IndustryCorpus
Collection
19 items
•
Updated
•
5
Datasets:
id
stringlengths 30
34
| text
stringlengths 15
67.9k
| industry_type
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|
2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/2561 | Iran protests: live
A week after the disputed poll, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei led Friday prayers today in an attempt to quell continuing anger at the re-election of president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Follow live updates
Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei giving his Friday prayer sermon at Tehran University. Photograph: Reuters TV/Reuters
7.30am: Khamenei is preparing to make his first public appearance since endorsing Ahmadinejad's election. He is due to lead Friday prayers at Tehran University, where his words will be closely scrutinised. It is unclear what Khameini will say, if anything, about Mousavi and the demonstrations. At least one candidate who ran against Ahmadinejad, reformist Mahdi Karroubi, has said he will attend the service.It was not known if Mousavi or Ahmadinejad would be there, although the president normally attends Friday prayers when Khamenei leads them.There are reports that people are being bussed in to Tehran to show support for the regime. A protester has emailed to say that whatever Khamemei says the protests will continue. He wrote: Saturday will be the biggest march to date probably, despite whatever announcement is made at Friday prayers.I think something which those living outside Iran need to realize is that people here are not protesting because of a disapproval of the election outcome per say. Almost every individual has had a bad experience at some point with a Basij , a member of the security forces or a government official.Whether it be a teenage party which they were attending being raided, harassed on the streets because of their clothes, visited by corrupt officials at work, or mistreated in a government office.People are simply fed up, this is about far more than just the elections.As there are so many restrictions on journalists in Iran it is difficult to get information, so if you are in Iran and have news, please email me at matthew.weaver@guardian.co.uk or post updates or interesting links in the comments section below.And if you have taken any pictures of the latest events in Iran, or know anyone who has, please send them to pictures@guardian.co.uk. Please provide as much information as you can about your pictures including what they show, and when and where they were taken. Thanks.8am: Here's a new video claiming to show yesterday's rally. It started as a silent protest to mark the death of protesters killed in unrest earlier this week, but it became rowdy later judging by this footage.
8.10am: Khamenei has told Mousavi to stand beside him at Friday prayers, according to the Times.The demand was made at a meeting this week with representatives of all three candidates who claim that the poll was rigged, and it puts Mr Mousavi on the spot.We'll soon find out what happens, prayers are due to start within the next hour.
In the meantime here's some video footage of Mousavi's brief appearance at yesterday's rally. There are more pictures of the rally on Mousavi's website.8.30am: Some Mousavi supporters are calling for a boycott of Friday prayers, on Twitter. "Mousavi & Karoubi ask supporters NOT to attend Friday prayers," reads one tweet.8.40am: Google may not have bowed to pressure to change its logo to support the protests, but it has rushed through Persian, or Farsi to its translation service.The New York Times reports: "The company said it hoped the service, which it rushed because of the turmoil in Iran, would be used by people inside and outside of that country to communicate and stay abreast of events."Facebook has also launched a Farsi translation service, according to my colleague Jemima Kiss.Earlier this week Twitter delayed an upgrade to its network because of the vital role it is playing in the unrest, after a request from the US state department.9am: Here's an account sent by email from a protester who was beaten up earlier this week:It was 4pm at Vanak Square in Tehran, and people were protesting against the election results. The riot police were standing in front of us. Suddenly the police started to run towards us, with their black helmets and batons they were so scary. Some people escaped and some others ran towards them and threw stones.As we were running down Vali Asr Avenue, a young man fell on the ground. I saw that, as he was there a soldier reached him and started beating him in the back with the baton. He shouted and cried for help. I ran towards the soldier and punched him in the face. The young man managed to escape. As I tried to escape two other soldiers were behind me. They cornered me. I didn't have any way of escaping. They started beating me like hell, and the one that I'd punched also came in. The three of them hit me at least 50 times. One of them grabbed me and tried to push me on the ground. The punched one tried to beat me in the face and I had to protect it with my left hand. As people saw this, they threw stones at them. Fortunately a big one hit one of them in back, and I managed to push him and run like hell.I didn't even dare to go to hospital because they might easily catch you there. I've been taking painkillers just to able to sleep.9.15am: Al-Jazeera is showing live pictures of Khamenei at the start of Friday prayers. It quotes him calling for