIZ.com

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/2640

President Bush to visit Pensacola Bill Adair On election eve, President Bush will headline a Republican rally in Pensacola, the White House announced. Bush will speak at a Florida Victory rally at the Pensacola Civic Center Monday afternoon. He then will fly to a rally in Arkansas and will end the day at a rally in Dallas. He will spend the night Monday night at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, where he will vote on Tuesday. In Pensacola, Bush is likely to find a supportive audience (he won Escambia County with 65 percent of the vote). It also will give him an opportunity to fire up the Republican base. Update: A senior administration official, speaking on Air Force One, said the event Monday was intended to boost Republican turnout. "We're focusing his energy on places where he can best turn out the vote for Republican candidates. These are all races that are close. These are all races that are likely going to come down to turnout. And so that's the nature of all these visits," said the official, who was not identified in a White House transcript. [Last modified: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 12:36pm]

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/2658

Mr. President, time for bold leadership In his upcoming inaugural and State of the Union speeches, President Obama needs to set a clear vision of where he wants to take this country in terms of fiscal and tax policy. He must then codify that vision in an understandable set of legislative proposals. Finally, the president should do what he does best and take his case directly to the American people.Failing to do that, he risks seeing the second term of his presidency turn into a repeat of the first, with more gridlock, brinksmanship and growing public disgust with Washington.As that first term ended, President Obama achieved what most political observers would normally consider a modest victory, but which in today's Washington was a notable success. He campaigned for re-election on the premise that part of getting deficit spending under control was requiring the wealthy to contribute more in taxes. He achieved success by compromising, and instead of the $250,000 income threshold he advocated, Congress approved a rate increase on family incomes of $450,000 or more. Yet finally getting enough Republicans to say "uncle" on a tax increase hardly addresses the nation's long-term troubling fiscal outlook. It was but a small step.The deal did not address the spending side of the fiscal cliff, instead pushing it back two months. Without congressional action, cuts of approximately $110 billion are set to take effect in early March. Half the cuts would come in defense spending, the other half in non-defense budgets.Discretionary spending accounts for the Defense Department would be cut by 10 percent, according to the administration. On the non-military side, discretionary accounts will be trimmed across the board by more than 8 percent, including a 2 percent cut to Medicare spending, the administration estimates. Many economists warn such a large and abrupt cut in federal spending, made haphazardly, could stall the economy.Around the same time the nation will bump up against the debt ceiling and will not be able to meet its obligations unless Congress raises it.Deficit hawks in the House may justifiably see themselves in a dominant position at that point, refusing to raise the debt ceiling and avoid the massive across-the-board cuts unless they get the budget reductions they want, likely hitting heavy on social service and environmental programs.The president would be making a mistake by again engaging that faction in a game of high-stakes poker, each side bluffing and refusing to fold until the nation is up against a binding deadline and imminent crisis.President Obama would be far better off making a bold and fair policy proposal, offering a vision that requires tough but necessary sacrifices. But what vision?We again urge President Obama to turn to the commission he appointed - the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, more commonly known as the Simpson-Bowles Commission after its chairmen, former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson and the former Clinton White House chief of staff, Democrat Erskin Bowles. The key principles of its 2010 report remain sound. Those principles include shared sacrifice; cutting the deficit by over $4 trillion over the next 10 years, sufficient to stabilize the debt by 2015 and reduce debt as a percentage of GDP below 70 percent by 2020; and achieving that goal with two-thirds spending cuts, including changes to entitlement programs, and one-third revenue increases through tax reforms.By showing leadership and demonstrating a willingness to make the tough choices, President Obama would put tremendous pressure on both recalcitrant members of his own party and on Republicans to strike a deal and move the country forward.This is what second term presidents can do. It is what President Obama must do.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/2687

Another View: Sununu, Merrill, Benson show just how out-of-touch the GOP is BY KATHY SULLIVAN Last week I spoke with someone who is not a Democrat about recent comments by John H. Sununu. My friend asked, with some frustration in his voice, "Why doesn't someone tell him to just shut up?" The former governor, along with former Republican governors Steve Merrill and Craig Benson, participated in a panel discussion about why Barack Obama was reelected. Sununu said that the President won the election because Democrats were able to turn out voters who are dependent on government. He used the example of Cleveland, stating that Democrats ran up big majorities there. Why the reference to Cleveland, and not, oh, say, Concord, where President Obama racked up 67 percent of the vote, compared to Romney's 32 percent? Or Portsmouth, where the President doubled up Romney, 8,848 to 4088? The answer could be that Cleveland's population is 53.3 percent African-American, or it could be because there are neighborhoods in Cleveland with a double-digit unemployment rate. Whatever the reason, Sununu's statement that President Obama was reelected because he appealed to those dependent on government was an insult to the American people and an insult to the 52 percent of the voters who gave Barack Obama a Granite State victory. Sununu's comments reflect a troubling belief system that is not his alone. Merrill said he agreed with everything Sununu said. Benson went even further, stating the Democratic Party appeals to people by promising "stuff." What all these former governors essentially believe is that most voters are lazy and can be bought with the dole. They are blind to the vast majority of Americans who are a hardworking people looking for an honest day's pay for an honest day's work, people who are strivers who want to support themselves and their families, regardless of race or ethnicity. The former governors are so ignorant about their fellow citizens that it is a wonder any of them ever managed to get elected to anything. No wonder there are those who just do not want to listen to anything they have to say. Sununu, Merrill and Benson must not read the newspaper stories about thousands of people showing up at job fairs, like the one sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus in Atlanta a year ago. So many people showed up they had to stand in line for hours; some collapsed in the August heat. They haven't spoken to people here in New Hampshire who work two jobs to get by. They certainly haven't been talking to the people who work low-wage jobs for the dignity of a regular paycheck, even though their company's wage and hour structure means they qualify for food stamps. They don't know the college students taking out back-breaking debt for the opportunity to advance. In the world of Sununu, Merrill and Benson, it is wise policy when they want to take or give away government help to those who don't need it. But when it is helping low-wage employees who aren't paid enough to insure their kids, or middle-class families trying to save their homes or send their kids to college, well, that's just us good-for-nothing Americans wanting stuff. Compare those citizens to Sununu, who lost his government job as George H.W. Bush's chief of staff over his use of government jets and limos, to attend political fundraisers and visit ski lodges, golf resorts and his dentist in Boston. One trip, to the Vail ski resort, cost taxpayers $86,330. Talk about government dependency! Then there is Benson, who said the Democratic Party promised voters "stuff." Here is my definition of wanting "stuff": taking millions in state and federal tax incentives to expand in Ohio, as Cabletron did. Cabletron promised to provide employment in exchange for the incentives, then subsequently closed the plant, leaving hundreds out of work.Then there was Benson's war on the business profits tax. In 1990, Cabletron threatened not to expand in New Hampshire if the state did not reform the BPT to Cabletron's liking. Cabletron sued the state, claiming the tax was unconstitutional, refusing to pay $13 million in taxes until the law was changed. Merrill must remember Cabletron's demands; in 1993, Benson said that Gov. Merrill had promised to do whatever Rhode Island was doing to get Cabletron to expand there, "times 10." Times 10? Now that is giving away "stuff!"It is time for Sununu, Merrill and Benson to stop trying to delegitimize Barack Obama's election with this notion that somehow those who voted for Romney are pure of heart, while those who did not are greedy moochers. It isn't true.We voted for President Obama because as patriotic Americans who want what is best for our country, we think he will do a better job than Mitt Romney. Kathy Sullivan is a Manchester attorney and member of the Democratic National Committee. She was chairman of the state Democratic Party from 1999-2007.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/2689

NH, Maine senators urge action to avoid shipyard cuts WASHINGTON (MCT) - Senators from Maine and New Hampshire are urging action to prevent automatic federal spending cuts that could delay repairs to the USS Miami at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, cause furloughs for civilian workers and cancel a Blue Angels airshow in Maine.Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire were responding to a document released last week outlining steps the Navy will take if Congress cannot avert the across-the-board spending cuts set to take effect in March.Prospects for a deal remain unclear as the new Congress focuses on other issues.The impact of the spending cuts could include:. Delaying repairs to the USS Miami, a nuclear submarine that was damaged by fire at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery in May.. Furloughing most civilian workers for 22 days.. Canceling an appearance by the Navy's Blue Angels at the annual air show in Brunswick.The Navy also warned that unless a new budget is passed, the service may have to lay off more than 1,100 temporary workers nationwide this year, cancel planned ship overhauls and scale back ship and aircraft operations.Known as "sequestration," the threat of $1.2 trillion in across-the-board spending cuts beginning this year was supposed to push Congress to compromise on addressing the federal deficit. But Democrats and Republicans managed only to delay the cuts as part of a deal negotiated in late December.Collins and Shaheen wrote a letter to Senate leaders expressing their "commitment to a balanced, bipartisan deficit reduction solution" to avoid cuts threatening jobs in their states."This month, we are starting to see the very real and negative consequences of our inaction to our national security and to the economic and financial health of our country," Collins and Shaheen wrote to Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.The two also raised concerns about the effects of the cuts on non-defense programs, such as federal assistance to schools, the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."(The) best way to avoid sequestration is to stop avoiding the choices we have to make and get our long-term debt and deficits under control," they wrote. "This will require reforms to all areas of spending, including domestic, mandatory and defense, as well as comprehensive tax reform."