peace."I advise you to follow Allah and follow the pious way," he says according to the translation. "Apply the fear of God," he adds.He goes on to cite verses from the Qu'ran about enemies surrounding Mecca. "Psychologically Muslims need a quiet and tranquil heart," al-Jazeera's translator quotes Khamenei as saying."When we gain stress and worries it will be difficult to find our way. When we are quiet it is easier to find solutions. This is the blessing of Allah. Believers need to find calm and strength."He goes on to talk of the benefit of supplication. "Since the beginning of the revolution 30 years have passed. Events have happened that could eliminate the system and the regime," Khamenei said."Try to forget about politics and remember spirituality. This is the way to gain freedom. From the beginning the revolution was based on the strength of your faith."We have to go back to spirituality. It will lead the revolution to success in this materialistic world. It will make a strong pillar of the Islamic system and protect it from the troubles outside."Most of our youth are spiritual even if you don't see that in their faces. "Oh God give us a calm and peaceful heart."About the issue of elections, the main issue of the country. There are three issues. One will be for the political leaders, our president, activists, western counties and leaders of the media. The elections of the 12 June was proof of participation of the people. It was a show of their love for their regime. We can't find other countries with such a level of democracy. "We have not had such participation (85%) since the revolution. The young generation especially showed their worry and their political obligations. There are differences between the people, some prefer different candidates. This is natural. This election was a big celebration of the revolution. That many people showing love and loyalty. This election was a religious democratic event. It showed dictatorial countries that this is a religious democratic country. "The election showed that people with belief, hopes and joys are living in this country. Our enemies are using it. If the young did not feel free they would not have participated in the election. This trust is the biggest asset of the Islamic republic. "There were claims of fraud before the election. Don't listen to those allegations."The competition for the election was very clear. Enemies and dirty Zionists tried to show the election as a contest between the regime and against it. That is not true, all four candidates support the regime." [He lists the government positions of the opposition candidates]. All of the candidates are part of this system and regime. Zionists and the bad British radio said it was a challenge to the regime."The issue is inside the system. The dispute is not against the revolution. The dispute was among candidates and there was a positive and negative effect. People were able to judge, they felt part of the system. All views were available to the people."The result was clear. They selected candidates they wanted. These disputes and conversations among candidates went to the streets and houses of the people. This gives strength to the system. This should not be misunderstood. The people should be ready to answer critics."Rumours spread that were not true, and gave a bad image to the previous government. Calling the president a liar is that good? This is against the truth. The 30 years of the revolution was turning black."Khamenei talks about the rumours about Hashemi Rafsanjani. He praises Rafsanjani as "close" to the revolution. "The youth should know that... He was at the service of the revolution. I do have some difference with him, but people should not imagine something else between him and the president."We don't claim there is no corruption in our regime. But this is one of the most healthy systems in the world. Zionists claims of corruption are not right. "My dear people, June 12 was a historic event. Our enemies want to cast doubt on it and portray it as defeat for the regime. The presidential campaign has finished. All of the four candidates are among the Islamic system. The people have trust in the revolution and the republic. The Islamic republic is not cheating against others. There is no cheating inside the election system - it is well controlled. There may been mistakes but 11 million [votes] is not possible."The guardian council has said that if people have doubts they should prove them. I will not follow false allegations. In all elections some are winners and some are losers. Correct legal procedures should be followed to ensure trust in the process."The candidates should be careful about what they say and do" [Mousavi doesn't seem to be there]. "Some diplomats from the west are showing their real face and that they are enemies. The worst are the British."The street is the place of living and trading. Why are you taking to the streets? We have had the election. Street demonstrations are a target for terrorist plots. Who would be responsible if something happened?10.30am: Khamenei appears to threaten the protesters. "Rioting after the election is not a good way. It questions the election. If they continue [the consequences] will be their responsibility.""If they continue they will be receiving other consequences, behind the scenes. I'm asking my friends and brothers to follow the laws. Let God give us blessing to follow those ways." The western media were "shocked" by the level of participation in the election, he claimed. He also cont | 时政 |