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/2717

> Passport to enter national parks? Thread: Passport to enter national parks? [QUOTE=skeeter;121811]This crap is getting ridiculous. [url]http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/16/real.id/index.html[/url][/QUOTE] debruins I dont understadn how its gonna help the border patrol either, thats the whole reason, yet the border patrol isnt in the state parks, or in the entrances into airports(you already have to be in the us), and if you already have a pass port...??? i dont get there reasoning, like the Real ID is gonna keep the terrorists out of the national parks WHOO HOO????? Odhinn They are triing to force their policies through intimidation. I for one don't think we need another ID. The government already has us ID'ed with a SSN, a Birth Certificate, A driver license, and a Tax number, not to mention anything else they have databased. Whats next after the real ID ACT. Forced microchipping. We are slowly become ID'ed cattle to the gov to do as they please with us. To forbid a states residence from traveling and enjoying something they already pay for through taxes is unforgivable in my book and should never happen. Especially if it is done to force a play by the feds. Do some research and look into how many international ports are actually run by or owned by foreign companies and/or powers. It will shock you. OdhinnsChick I read somewhere that foreign countries actually own our national parks. :/ iamagolfspaz I always thought that our tax money helps to support the parks. Why do i have to pay twice just to go enjoy something that i already payed for! Levinoss I guess I dont see whats bad about the program? Besides them making it hard for the people who dont want in the program. What is peoples complaint about the program? ~Lev Heh, it's their version of checks and balances I guess. =P I can't believe our government would do this Fact is our government has been doing things like this for years under the radar. The average American Citizen doesn't care if it doesn't affect them personally. I am tired of hearing the phrase "If you are doing nothing wrong then you have nothing to worry about" True, but it is the principle of the matter, and what happens when it get beyond a point of no-return and affects everyone. Amazing how the States are suppose to hold the power in our Government but when the feds don't get what they want they resort to these tactics. Sounds like when the feds forced Montana to adopt the 55 speed limit by witholding their highway funds until they did so. Some things that bother me... "More than half the nation's state legislatures have passed symbolic legislation denouncing the plan, and some have penned bills expressly forbidding compliance." If more than half the country has already said "We don't want it!", where do the feds get off saying we have to have it? The federal government is supposed to be subservient to the states. "This is not a mandate," Chertoff said. "A state doesn't have to do this, but..." The cards would be mandatory for all "federal purposes," which include boarding an airplane or walking into a federal building, nuclear facility or national park, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told the National Conference of State Legislatures last week. Citizens in states that don't comply with the new rules will have to use passports for federal purposes. Basically, they will be holding the non-compliant states, more than half the states, hostage, until they submit to Big Brother. It makes me sick! OC, just because we're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get us. Just call me paranoid then. 08-17-2007 04:52 PM chucky cheese land use permits or any type of fee to enter controlled areas for the upkeep of that area is fine as long as you dont have to give identification or prove who you are. Originally Posted by skeeter - I know its true but it doesn't bother me. Originally Posted by OdhinnsChick It's already pretty disgusting that everywhere you go they want your damn SS number. Before long, we will have to use eye and fingerprint scanners to do anything. It's ridiculous. I was watching a show a while back about England's "security" system. Everyone's face is in a database and there are camera's on every corner that monitor people. If you are wanted by the police for something that camera can pick you out of a crown of 100 people. Seems rather scary that it could be used for other things one day. And yet their crime rate is rising and the citizens are immigrating out in droves. Everybody loves em a good police state eh 08-17-2007 04:36 PM old, wear clean underwear you never know what may happen. new, dont pick your nose or adjust yourself you dont know who's watching! Originally Posted by AzTJ I like the idea of the face recognition though, a public security system. If you've got nothing to be afraid of or hide, there shouldn't be a problem with. And its not like the cameras are in your house, they are out in the public. THe only reason we have to buy passes out here is because of the people claiming that ATV and off-road vehicles are damaging the environment. And to lessen the amount of people in the forrest and the chances of human started forest fires. We have land use passes here too, the money is used to maintain trail heads, camp grounds, fire roads, wetlands etc. I have no problem with use permits as long as there is no provision for denying their purchase. Out here in Arizona we have to buy Tonto Passes to enter the national forest. Almost like a parking permit 08-17-2007 02:56 PM and create rebels and revolutionaries Big Brother sees all.........and wants to control all...... Passport to enter national parks? This crap is getting ridiculous. Federal ID plan raises privacy concerns By Eliott C. McLaughlin (CNN) -- Americans may need passports to board domestic flights or to picnic in a national park next year if they live in one of the states defying the federal Real ID Act. The act, signed in 2005 as part of an emergency military spending and tsunami relief bill, aims to weave driver's licenses and state ID cards into a sort of national identification system by May 2008. The law sets baseline criteria for how driver's licenses will be issued and what information they must contain. The Department of Homeland Security insists Real ID is an essential weapon in the war on terror, but privacy and civil liberties watchdogs are calling the initiative an overly intrusive measure that smacks of Big Brother. More than half the nation's state legislatures have passed symbolic legislation denouncing the plan, and some have penned bills expressly forbidding compliance. Several states have begun making arrangements for the new requirements -- four have passed legislation applauding the measure -- but even they may have trouble meeting the act's deadline. "For terrorists, travel documents are like weapons," Chertoff said. "We do have a right and an obligation to see that those licenses reflect the identity of the person who's presenting it." Chertoff said the Real ID program is essential to national security because there are presently 8,000 types of identification accepted to enter the United States. "It is simply unreasonable to expect our border inspectors to be able to detect forgeries on documents that range from baptismal certificates from small towns in Texas to cards that purport to reflect citizenship privileges in a province somewhere in Canada," he said. Chertoff attended the conference in Boston, Massachusetts, in part to allay states' concerns, but he had few concrete answers on funding. The Department of Homeland Security, which estimates state and federal costs could reach $23.1 billion over 10 years, is looking for ways to lessen the burden on states, he said. On the recent congressional front, however, Chertoff could point only to an amendment killed in the Senate last month that would've provided $300 million for the program. "There's going to be an irreducible expense that falls on you, and that's part of the shared responsibility," Chertoff told the state legislators. Bill Walsh, senior legal fellow for the Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based conservative think tank that supports the Real ID Act, said states shouldn't be pushing for more federal dollars because, ultimately, that will mean more federal oversight -- and many complaints about cost coincide with complaints about the federal government overstepping its bounds. "They are only being asked to do what they should've already done to protect their citizens," Walsh said, blaming arcane software and policies at state motor vehicle departments for what he called "a tremendous trafficking in state driver's licenses." The NCSL is calling Real ID an "unfunded mandate" that could cost states up to $14 billion over the next decade, but for which only $40 million has been federally approved. The group is demanding Congress pony up $1 billion for startup costs by year's end or scrap the proposal altogether. Everyone must visit DMV by 2013 The Real ID Act repealed a provision in the 9/11 Commission Implementation Act calling for state and federal officials to examine security standards for driver's licenses. It called instead for states to begin issuing new federal licenses, lasting no longer than eight years, by May 11, 2008, unless they are granted an extension. It also requires all 245 million license and state ID holders to visit their local departments of motor vehicles and apply for a Real ID by 2013. Applicants must bring a photo ID, birth certificate, proof of Social Security number and proof of residence, and states must maintain and protect massive databases housing the information. NCSL spokesman Bill Wyatt said the requirements are "almost physically impossible." States will have to build new facilities, secure those facilities and shell out for additional equipment and personnel. Those costs are going to fall back on the American taxpayer, he said. It might be in the form of a new transportation, motor vehicle or gasoline tax. Or you might find it tacked on to your next state tax bill. In Texas, Wyatt said, one official told him that without federal funding, the Longhorn State might have to charge its citizens more than $100 for a license. "We kind of feel like the way they went about this is backwards," Wyatt said, explaining that states would have appreciated more input into the process. "Each state has its own unique challenges and these are best addressed at state levels. A one-size-fits-all approach to driver's licenses doesn't necessarily work." Many states have revolted. The governors of Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Washington have signed bills refusing to comply with the act. Six others have passed bills and/or resolutions expressing opposition, and 15 have similar legislation pending. Though the NCSL says most states' opposition stems from the lack of funding, some states cited other reasons for resisting the initiative. New Hampshire passed a House bill opposing the program and calling Real ID "contrary and repugnant" to the state and federal constitutions. A Colorado House resolution dismissed Real ID by expressing support for the war on terror but "not at the expense of essential civil rights and liberties of citizens of this country." Privacy concerns raised Colorado and New Hampshire lawmakers are not alone. Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation say the IDs and supporting databases -- which Chertoff said would eventually be federally interconnected -- will infringe on privacy. EFF says on its Web site that the information in the databases will lay the groundwork for "a wide range of surveillance activities" by government and businesses that "will be able to easily read your private information" because of the bar code required on each card. The databases will provide a one-stop shop for identity thieves, adds the ACLU on its Web site, and the U.S. "surveillance society" and private sector will have access to the system "for the routine tracking, monitoring and regulation of individuals' movements and activities." The civil liberties watchdog dubs the IDs "internal passports" and claims it wouldn't be long before office buildings, gas stations, toll booths, subways and buses begin accessing the system. But Chertoff told legislators last week that DHS has no intention of creating a federal database, and Walsh, of the Heritage Foundation, said the ACLU's allegations are disingenuous. States will be permitted to share data only when validating someone's identity, Walsh said. "The federal government wouldn't have any greater access to driver's license information than it does today," Walsh said. States have the right to refuse to comply with the program, he said, and they also have the right to continue issuing IDs and driver's licenses that don't meet Real ID requirements. But, Walsh said, "any state that's refusing to implement this key recommendation by the 9/11 Commission, and whose state driver's licenses are as a result used in another terrorist attack, should be held responsible." State reaction to Real ID has not been all negative. Four states have passed bills or resolutions expressing approval for the program, and 13 states have similar legislation pending (Several states have pending pieces of legislation both applauding and opposing Real ID). Chertoff said there would be repercussions for states choosing not to comply. "This is not a mandate," Chertoff said. "A state doesn't have to do this, but if the state doesn't have -- at the end of the day, at the end of the deadline -- Real ID-compliant licenses then the state cannot expect that those licenses will be accepted for federal purposes." http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/....id/index.html

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/2909

30 December 1958: Castro's rebels edge closer to capital A vicious house-to-house battle between rebel guerrillas, led by Fidel Castro, and the Cuban army is raging around the town of Santa Clara, the capital of the province of Las Villas. The capture of Las Villas is a key goal for the rebel force, known as the 26 July Army, before they advance on the capital, Havana. Despite being heavily outnumbered by the Cuban army, the rebels have enormous popular support and have won a number of significant victories. Just a few weeks ago, they were confined to their tiny mountain stronghold at the other end of the island. Now they have advanced into a position where they are poised to take the capital itself. Call for truce The guerrillas have been fighting to overthrow the military government of Fulgeneio Batista for two years. But in the last 48 hours about 3,000 people have been killed or injured in some of the bloodiest fighting in the history of Cuba. The army has countered the rebel attack on Santa Clara with fighter and bomber aircraft, as well as guns and tanks. One of the rebel leaders, Dr Ernesto "Che" Guevara, has appealed to the government commander in Santa Clara for a truce to clear the streets of the casualties. Broadcasts on rebel radio said his appeal had been rejected. Army purge The president is reported to be preparing to take personal command of his forces to destroy a convoy of guerrilla soldiers currently moving south from Santa Clara. In a sign of how desperate the situation has become for the government, President Batista today removed the Commodore of the Navy's air force, Joaquin Yarela Canosa, from his post. He was the second senior figure in the armed forces to be sacked this week. The army commander in Las Villas, General Alberto Rio Chaviano, lost his job a few days ago. Meanwhile, amid rumours that President Batista is preparing to flee the island, two of his young sons arrived in New York, accompanied by their grandfather, Manuel Perez Benitoa. Mr Benitoa denied that the two boys were being evacuated ahead of a government surrender, saying, "I bring them every year to see the snow." E-mail this story to a friend About 3,000 people have been killed or injured in Cuba's bloodiest fighting Two days later, on New Year's Day 1959, President Batista fled the country to the Dominican Republic, his government overthrown and his regime at an end. He was to live the rest of his life in exile in Portugal and Spain and died in Spain in 1973. Fidel Castro was sworn in as premier on 16 February 1959. Since then, Cuba has been a one-party state in which Fidel Castro exerts control over virtually every aspect of Cuban life. From an early stage, his leadership put Cuba on a collision course with the United States. Antagonism between the two nations led to economic sanctions against Cuba from 1960. Two years later, Fidel Castro brought the world to the brink of nuclear war as his alliance with the USSR provoked the Cuban missile crisis. Diplomatic relations have never been restored, and the US continues to enforce trade sanctions against Fidel Castro's regime. Stories From 30 Dec 1994: Gunman kills two women at abortion clinic 2002: Diana Ross arrested for drink-driving 1971: Iranians deported from Iraq 1986: Coal mine canaries made redundant Country profileCuba - key facts and figures

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/2937

The Deadly Disgrace of Obama’s Pro-Terrorist Lawyers October 12 marks the 12th anniversary of the bombing of the USS Cole. The grim milestone comes as President Obama faces mounting questions about his administration’s dereliction of duty during the murderous attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya. And it comes just a day after resurgent al-Qaida thugs pulled off the drive-by assassination of a top Yemeni security official who worked at the U.S. embassy in Sanaa. These are not “bumps in the road.” These are gravesites on the blood-spattered path to surrender. Seventeen U.S. sailors died in the brutal suicide attack on the guided Navy missile destroyer as it refueled at the Yemeni port of Aden in the fall of 2000. Then-President Bill Clinton vowed to track down the Muslim terrorist attackers: “We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable.” But a dozen disgraceful years later, Slick Willy’s toothless promise has become a bitter punch line. The current Democratic White House has not only delayed and denied justice to the victims and their families. President Obama’s foot-dragging administration, crawling with pro-terrorist lawyers, effectively undermines our nation’s ability to detain, contain and destroy jihad threats from within and without. Suspected Cole bombing suspect and former Persian Gulf Operations Chief for al-Qaida Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri has been in U.S. custody since 2002 and at Gitmo since 2006. In February 2009, Obama met with Cole families and promised them justice. Then, he stabbed them in the back by ordering the (Social) Justice Department to abandon the death penalty case assembled against the al-Qaida mastermind under the Bush administration. That’s right: The Osama bin Laden football-spikers in the Obama administration deliberately dropped the USS Cole ball on al-Nashiri’s military prosecution because of their opposition to the Guantanamo Bay detention system. Jesse Nieto, father of murdered Cole sailor Marc Nieto, won’t forget it. “That really left a bitter, bad taste in my mouth,” he told the Newnan (Ga.) Times-Herald earlier this year. In 2011, the Obama administration reinstated the charges amid a widespread backlash against Attorney General Eric Holder’s plans to bestow U.S. civilian trials in Manhattan to foreign Gitmo goons. But the trial has been plagued by yet more delays and left-wing lawyer antics painting Nashiri as a victim of American hegemony. “This whole trial is a political football the politicians are playing with,” Nieto aptly noted. “If they left it to the military, it would be taken care of. And it would be fair.” Team Obama’s initial withdrawal from the prosecution came out of left field — literally. But it is no surprise to those who paid attention to Holder’s radical ideological and corporate allegiances. As I reported in “Culture of Corruption,” Holder joined the prestigious Covington and Burling business and corporate law firm after a quarter-century as a government lawyer. The stint boosted his net worth to nearly $6 million. Covington and Burling’s post-9/11 claim to fame? Representing 17 terror suspects held at Gitmo who hail from Yemen, long a safe haven for terrorists. (Another Cole bombing mastermind, Jamal Mohammed al Badawi, was convicted and sentenced to die in Yemen for the terror attack, but somehow escaped twice from jail and was freed by the Yemeni government in 2007.) Holder’s law firm employed dozens of radical attorneys such as David Remes and Marc Falkoff to provide the enemy combatants with more than 3,000 hours of pro bono representation. Covington and Burling secured victories for several Gitmo enemy combatants in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Remes, who garnered human rights awards for Covington and Burling before striking out on his own, now represents Nashiri. Falkoff went on to publish a book of poetry, “Poems from Guantanamo: The Detainees Speak,” which he dedicated to the suspected terrorists: “For my friends inside the wire, Mahmoad, Majid, Yasein, Saeed, Abdulsalam, Mohammed, Adnan, Jamal, Othman, Adil, Mohamed, Abdulmalik, Areef, Adeq, Farouk, Salman, and Makhtar. Inshallah, we will next meet over coffee in your homes in Yemen.” One of the class of Yemeni Gitmo detainees that Falkoff described as “gentle, thoughtful young men” was released in 2005 — only to blow himself up (gently and thoughtfully, of course) in a truck bombing in Mosul, Iraq, in 2008, killing 13 soldiers from the 2nd Iraqi Army division and seriously wounding 42 others. In January 2010, The Times of London reported that “at least a dozen former Guantanamo Bay inmates (had) rejoined al-Qaida to fight in Yemen.” Another Yemeni Gitmo recidivist and top al-Qaida leader, Said al-Shihri, was freed after undergoing “rehabilitation” — and then promptly rejoined jihadi forces. He was reportedly killed in a U.S. missile strike last month. In February 2010, GOP Sen. Charles Grassley forced Holder to acknowledge that at least nine DOJ attorneys officially represented or served as advocates for Gitmo detainees before joining the Obama administration. They work in the offices of the attorney general, the acting deputy attorney general, the associate attorney general, and the assistant attorney general for the criminal division. In addition, the assistant attorney general for the civil division previously represented one Afghan detainee, and his former employer represents other detainees. Gitmo recidivists — a burgeoning Obama demographic that includes suspected Benghazi jihad plotter Abu Sufian Ibrahim Ahmed Hamuda bin Qumu — certainly are better off than they were four years ago. The question is: Can Americans at home and abroad really afford another four years of Obama, Holder and their soft-on-terror government attorneys sabotaging national security? Is Herman Cain a Contender? Is Herman Cain a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination? It’s a question no one in the pundit world The Data-Mining Body Monitors in Our Schools Like millions of other American parents, my husband and I received a warning letter from the BMI police last week. Equality Versus Liberty President Barack Obama says income inequality is “dangerous … the defining challenge of our time.” The pope is upset that