2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/2592 | George Will: What plagues Obama is not isolationism
IN JANUARY 1938, Rep. Louis Ludlow, an Indiana Democrat, proposed a constitutional amendment strongly supported by the public: "Except in the event of an invasion of the United States or its territorial possessions and attack upon its citizens residing therein, the authority of Congress to declare war shall not become effective until confirmed by a majority of all votes cast thereon in a nationwide referendum." Although narrowly defeated, 209-188, it might have passed without President Franklin Roosevelt's last-minute opposition.During Barack Obama's, shall we say, sinuous progress toward a Syria policy, he has suggested, without using the word, that isolationism is among his afflictions. During his news conference-cum-soliloquy in Russia, he said:"These kinds of interventions ... are always unpopular because they seem distant and removed. ... I'm not drawing an analogy to World War II other than to say when London was getting bombed it was profoundly unpopular both in Congress and around the country to help the British."He wisely disavowed (while insinuating) this analogy, lest Americans wonder which is more implausible, casting Bashar al-Assad as Hitler or himself as Roosevelt. But the term "isolationism" is being bandied as an epithet, not to serve as an argument for U.S. military interventions but as a substitute for an argument. To understand the debate that roiled America before World War II is to understand why today's reservations about interventionism are not a recrudescence of isolationism.In "Those Angry Days," her new history of the intense nationwide controversy about whether America should enter World War II, Lynne Olson concludes that "by December 1941, the American people had been thoroughly educated about the pros and cons of their country's entry into the conflict and were far less opposed to the idea of going to war than conventional wisdom has it." Events, especially the fall of France, were most educational. Before this, however, isolationism was broadly embraced as a rational response for an America situated between two broad oceans."Of the hell broth that is brewing in Europe," wrote Ernest Hemingway in 1935, "we have no need to drink." America's military - what little there was: the Army's size was 17th in the world, behind Portugal's - largely agreed. The Neutrality Acts banned U.S. arms sales to countries at war and denied Roosevelt the power to apply the prohibition only against aggressor nations.FDR's enormous domestic policy blunder - his attempt to pack the Supreme Court, for which he was resoundingly rebuked in the 1938 midterm elections - made him extremely tentative about attempting to lead public opinion regarding U.S. involvement in Europe. Others were not bashful.Yale University incubated the America First organization. An undergraduate, Kingman Brewster, later Yale's president and U.S. ambassador to Britain, was a founder. Other Yale student-members included future Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, future President Gerald Ford, and Sargent Shriver, future head of the Peace Corps under his brother-in-law President John Kennedy, who as a Harvard undergraduate sent $100 to America First.Olson writes that many anti-war organizations with "Mothers" in their titles swarmed over Capitol Hill: "Dressed in black, many with veils covering their faces, the women made life miserable for members of Congress who were not avowedly isolationist. They stalked their targets, screamed and spat at them, and held vigils outside their offices, keening and wailing." When an interventionist congressman said he refused "to sit by a traitor," the offended isolationist knocked him down with what the House doorkeeper called the best punch thrown in the chamber in 50 years.In October 1940, conscription began - for 12 months. By August 1941, training camps were chalked with the acronym OHIO - "Over the Hill in October."Four months before Pearl Harbor, the House extended conscription for a year. The 203-202 vote was secured only by Speaker Sam Rayburn's parliamentary trickery.Olson says that in 1940, when the interventionist Wendell Willkie, the Republicans' presidential nominee, campaigned, isolationists pelted him with "everything from rotten eggs, fruits, vegetables, rocks, and light bulbs to an office chair and wastebasket," and "The New York Times ran a daily box score of the number of items thrown and those that found their target." Montana's Burton Wheeler, a senator since 1923, compared Lend-Lease for Britain with FDR's program for plowing under crops to raise prices. He said Lend-Lease "will plow under every fourth American boy."It is preposterous to equate today's mild debates about foreign policy with the furies unleashed by, and against, real isolationism. Yet again, ignorance of history causes us to disparage the present..George Will is a columnist for Newsweek in Washington, D.C., and a commentator for ABC News. | 时政 |
2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/2629 | » Follow The World Desk On: » This Story:Read +| Comments
U.S., Russian negotiators 'at the finish line' on new START nuclear pact
By Mary Beth Sheridan
MOSCOW -- U.S. and Russian negotiators are "at the finish line" in negotiating a major agreement to cut the number of nuclear warheads each side has deployed against the other, with just one or two issues left to resolve, officials said Thursday.