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/2976

Remarks by Vice President Joseph Biden at a Meeting of the Middle Class Task Force (Panel One) By: Joe Biden, Jr. Date: Feb. 27, 2009 REMARKS BY VICE PRESIDENT JOSEPH BIDEN AT A MEETING OF THE MIDDLE CLASS TASK FORCE (PANEL ONE) (AS RELEASED BY THE WHITE HOUSE) Copyright ©2009 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Carina Nyberg at [email protected] or call 1-202-216-2706. VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: I'd like the record to show it's the first time in my life my Senate colleagues ever stood for me. I really do appreciate that -- (laughter) -- this was worth the job, worth the trip. (Laughter.) Ladies and gentleman, thank you for all being here today, and Senators Specter and Casey, and Congressman Fattah and Congressman Brady; Mayor Nutter and the governor will be here, as well; and many luminaries that are here in the audience: I see that Andy Stern of SEIU is out there, and Anna Burger of Change to Win, -- (applause) -- and as I understand it, that Jerry Sullivan is out there, representing the laborers that are going to get, God-willing and the creek not rising, a significant boost from what we're about to do. And Congressman Patrick Murphy, I'm told, is in the audience, as well as -- and I just got this list, I hope I'm not leaving anybody out -- the mayor of Easton, Sal Panto is here, I'm told -- Sal, welcome; the mayor of Bethlehem, John Callahan; the mayor of Harrisburg, Steve Reed; the mayor of Allentown, Ed -- is it Pawlowski -- (laughter) -- did I get it right -- you can call me "Bidden" if I got it wrong -- (laughter) -- the mayor of Wilkes-Barre, next to the -- one of the second best towns in America after Wilmington, Delaware -- Scranton, Pennsylvania, the mayor of Wilkes-Barre, Tom Leighton is here I'm told; and a good personal friend and a great public servant, Jim Florio, former governor of New Jersey I'm told is here. So welcome, Jim. (Applause.) I -- after thanking my colleagues in the panel, I love being here today. But I'm continuing to pay tuition here -- my son, Beau, was an undergraduate here -- got a pay raise when he left and went off to Syracuse law school. My daughter is here in graduate school, and she is getting a master's degree in social work. And so I'm really looking forward to this recovery act. (Laughter.) (Inaudible) Secretary Duncan -- (laughter) -- just I wish to heck three or four Presidents earlier, we did what we're doing now. I'd have felt a lot better about it, and my net worth would be better off. But look, the signing of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act represents an incredibly strong first step in, at least in my view, along this long and difficult road to recovery. And I want to thank Senator Specter. I personally want to thank Senator Specter. (Applause.) I've been a senator for 36 years, and I think I can count on one hand when I've watched people cast a vote from the side of the aisle, Democrat or Republican, that they happen to sit on, that no one doubts cost them -- cost them politically, but cast the vote because they truly believed it was in the best interest in the country. And so, Arlen, we would not -- this legislation -- it may not even help you my saying it, but this legislation would not exist were it not for you. I can tell you that personally, because two of your other Republican colleagues said -- one in particular -- if Senator Specter doesn't vote for it, I don't vote it; there were not enough votes. You're responsible for this, and I thank you. (Applause.) The worst part for Senator Casey is I take him so much for granted, I always count on him doing the right thing, which he does. And thank you for being on the front end of this. And I thank my congressional colleagues, as well. Look, folks, we're making an unprecedented investment in this country, in the recovery of this country, and an unprecedented investment in clean energy, clean energy that will be able to create tens of thousands, over time, of good, high-paying jobs, the vast majority of which are not exportable -- they're all American jobs. And how far -- (applause) -- how far and how fast we travel on that road is going to be determined by the actions we take, not only in implementing the recovery act, but also in continuing to make progress on energy, health care and education. That's why President Obama asked me to lead our Middle Class Task Force as well as oversee the implementation of this recovery package, which is almost $800 billion. You know, when we were running for public office -- excuse me -- for the President and the Vice President, we said something repeatedly that I want to reinforce that we mean. And that is, when we measure the success or failure of this administration, at the end of the day, not merely whether the economy is technically recovering and the GDP is growing, but whether or not the middle class, at the end of the day, the middle class is growing, the middle class is in fact reaping its fair share of the economic growth, because over the course of the last economic expansion, the middle class participated in very few of the benefits. Between the year 2000 and 2007, American workers -- American workers were highly productive -- productivity increased significantly, yet the income of middle-class households fell $2,000 a year. We broke the bargain, the bargain that was made back in the middle of the last century -- that workers producing a more productive economy would participate -- participate in the benefits of that increased production. We want to make sure that does not happen again. But now in the midst of this historic economic downturn, the middle class is sure participating in the pain; they're sure in on the downside. They weren't very much in on the upside; they're in on the downside. So the goal of this Middle Class Task Force is to ensure the benefits in the strengthening economy -- ensure that they reach -- reach those responsible for the strength of the economy and restore to the center of our efforts the middle class that has been long forgotten, left behind, and in my view, left out of our investments. We intend to change that. That's why this is the first in what will be a monthly series of town meetings and hearings all across America over the next year to determine how, how we can deal with those elements of the economy that most affect the middle class. We'll be dealing with issues from retirement income, to education, and many others in other fora. But today, we're going to focus on green jobs. Although there are many aspects of the recovery act that's going to help the middle class, that's the focus today. Green jobs are associated with some aspect of the (inaudible). You can have different definitions of green jobs. The United Nations has a definition; various organizations have a definition. But bottom line, in simple terms, for us: It means all those jobs associated with environmental improvement and improving the lives of the American people. Scientists working on an advanced, renewable alternative to CO2-producing fossil fuels is engaged in a green job, as is a laborer winterizing or weatherizing a home, or a lineman or a linewoman building out the smart grid -- they're all green jobs. When President Obama signed the economic recovery package into law last week, it included, among other things, more than $19 billion in renewable energy like wind and solar power, which would create more jobs like those created here in Pennsylvania at (inaudible), a company that puts steel workers to work building windmills, or AE Polysilicon, a company that will make components of solar panels. It includes $11 billion to help build a new transmission superhighway. We all know that the existing electrical grid today is inadequate, insufficient and outdated. For example, of all the wind power that we're talking about being able to create in the Midwest and North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and other plain states, is a -- significant potential. But it cannot carry that energy right now to population centers that need the electricity most without a new transmission superhighway. In order to bring significant amounts of renewable energy online, we need to invest in tens of thousands of new, high-voltage -- tens of thousands of miles of high-voltage national transmission line. We kicked this off with a minimum of 3,000 miles of those new lines. With more than $11 billion to invest in a new smart grid, the recovery act we believe will jumpstart the modernization of the electrical grid. These investments are going to create thousands of miles of new, modernized, high-tech transmission lines. The bill also will deploy 40 million new smart meters, the meters that people have on the side of their homes and people have on the side of their buildings, and at the basements of the buildings that exist in businesses. These smart meters and the modernization of the power grid itself will allow for smarter, more efficient delivery of power that will save energy, lower our monthly bills, enable future innovations in renewable energy and electric vehicles. We look at this as a whole thing, you know, a whole new approach. We want people to understand that when these kinds of investments, when those electric cars come online, you're going to have a place to plug it in efficiently and at low peak periods to be able to efficiently, cleanly and more cheaply do what you did before, in terms of your transportation needs. It also includes smart (inaudible) technology. It will allow middle-class families to check whether they're running a washing machine or a dishwasher at a peak time, a more expensive time. We encourage new businesses, small businesses, and manufacturers to build these new, smart data. We should have -- we will have -- they exist now -- washing machines and/or dishwashers, that you will put your dishes in your washer after -- the dishwasher after you've had your dinner at 6:00 p.m., and it speaks back to you and says, "don't start until 11:00 p.m." Automatically it will start washing dishes at 11:00 p.m. at night, not at a peak time, saving you money. It includes $5 billion to help make housing more energy efficient, which has the added benefit of saving these families money on their monthly utility bills. And importantly, we'll invest $500 million to make sure workers have the skills they need to expand this (inaudible) to perform the energy audits needed to efficiently weatherize the homes, and to do retrofits necessary to upgrade older buildings -- like we saw, by the way, today, at the University of Pennsylvania, an impressive, an impressive undertaking. This is a small city, this is a small city. This has -- I forget the exact number that was given, but it's the equivalent of powering tens of thousands of homes. And what are they doing? They're saving incredible amounts of money. They're saving on energy consumption, and they're saving the environment in the process. And so one example of the successful collaboration and how we're going to train people -- when I say -- and I look around the table and a lot of my friends who served in Congress or were governors, and we'd say to our constituents, we're going to have a job-training program -- (inaudible) they go, yes, okay; (inaudible) job-training program; we're just going to go out and pick people off the street and say, we'll give you two hours of training and that's it. No, what we're talking about here is like what they did in L.A. In L.A. there is electrical training (inaudible) southern California, a labor management partnership, jointly sponsored by a union in the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and a business coalition of private contractors. The training required is like -- is required under an apprenticeship model, requiring over 1,000 hours of classroom work and 8,000 hours of on-the-job training -- very rigorous program. These are the kind of programs that are going to apply for the secretary seated here, in saying: Fund us. Fund us; we will train these women and men for these jobs. So this is not some -- this is not something we're just drawing money to the problem. This is a serious, serious undertaking. And I think the country is poised to take advantage of it. Even graduates of this extensive training are eligible for constant upgrades and technological advances as things change. So two years, five years, 10 years from now, they're going to have to go back and re-train, because technology is going to move ahead of them. For example, a 30-hour course in photovoltaics was recently added to that L.A. school, L.A. training school. And so, folks, it's important the cost of training, which is free to the participants, involves less than 10 percent of the public funding, the rest of it being paid by unions, contractors, business organizations, because they see the need for this. And by the way, in some of these programs, apprentices can be making $20 an hour; when they graduate, they can be making as much as $50 an hour in some of these undertakings. Over 600 candidates, both older and younger, have completed that training course in L.A. We're going to replicate that all across America. Investing in green jobs means two critical things for the middle- class families: one, more jobs to keep up the 21st-century needs; and lower energy costs; and I'd add a third -- a much cleaner environment. First, jobs that pay more. According to the President's Counsel on Economic Adviser -- Council of Economic Advisers, green jobs will pay 10 to 20 percent more than other jobs of a similar nature; 10 to 20 percent more. And it also has, what I think personally is a great benefit, a number of them will be union jobs -- jobs that are less likely to be exported offshore. Building a new power grid, manufacturing solar panels, weatherizing homes and office buildings, renovating schools are just a few examples of ways in which we can create good-quality green jobs to strengthen our economy. And secondly, more green jobs mean more money in the wallet of every American who engages in this at the end of the month. Weatherizing your home creates a job, but it also -- it also lowers your monthly bill, lowering the strain on your budget. And so the example -- as an example, there are 4,000 row houses right here in Philadelphia -- 4,000 -- excuse me, 400,000 -- I'm thinking Delaware -- (laughter) -- but I mean, 4,000 -- 400,000 -- what's a couple hundred thousand. But 400,000 row homes right here in Philadelphia that could be weatherized and made more efficient. Just doing that would lower household energy consumption by 20 to 40 percent, saving families hundreds of dollars a year and reducing the impact on the environment. Folks, I'm joined here today by leading public officials. Senators Specter and Casey and Congressman Brady and Fattah, Governor Rendell, Mayor Nutter and a significant array of Cabinet officers. The administration officials under the new jurisdiction, many of these investments will be made. We have Secretary of the Department of Labor, Hilda Solis, who is -- applause) -- Secretary Steven Chu with the Department of Energy, who also happens to be a Nobel Laureate -- (applause); Secretary Donovan, from the Department of Housing and Urban Affairs -- (applause); Secretary Vilsack, former governor of Iowa, who is Department of Agriculture -- (applause); Secretary LaHood, former Congressman LaHood, in the Department of Transportation. (Applause). These secretaries are who -- are hard at work to making sure that this middle-class commitment that this administration has made are made stronger by this recovery. They are gathered here today to hear from experts who have blueprints on how to get this right. And the stakeholders, the people who are actually getting money through the recovery act to create green jobs. And they're ready. Just yesterday, the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced that nearly 75 percent of its funding, $10.1 billion, has been allocated to state and local governments for community development -- (applause) -- energy efficiency modernization of public housing. And just today, in Chicago, 250 workers who had been laid off from a window plant are celebrating today, because they were bought by another country -- company, who will -- (laughter) -- Chicago was bought by Canada, no -- (laughter) -- excuse me, that were bought by another company who will build energy-efficient windows through weatherization. A representative from the company told The New York Times they saw an opportunity to expand their operations as a direct result of the money in the recovery package for weatherization: more jobs. In a little while, Secretary Donovan and Secretary Chu are announcing the Department of Housing and Urban Development as well as the Department of Energy is joining forces to make a $16 billion -- make $16 billion in the recovery package eligible for retrofitting the existing housing -- $16 billion, a significant commitment, an investment -- (applause) -- investment that will build a whole energy efficiency industry in the United States that's going to create and retain tens of thousands of jobs, lower energy costs of vulnerable low-income households and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This partnership is exactly the type of leadership and ingenuity that we need to get this economy going again. So we're here. We're here to listen. We're here to learn. And first, I'd like to recognize my congressional colleagues to make a few brief statements. And then what I'd like to do is move to our first panel. Senator Specter. Source: http://www.fnsg.com/transcript.htm?id=20090227t5995&nquery=&query=biden&from=

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/2985

Governor McCrory Says Politicians Should Leave Charlotte Airport Alone Share Tweet E-mail Comments Print By Tom Bullock & Michael Tomsic Earlier this year the state legislature passed a law to force Charlotte to transfer control of the airport to an independent authority. On Monday, Governor Pat McCrory waded into the issue. In an interview with Charlotte Talks host Mike Collins, McCrory said the airport should be run like a business – by the private sector. "I think both the state politicians and the Charlotte politicians ought to get the heck out of the running of the airport," he said. McCrory added that too often local politicians are getting involved in the day-to-day running of Charlotte Douglas International - something the former Charlotte mayor said did not happen on his watch. "I didn’t call up Jerry Orr everyday and tell him what contracts he ought to be signing or how to run the baggage claim," McCrory said. "I think as the time went on we are starting to do what other politicians in other cities and that was get involved in day-to-day operations. And I don’t want state politicians to do that either, including this governor." McCrory also talked about why he’s siding with the North Carolina House on the state’s stalled budget, Medicaid spending, teacher pay and the need to extend some film incentives. McCrory says the fate of the film incentive program should be decided within the next two weeks. Some in the state legislature are in favor of letting the film incentive program expire. McCrory said he wants to tweak it. "I hope it's a compromise, which allows us to invest in long-term capital studios just like a long-term manufacturing plant," he said. "But I also don't think we ought to keep the loopholes, where Comedy Central takes $400,000 out of money that could, frankly, go to teachers and go to education." McCrory was referring to The Daily Show getting a film incentive for less than a week of broadcasting in Charlotte during the Democratic National Convention two years ago. State records show the incentive was actually worth $273,000, and it went to The Daily Show's production company, called Hello Doggie. Listen to the rest of McCrory's comments on Charlotte Talks here. Tags: Governor Pat McCrory

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/3076

Iran's Supreme Leader Orders Fresh Terror Attacks On The West Con Coughlin, The Daily Telegraph Aug. 22, 2012, 6:35 AM 5,046 Wikipedia See Also Why Syria's Official Al Qaeda Affiliate Is Just As Dangerous As ISIS Iran Is Using The Same Dangerously Effective Strategy In Iraq As It Used In Syria Iraq Is Airing A Reality Show That Makes ISIS Terrorists Confront Their Victims Iran's Supreme Leader has ordered the country's Revolutionary Guards to intensify its campaign of terror attacks against the West and its allies in retaliation for supporting the overthrow of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. According to Western intelligence officials, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei gave the order to the elite Quds Force unit following a recent emergency meeting of Iran's National Security Council in Tehran held to discuss a specially-commissioned report into the implications for Iran of the Assad regime's overthrow. Damascus is Iran's most important regional ally, and the survival of the Assad regime is regarded as vital to sustaining the Iranian-backed Hizbollah militia which controls southern Lebanon. The report, which was personally commissioned by Mr Khamenei, concluded that Iran's national interests were being threatened by a combination of the U.N. sanctions imposed over Iran's nuclear programme and the West's continuing support for Syrian opposition groups attempting to overthrow the Syrian government. Intelligence officials say the report concludes that Iran "cannot be passive" to the new threats posed to its national security, and warns that Western support for Syrian opposition groups was placing Iran's "resistance alliance" in jeopardy, and could seriously disrupt Iran's access to Hizbollah in Lebanon. It advised that the Iranian regime should demonstrate to the West that there were "red lines" over what it would accept in Syria, and that a warning should be sent to "America, the Zionists, Britain, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others that they cannot act with impunity in Syria and elsewhere in the region." Mr Khamenei responded by issuing a directive to Qassem Suleimani, the Quds Force commander, to intensify attacks against the West and its allies around the world. The Quds Force has recently been implicated in a series of terror attacks against Western targets. Last year U.S. officials implicated the organisation in a failed assassination attempt against the Saudi Arabian ambassador to Washington. It was also implicated in three bomb attacks against Israeli diplomats in February, planning to attack the Eurovision song contest in Azerbaijan while two Iranians were arrested in Kenya last month for possessing explosives. Intelligence officials believe the recent spate of Iranian attacks has been carried out by the Quds Force's Unit 400, which runs special overseas operations. "Unit 400 seems to have been involved in all the recent Iranian terrorist operations," said a senior Western intelligence official. "The Iranian regime now seems determined to retaliate for what they regard as the West's attempts to influence the outcome of the Syrian unrest." Iran has been actively supporting the Assad regime's attempts to suppress the wave of anti-government protests that erupted in March last year. Iranian opposition groups claim teams of experienced Revolutionary Guard officers have been flying to Damascus on specially-chartered Iranian aircraft on a weekly basis to advise the Assad regime. The extent of Iran's support for the Assad regime was exposed earlier this month when 48 Iranians were captured and taken hostage by Syrian opposition fighters. The Iranians, who are said to include senior Revolutionary Guard officers, claimed they were conducting "reconnaissance missions", and their capture by Syrian opposition fighters was deeply embarrassing for Tehran, which is demanding their immediate safe return to Iran. Syrian rebels have threatened to kill the hostages unless Iran ends its support for the Assad regime. This article originally appeared at The Daily Telegraph. Copyright 2014. In retaliation for supporting the overthrow of Assad.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/3078