This StoryStrategic arms pact near 'finish line'Clinton's agenda for Russia trip reflects improving but fragile ties
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Russian foreign minister said after talks here that they awaited word soon from negotiators in Geneva who have been working 18-hour days to wrap up the agreement.
The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) is a top priority of President Obama, who initially had pledged to finish it by last year. Obama spoke by phone with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev last weekend to iron out remaining obstacles, giving new momentum to the talks, officials said.
But the optimism over the arms control talks contrasted with a fresh sign that Russia is not necessarily going to fall in line with U.S. priorities in other areas -- such as Iran's nuclear program.
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin announced Thursday that Russia would fire up the reactor it is building at an Iranian nuclear power plant at midyear. Asked about the move, Clinton told reporters it was "premature," because "we want to send an unequivocal message to the Iranians" that they have to desist from developing a nuclear bomb.
"If it [Iran] reassures the world [about its program], or if its behavior has changed because of international sanctions," then the country can go ahead with nuclear power plants, she told a news conference. Iran insists that its nuclear program is peaceful.
Russia agreed to build Iran's first nuclear power plant near Bushehr 15 years ago, but the construction schedule has constantly slipped. Many analysts think Russia is using the delays as leverage. Putin's announcement actually appeared to mark a further setback in the plant's completion date, which had been set for the spring. But the timing of the announcement was awkward for Clinton and appeared to be a jab at her efforts to put together a tough international line on Iran.
State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the U.S. government did not oppose the Russian nuclear project, which would be open to international inspectors and require Iran to return the spent fuel so it could not be turned into weapons material. The concern, Crowley said, was the "potential for a mixed message."
The Bushehr plant did not come up in Clinton's discussions with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Crowley said.
Clinton's two-day trip is built around a meeting of the Quartet of Middle East peace mediators -- the European Union and the United Nations, in addition to Russia and the United States. But she will discuss bilateral issues as well as Iran in her meetings with Lavrov and Medvedev. A Friday visit with Putin was added to her schedule at the last minute at the request of the prime minister, who had previously indicated he would be out of town, U.S. officials said.
The new START pact would replace a 1991 treaty that expired in December. Obama and Medvedev agreed last year that it would reduce deployed "strategic" or long-range warheads from the current ceiling of 2,200 to somewhere between 1,500 and 1,675. It also will trim the number of bombers and missiles that launch the nuclear weapons.
"We have every reason to believe we are now at the finish line," Lavrov told a news conference Thursday.
Crowley said the negotiations on START were "down to one or two items" still to be resolved. "We're very, very close," he said.
He declined to identify the final obstacles, but officials familiar with the talks said one of them involved the data that the Russians send their U.S. counterparts from their long-range missile tests.
The Russians have balked at continuing to send such data. But U.S. negotiators believe they can't give much ground on such verification procedures, since the Senate has indicated that it won't approve a treaty without them.