Obama's Foreign Policy Image Has Taken A Massive Hit After Libya APPresident Barack Obama has seen his edge on foreign policy and international issues crumble over the past month, as criticism of his handling of the situation in Libya has reached a fever point. According to a new Fox News poll released Wednesday, Obama now has a 6-point edge over Republican nominee Mitt Romney on handling foreign policy among likely voters. That's down from a 15-point lead in a poll taken directly before the attack in Libya that left a U.S. ambassador dead. A month ago, Obama also held a 10-point lead on the question of which candidate would best protect the U.S. from a terrorist attack. That number has fallen to just 4 points today. For much of the general election, Obama has held a substantial lead on both issues — a surprise, considering recent history of Republicans' edge on foreign policy in the George W. Bush years. But in the Fox News poll, only 37 percent of voters approve of the way Obama has handled the situation in Libya, while 46 percent disapprove. Two-thirds of voters, meanwhile, find it "troubling" that the administration gave "false information in public statements" in the early aftermath of the attacks, when the attacks were cast as a response to an anti-Muslim film. Romney has stepped up his criticism of Obama's foreign policy lately, giving a speech Monday at the Virginia Military Institute that cast Obama as weak and dangerous. “With each passing day, we learn more about the ways in which the Obama Administration misled the American people about the tragic events that transpired in the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012," Romney policy director Lanhee Chen said in a statement Wednesday. Obama explained the shifting narrative in an interview with ABC on Wednesday. "This has all been well-documented and recorded: As information came in, information was put out," he said. "The information may not have always been right the first time. And as soon as it turns out that we have a fuller picture of what happened, then that was disclosed," he said. "But the bottom line is that my job is to let everybody know I want to know what happened. I want us to get the folks who did it, and I want us to figure out what are the lessons learned and ask the tough questions to make sure it doesn't happen again." A dramatic one-month swing.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/3101

Clinton visit to Myanmar raises hopes By Frida Ghitis, Special to CNN updated 11:21 AM EST, Sat November 19, 2011 Hillary Clinton's planned December visit to Myanmar is a major surprise, says Frida Ghitis Clinton will be the first American secretary of state in 50 years to visit Myanmar, she says Clinton's visit raises hopes for democracy in Myanmar, and for diplomacy, Ghitis says Ghitis: Clinton's visit could also bolster the U.S. presence in China's neighborhood Editor's note: Frida Ghitis is a world affairs columnist for The Miami Herald and World Politics Review. A former CNN producer/correspondent, she is the author of "The End of Revolution: A Changing World in the Age of Live Television." Atlanta (CNN) -- The announcement on Friday that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will travel to Myanmar next month came as a stunning surprise, a sign that human rights advocates, Burmese pro-democracy activists and the West's political strategists may stand within reach of a major victory. It's too soon to know how this will turn out. Burma's rulers have a track record that justifies continued skepticism. But it's not too soon to acknowledge there is reason for optimism. If one of the world's most repressive countries genuinely moves away from decades of military rule and brutal anti-democratic practices, it will mark a rare diplomatic success for the Obama administration, one that will make China extremely uneasy. Success in Myanmar, if it comes, will cap a series of moves by Washington to bolster the U.S. presence in China's neighborhood. Clinton gave notice that the United States is turning its sights from the Middle East to Asia in a recent article entitled "America's Pacific Century." Obama confirmed the strategy during his Asia tour, declaring the United States a "Pacific power." It all adds up to a visible challenge to Chinese dominance. If Myanmar turns away from Beijing and becomes a friend of Washington, it would fortify that strategy. But first, Burma needs to prove it has decided to stop trampling on the human rights of its people and will allow the introduction of meaningful democratic change. There is still a long way to go before that transformation can be confirmed. The people of Burma, renamed Myanmar by a despotic junta, came under the generals' rule half a century ago. Over the years, the country endured constant armed conflict between the military and members of ethnic minorities. Military incompetence, misrule and corruption turned what was once a prosperous nation into a land of pervasive fear and grinding poverty. All along, the Burmese demanded freedom and the authorities responded by killing and imprisoning them. In 1988, a student movement took to the streets calling for democracy. By an accident of history, a woman named Aung San Suu Kyi, daughter of the country's hero of independence from the British Empire, was visiting from abroad. Suu Kyi became the leader of the movement. Soldiers killed at least 3,000 protesters that year, and more killings, torture and imprisonment would come in subsequent uprisings. In a 1990 election, Suu Kyi led her party, the National League for Democracy to victory at the polls. But the generals rejected the results and arrested her along with scores of her party's leaders. Since then, Suu Kyi, who later won the Nobel Peace Prize, has spent most of her time under house arrest. She became a powerful symbol, rejecting offers to leave the country and enduring extraordinary hardships without relenting on her demands. The international community backed her determination, imposing stiff economic sanctions and calling for democratic reform as a condition for normalizing relations. Frozen out by the West, Myanmar turned to Beijing. Resource-hungry China poured billions into Burma, mining the jungles and propping up the generals. Then something unexpected happened. A year ago, the generals again held an election. President Obama called the rigged exercise a "sham," and Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy boycotted the polls. The result was a parliament in which most members are soldiers, retired military or supporters of the armed forces. After the election, a retired general, Thein Sein, became president. Thein Sein wears civilian clothes, but few people expected real change. Then Sein started making moves that took the skeptics by surprise. Even Suu Kyi, now out of house arrest, said she found some of the government's moves "to a certain extent encouraging." Suu Kyi is a clever tactician and a truly heroic figure. During my travels inside Burma and in the Asian refugee camps where hundreds of thousands of Burmese live, the mere mention of her name has always had an electrifying impact. The Obama administration, from its earliest days, started exploring a change of policy, exploring engagement with the regime and coordinating with Suu Kyi. Last Thursday night, President Obama reportedly spoke on the phone with Suu Kyi from Air Force One. Shortly after, he announced he was sending Clinton to Burma. Moments later, Suu Kyi announced she and the National League for Democracy would stop boycotting the political process and participate in the next elections. It all amounts to an extraordinary transformation of the political scene in a country that for decades has frustrated the West's diplomats and its own people's aspirations. There is every reason to remain cautious. Myanmar has scored a huge prize by securing a visit by Hillary Clinton. The presence of a U.S. secretary of state for the first time in more than five decades gives a stamp of legitimacy to what remains an illegitimate government. The authorities have released about 200 political prisoners and promised to free about 500. They still hold about 2,000, according to human rights groups. Washington's wish to check China's growing power creates an incentive to accept the Burmese government's claim. If the regime is rewarded with good relations with the West without having brought democracy and respect for human rights, then the Obama administration -- and the people of Burma -- will have suffered another defeat. Still, the combined efforts of Suu Kyi and the Obama administration, and the signs of progress, mean Burma may still provide everyone but China with some happy surprises. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Frida Ghitis.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/3168

Latest Banyan Elections in Kazakhstan Multi-party pooper Jan 20th 2012, 9:24 by B.B. | ALMATY THE Nur Otan party, none other than Nursultan Nazarbayev's own, won its victory in Kazakhstan's election of January 15th, with 81% of the votes. The president's party will be joined in the new Mazhilis (lower house) by two others, the pro-business Ak Zhol party and the Communist People's Party, both of which are regarded as being sympathetic to Mr Nazarbayev, and each racked up more than 7% from the remainder. Kazakhstan's next parliament thus becomes nominally multi-party again, after an embarrassing period of nearly five years in which Nur Otan enjoyed one-party rule. Following uprisings of the Arab spring last year, the image-conscious Mr Nazarbayev, who is used to being showered with praise and attention from Western leaders and international oil companies, began to look increasingly out of step with modern times. A change to the election law in 2009, which was passed in anticipation of the country's 2010 chairmanship of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) to show progress towards democracy, would have ensured seats for the second-placed party regardless of whether or not it passed the 7% threshold for entry. But Kazakhstan masterful window-dressing did not fool the OSCE, which declared in its election assessment—once again—that Kazakhstan's did not meet fundamental standards for a democratic election. “We expected better,” said Joao Soares, the special co-ordinator of the OSCE's short-term observer mission. Of the seven parties that were in the running, only the All-National Social Democratic Party (OSDP) can be counted as a genuine opposition party. It garnered a mere 1.6% of the votes. One of its co-leaders and most visible candidates, Bolat Abilov, was disqualified a few days before the poll, on the grounds of alleged irregularities in his financial declaration. Several other parties were also barred from standing. OSDP refused to recognise the results and staged a rally on January 17th in the centre of Almaty. But the potential for political protest in the country's largest city, where voter turnout is traditionally lower than elsewhere, is low. Even so the authorities were uncertain. Amid heavy police presence and falling snow, fewer than 200 people showed up, and nearly a third of them were journalists, there to watch. The opposition had hoped to stir protests like the ones that Russia saw in early December, after the results of its rigged parliamentary elections were tallied. No such thing materialised. There are several reasons for that. For one, the rally was held in the middle of a work day. Opposition leaders rightly criticise the lack of real democracy, but do not offer better thought-out plans for moving the oil-rich country forward. More importantly, the population of Kazakhstan tends to be politically apathetic, despite the presence of some quite active commentators on social networks. In the absence of viable alternatives, many citizens were content to vote for Nur Otan, for the sake of stability, and many others may not have voted at all. The official turnout was reportedly 75%, but independent election observers say it was less. On the one hand ordinary people are worried about the state of their country, following bloody events in western Kazakhstan on December 16th and 17th, but they also have a wait-and-see attitude. Clashes between laid-off oil workers and security forces left at least 16 people dead when police used live rounds, and over 100 people were injured. Mr Nazarbayev sacked senior state oil company officials and his billionaire son-in-law, Timur Kulibayev, who headed the sovereign wealth fund that owns the company. A 20-day state of emergency imposed on the oil town of Zhanaozen was extended until the end of January. The treatment of detainees after the riots appears to be questionable at best. But a decision by the Constitutional Council which would have prevented the town's residents from voting in the election was vetoed by the president. There is great unease about last month's unrest, as well as about several recent attacks that were either inspired by Islamists or made to look as if they were. It looks unlikely that the new parliament will be able to play any meaningful role in restoring Kazakhstan's sense of stability. Japan's immigration control: Gulag for gaijin Next Australia's aborigines: You say Australia, I say invasion Tweet Akuneen in reply to Hektor Konomi Jan 24th 2012 5:20 GMT true, it remains unknown to general public, However the leaders of "the West" are well aware about this huge country and are benefiting quite a lot, for it is very convenient to "do business" with the sole dictator instead of paying a fair price to the whole nation as it would have otherwise been implied in a democratic country. Hektor Konomi Jan 24th 2012 4:55 GMT Amazing how little is known overall in the West about this huge country... About Banyan Analysis of Asian politics and culture, from our Banyan columnist and other correspondents. Named for a tree whose branches have sheltered great ideas Follow us on Twitter @EconAsia RSS feed

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/3300

SUBSCRIBE LATEST in David Suissa Harold Schulweis: Founder of a Big Judaism Punishing Bennett won’t bring peace Death in the Hood by David Suissa Laura Gitlin-Petlak was 48 when she died on Feb. 12 at her home in the Pico-Robertson neighborhood. The next day, a few blocks from her house, a couple hundred people jammed the premises of Aish L.A., an Orthodox synagogue and outreach center, for her memorial service. A neighbor suggested that I attend the service. I had never met Laura or any member of her family, but they were well-known in the community. The first time I heard her name was on Simchat Torah, when someone mentioned that a group of women from the community brought a sefer Torah to her bedside at her home, where she was recuperating from cancer surgery. In her presence, they sang songs and danced. When Laura was in the hospital, she had insisted on long, personal visits. Her husband, Shmuel, made sure to schedule the visits so that there would be plenty of time for the kind of engaging talk his wife loved. Laura once noticed that a visitor was sniffling, and she asked if her friend had a cold. When she saw that they were sniffles of sadness, Laura blurted out: "Oh no, I'll have none of that. Now tell me what's going on in your life." Being a divorce attorney, Laura knew a lot about other people's lives. In a profession where nasty confrontation is the norm, she fought for collaboration. Sometimes she even fought for peace. At her memorial service, her husband told the story of a man who had "had it up to here" and wanted a divorce. After listening to his story, Laura calmly explained to the man that he should try to save his marriage by getting household help. It took some coaxing and convincing, but in the end, Laura helped save her client's marriage. She nurtured her own marriage by working from home, which allowed her to be very involved with raising her two daughters, Alisa, 17, and Miriam, 9. This is how Alisa describes her mother's parenting style: "She never told us what to do, but she never allowed us to do the wrong thing." It has been several days now since Laura's memorial service, and I'm sharing my thoughts with you because, frankly, I can't stop thinking about it. Advertisement The service was heartfelt, but it was also unsettling. There was a kind of emotional chaos in the air -- almost a reluctance to accept that a beautiful life could be taken away from someone so God-fearing and life-giving. Ever since I moved to this neighborhood, I've gotten used to seeing order and structure in the Orthodox community -- a sense that life, with all its challenges and with God's help, is unfolding as it should. At Laura's memorial service, you got a strange sense that life had stopped unfolding as it should. To his credit, the head rabbi of Aish L.A., Rabbi Moshe Cohen, did not try to anaesthetize the pain. He spoke in a quivering, tear-choked voice. He talked about the only three instances in the code of Jewish law where the laws are considered "mitzvot gedolim" (great mitzvahs): To help someone who is destitute, to free a captive and to praise the departed. He explained that what tied the three mitzvahs together was that they all covered people who couldn't help themselves. But it was clear that the rabbi couldn't help himself either. Even though he ended on a brave note that touched on Laura's legacy to the community, his body language was saying something else: "How could this be?" Tragedy has a way of dulling the senses. Lost in a fog of grief, how can anyone see or understand anything? I wasn't exactly lost, but all I could see was how wrong it was that Laura had died. That made me feel a little helpless, too. Ironically, on a day when people felt somewhat helpless, they were honoring someone who was all about reaching out to those who needed help, or sometimes just a meal and company. As an example, Rabbi Cohen admitted how "most of us would prefer to choose our guests for Shabbat." Then he recounted how, over the years, Laura and her family had welcomed hundreds of guests and strangers who didn't have a place to eat on Shabbat. Who would feel these strangers' pain now and welcome them? How could a unique soul like Laura ever be replaced? How could a family's pain ever heal? As the rabbi spoke about Laura, I was thinking about how even a strong religious community has moments when it needs to be vulnerable and embrace its limitations. In our zeal to accept all challenges, perhaps the ultimate challenge is to accept that there are holes we can never fill and pains we can never heal. We are grateful for our religious and communal rituals -- the prayers, the sermons, the honoring of the departed, the community support -- but deep down, the unspoken truth is that we're still helpless. The pain of human loss is too deep (as I learned after losing my father). Rituals can add comfort and legacies can be continued, but they won't fill the hole or eliminate the pain. This pain of loss belongs to no religion and no neighborhood. It is a private, universal pain that speaks to the highest part of our Judaism, the one that cares about every soul in every hood. Laura Gitlin-Petlak spent a lifetime caring about other people's pain, and in her own way, she showed us that people can never be replaced, and that there is value in that. David Suissa, an advertising executive, is founder of OLAM magazine and Meals4Israel.com. He can be reached at [email protected]. aish la laura gitlin-petlak mitzvahs mitzvot gedolim pico-robertson rabbi moshe cohen Trending in David Suissa Chanukah: The Twitter holiday? So many singles, so few tables

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/3319

Given 2nd term, Obama now facing new urgent task -A A +A By Associated Press Wednesday, November 7, 2012 at 12:27 pm WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama faces a new urgent task now that he has a second term, working with a status-quo Congress to address an impending financial crisis that economists say could send the country back into recession. “You made your voice heard,” Obama said in his acceptance speech, signaling that he believes the bulk of the country is behind his policies. It’s a sticking point for House Republicans, sure to balk at that. The same voters who gave Obama four more years in office also elected a divided Congress, sticking with the dynamic that has made it so hard for the president to advance his agenda. Democrats retained control of the Senate; Republicans kept their House majority. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, spoke of a dual mandate. “If there is a mandate, it is a mandate for both parties to find common ground and take steps together to help our economy grow and create jobs,” he said. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky had a more harsh assessment. “The voters have not endorsed the failures or excesses of the president’s first term,” McConnell said. “They have simply given him more time to finish the job they asked him to do together” with a balanced Congress.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/3399

Obama: I'm a 1980s Moderate Republican By Sandy Fitzgerald A A President Barack Obama believes he’s so mainstream, he would have been considered a moderate Republican back in Ronald Reagan’s 1980s. The president, dismissing concerns that he favors socialism, said he doesn’t really know if there a lot of Cubans or Venezuelans, or Americans, for that matter, who think he favors socialism. “What I believe in is a tax system that is fair,” Obama told the Spanish-language Univision network’s news. “I don't think government can solve every problem. I think that we should make sure that we're helping young people go to school. We should make sure that our government is building good roads and bridges and hospitals and airports so that we have a good infrastructure.” Obama also pushed his healthcare agenda, saying he believes that it “makes sense that everyone in America, as rich as this country is, shouldn't go bankrupt because someone gets sick.” The president’s critics claim that his policies, including Obamacare, bailouts, the stimulus plans, and tax hikes for the wealthy all bear hallmarks of socialism. Former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney ran a Spanish-language ad in Florida, linking Obama with notorious dictators Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. But Obama has worked to stop such criticism, saying he’s a large believer in the free market. US Mission in Havana to Become Embassy A half-century after Washington severed relations with Cuba, the United States' seven-story mission looms over Havana's . . . It was supposed to be a joke. "Are you still president?" comedian Stephen Colbert asked Barack Obama earlier this month. . . . Report: North Korea Blackmailed Politicians, Journalists In an elaborate scheme dating back to the father of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, the government has blackmailed poss . . .

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/3474

News | Wire News Taliban peace talks flounder as troops draw down AP PHOTO Afghan President Hamid Karzai turns around after reviewing the guard of honor during the first day of Eid Al Adha celebrations at the presidential palace in Kabul, Afghanistan. As the clock ticks toward 2014 and the final withdrawal of NATO and U.S. troops, peace talks with the Taliban are floundering even as the Taliban are showing some hopeful signs, attending international conferences and issuing a statement from their reclusive one-eyed leader with a surprise offer to share power in Afghanistan. KABUL, Afghanistan � The Afghan peace effort is floundering, fraught with mistrust and confusion among key players even though the hard-line Taliban militants show signs of softening and their reclusive, one-eyed leader made a surprise offer to share power in a post-war Afghanistan.The U.S. and its allies hope the peace process, which began nearly two years ago, will gain traction before most international forces withdraw from the country in fewer than 23 months. But although the Taliban appear more ready to talk than ever before, peace talks remain elusive because of infighting among a rising number of interlocutors � all trying to get some kind of negotiations started.Members of the Taliban are in contact with representatives from 30 to 40 different countries, according to senior U.S., Afghan and other officials The Associated Press interviewed in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Moreover, the relationship among the key players � the U.S., Afghanistan and Pakistan � is marked by distrust that keeps tugging momentum away from the peace process. Many of the officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the sensitive contacts with the Taliban. Finding a path to the negotiating table will be a topic when Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistan President Asif Zardari hold a series of meetings beginning today with British Prime Minister David Cameron. The meetings in London come amid fresh tensions between Kabul and its western allies.Karzai recently warned the West not to use peace talks as a lever against his government. As well, both Kabul and Washington are frustrated that Pakistan is not monitoring the whereabouts and activities of Taliban prisoners it released in recent months. Miffed by the criticism, Pakistan says it freed the prisoners at the request of the Afghan government and doesn�t have the resources to keep tabs on them.No one in either Pakistan or Afghanistan seems to know where the dozens of released prisoners have gone. Last week, the Taliban issued a statement by freed former Taliban Justice Minister Mullah Nooruddin Turabi on behalf of all the prisoners � an indication that at least some might have rejoined the ranks of the insurgency. �There were no preconditions to their release and we are getting criticism from our own people inside Afghanistan about that and it is valid criticism,� said Ismail Qasemyar, a senior member of the Afghan High Peace Council. The peace council, which Karzai set up to carry out peace negotiations, handed Pakistan the list of prisoners, including Turabi, that it wanted freed. They have also asked for the release of the Taliban�s former second in command, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, but Washington has urged Pakistan not to release him, U.S. and Afghan officials said.For its part, the United States has tried to accelerate the peace process by working with Britain, Norway and Germany to reach out to the Taliban, said a senior Western diplomat familiar with the negotiations. Both France and Tokyo have hosted meetings that have been attended by Afghan officials, opposition leaders and the Taliban, although the Taliban insist their participation should not be misinterpreted as negotiations.One senior U.S. official said the process is so nascent and egos so fragile that it�s like negotiating a minefield. A European diplomat told the AP that there are so many backdoor talks going on that it�s hard to keep track of who is talking to whom. This week, Karzai said he wanted an end to all these talks. Speaking at a water management conference in the Afghan capital, Karzai expressed suspicion that the peace process was being hijacked by the West to strengthen his opponents and undermine his government. Karzai�s spokesman, Aimal Faizi, told The AP in an interview on the sprawling palace grounds in Kabul that the president was frustrated by what he perceives are attempts by his political opponents and the West, including the United States, to use the peace process to lay the groundwork for a post-2014 Afghanistan led by those hand-picked by them.This latest flap between Karzai and the West could halt or at least delay the official opening of a Taliban office in the Middle Eastern state of Qatar. The office is intended to give the Taliban an address from which they can conduct peace talks. Faizi said Karzai supports the office �in principle,� with some conditions.�This office should be used only as an address for talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban,� Faizi said. �This office should not be used for any other purpose.�Faizi also said the president wants the Taliban to publicly announce that they will negotiate peace only with the Afghan High Peace Council. So far, the Taliban have resisted, although officials close to the president say privately that they appear to be softening their hard-line stance.Taliban spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahid, seemed uncompromising when he spoke to The AP.�There is no change in the policy of the Islamic Emirate of not talking to the Karzai government,� he said �The Karzai regime is powerless and installed by others. Real parties to the conflict are those who have committed aggression.�But still the Taliban have shown signs of moderating their positions in recent months. According to several Western officials, who are involved or knowledgeable about the process, the most telling sign of flexibility came in a statement issued late last year by Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar. In the statement marking the Islamic holy holiday of Eid al-Adha, Omar for the first time offered to share power. He also said he had no interest in starting a civil war. �As to the future political destiny of the country, I would like to repeat that we are neither thinking of monopolizing power nor intend to spark off domestic war,� he said. While still firm on his demand for Sharia or Islamic law, in Afghanistan, the Taliban leader, who rarely speaks and has a $10 million bounty on his head, did seem to take a few steps back from the harsh and regressive edicts and interpretations of Islamic law that characterized the Taliban�s five-year rule. Many of those edicts were directed at women, denying them education and the right to work. He also seemed to extend an olive branch to Afghanistan�s other ethnic groups.�We will guarantee rights of both male and female of the country, build economic structures and strengthen social foundations and facilities of education for all people of the country,� he said.But Omar�s flexibility only went so far. He still insisted on an Islamic education system. While the West has been pressing for secular education, many of Afghanistan�s current leaders support a Quran-based education system. A senior member of the High Peace Council, who met with Taliban on the sidelines of the two conferences in France and Tokyo, said they also vowed to make child marriages illegal and outlaw a common practice among ethnic Pashtuns to use their daughters as barter to settle disputes.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/3512

Marco Rubio's immigration reform balancing act rubbing some the wrong way ALEX LEARYTampa Bay TimesThursday, June 6, 2013 7:30pm WASHINGTON — Sen. Marco Rubio has for months positioned himself as the focus of the immigration debate, the reason why a bill has gotten as far as it has. But now he has managed to create an aura of mystery: Is he on board or not? Sen. Marco Rubio wants to 'wind down' program for immigrant youth Immigration protesters interrupt Sen. Marco Rubio (w/video) Common Core creates political balancing act for Gov. Rick Scott A series of increasingly mixed signals from the Florida Republican — including telling a conservative radio host Tuesday he would vote against the bill he helped write if changes aren't made — has frustrated and worried reform advocates as the Senate is scheduled to begin debate today. Which way Rubio, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, goes is crucial. House Republicans are already resisting the Senate approach. "In politics, perception is everything, and it's deeply concerning a lot of us," said David Leopold, former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. "I have a lot of respect for Sen. Rubio, but a true leader puts politics aside. This is not an issue you can play both sides." Gaby Pacheco, an activist from Florida who has come to admire Rubio, said the comments marked the first time she has been worried. "I think he's trying to separate himself from the bill," she said. "If you do something, you just don't halfway abandon it. This bill is his child and when a child grows and there are issues, you don't disown him. You work through it. The bill was moving to the right anyway. I don't see why he has to say this." At the same time, Rubio has given hope to critics of the legislation that he will withdraw. "This is a very dramatic development," said a practically giddy Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. Rubio said he is simply pushing to strengthen the bill by adding more border security and enforcement measures. "One of the reasons why I was asked to even join this effort is to help bring Republicans on board. That's what I'm trying to do," he said. Asked pointedly in an interview Thursday if he was walking away, Rubio replied, "I'm 100 percent committed to immigration reform. But I'm committed to an immigration reform law, not an immigration reform bill. Somehow if efforts here were to slow down, for whatever reason, I'll keep working. I won't abandon this issue until it gets done." The 42-year-old son of Cuban immigrants is caught between strong forces: A diverse pro-reform coalition that includes Evangelicals, labor unions and business and Republicans eager to open doors to Hispanic voters versus vehement opposition from conservatives and anti-immigration interest groups. The Federation for American Immigration Reform, which wants fewer people coming in the country, said this week that it has started a TV ad in Tampa and elsewhere across the country that asserts Rubio is pushing the same failed promises of the 1986 amnesty bill. Rubio has done much to quiet conservative opposition but the push back has grown as the Senate bill has advanced. On the Laura Ingraham Show, where the host has blistered Rubio for weeks, a tea party leader from Colorado called in this week to say Rubio has "lost the tea party. There is no support for him on this issue." The equivocating is not new for Rubio. He took a hard-line approach on immigration as a U.S. Senate candidate in 2010 after being seen as a moderate in the Florida House. He opposed the Dream Act, which would create a path to citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, then proposed his own version to give them legal status. But Rubio never filed a bill and President Barack Obama stepped in to accomplish something similar. After joining the Senate Gang of 8 that wrote the current bill, Rubio emerged as an enthusiastic champion, doing a mind-blowing number of media interviews. But as conservative criticism has grown, he has gotten more pessimistic and sided with Republicans who say the bill he helped write is flawed. "What's stymieing efforts in the Senate is not my comments," he insisted. "What's stymieing efforts in the Senate is that we don't have the votes to pass it because too many members on both sides of the aisle do not believe it goes far enough on border security." Advocates of reform say they understand Rubio's delicate dance — and think he's too far in now to back away — but fear the bill will move too far to the right. "I can understand the value of being hard to pin down," said Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum. "But Sen. Rubio is at his best when he has a clear strategy on how he is going to build consensus. You can't build consensus in one place and then go around the corner and try to undermine it." Rubio's Gang of 8 colleagues do not sound too worried. "I think he's trying to grow the vote," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., sounded as if he was working off Rubio talking points: "My view has always been that the American people will support common sense solutions to the 11 million and future legal immigration if they feel future illegal immigration will be stopped, and a strengthened border is a good part of that." One of the ideas Rubio is helping develop would shift the responsibility of developing a border security strategy from the Department of Homeland Security to Congress. Rubio said Thursday the idea is to insert the plan in the bill. Rubio also has worked with Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who is proposing a sweeping amendment that would require 100 percent operational control of the U.S-Mexico border before undocumented immigrants can get permanent legal status. Cornyn would add more Border Patrol agents and exclude immigrants who have committed more serious misdemeanors from qualifying for legal status. Against wobbly signs, GOP strategist Karl Rove, took to the Wall Street Journal on Thursday with a bit of a warning: "As the Senate takes up immigration reform next week, Republicans must consider the impressions they will create by what they say, the changes they propose and their votes on the final product." Marco Rubio's immigration reform balancing act rubbing some the wrong way 06/06/13 [Last modified: Friday, June 7, 2013 12:47am]

时政