More in World A Woman's World Multimedia reports on the struggle for equality around the globe. Connect Online Share and comment on Post world news on Facebook and Twitter. Green: Science. Policy. Living. Full coverage of energy and environment news. © 2010 The Washington Post Company
Strategic arms pact near 'finish line' Clinton's agenda for Russia trip reflects improving but fragile ties | 时政 |
2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/2671 | House Passes ‘No Budget No Pay,’ Extends Debt Limit
By John Parkinson@jparkABCSunlen Miller@sunlenmiller Jan 23, 2013 2:12pm
WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives voted today to approve a three-month extension of the debt limit in a bill that concurrently pressures lawmakers to adopt a budget or have their pay withheld.
The vote passed by a count of 285-144. Thirty-three Republicans opposed the measure, while 86 Democrats voted to approve it, sending the legislation to the Senate where it is also expected to pass, according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
“I’m pleased that Speaker Boehner’s House colleagues have decided to change course and pass a bill that defuses yet another fight over the debt ceiling,” Reid, D-Nev., said. “In substance, it’s a clean debt limit increase.”
The bill, known as the No Budget No Pay Act of 2013, directs both chambers of Congress to adopt a budget resolution for fiscal year 2014 by April 15, 2013. If either body fails to pass a budget, members of that body would have their paychecks put into an escrow account starting on April 16 until that body adopts a budget. Any pay that is withheld would eventually be released at the end of the current Congress even if a budget doesn’t ever pass.
Democrats also pledged today to pass a budget in the Senate this year. The Senate has not passed a budget resolution since April 29, 2009.
“This bill simply says ‘Congress, do your job.’ When I grew up in Wisconsin, if you had a job and you did the work, then you got paid. If you didn’t do the work, you didn’t get paid. It’s that simple,” Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said during debate on the bill leading into the vote. “We have a law. It’s called the Budget Act. It requires that Congress passes a budget by April 15. All we’re saying is, ‘Congress, follow the law. Do your work. Budget.’
The measure also temporarily suspends the statutory debt limit through May 18, granting the Treasury Department the additional borrowing authority to meet obligations that require payment over the next three months. Without congressional action, the Treasury Department has warned that its borrowing authority would run out by mid-February.
“There should be no long-term increase in the debt limit until there’s a long-term plan to deal with the fiscal crisis that faces our country,” Boehner, R-Ohio, said during a floor speech prior to the vote. “Every hardworking taxpayer in America knows that they have to do a budget. Every hardworking taxpayer understands that you can’t continue to spend money that you don’t have.”
House Democrats generally opposed the bill, calling it a “political gimmick” for “prolonging economic uncertainty.”
“If it’s a good idea to maintain the obligations of the U.S. government between now and May 19, it sure is a good idea to make sure that we meet the obligations of the United States Government beyond that,” Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the top Democrat on the Budget committee, said during debate. “This is a political effort simply to increase their negotiating strategy – leveraged three months from now – at the expense of jobs and the economy and the American people.”
In recent years conservatives have opposed any increase to the debt limit without corresponding spending cuts, but Republicans hope to gain leverage with a three-month increase by syncing up the next slate of major fiscal deadlines facing Congress to provide lawmakers with more time to work out a so-called ‘Big Deal’ on deficit reduction.
“The reason for this extension is so that we can have the debate that we need to have,” Ryan said. “It’s been a one-sided debate. The House of Representatives has passed budgets. The other body, the Senate, hasn’t passed a budget for almost four years. We owe our constituents more than that. We owe them solutions and when both parties put their solutions on the table, than we can have a good, clear debate about how to solve the problem.”
“The problem is not going away no matter how much we can wish it away,” Ryan, the former Republican vice presidential nominee, added. “This isn’t a Republican or a Democratic thing. This is a math thing, and the math is vicious, and it’s hurting our country, and it’s hurting the next generation, and it’s hurting our economy.”
Casting the House vote as a victory since it abandoned prior demands for spending cuts in exchange for an increase, Reid said that the Senate will move quickly to pass the bill and send it to the president, perhaps as early as this week.
“This proposal gives us something we can work with here in the Senate,” Reid, D-Nev., touted at a Capitol news conference today. “In the short term…it removes the threat of default. For the long term it sets a helpful precedent that’s going to make raising the debt ceiling easier from now on.”
Reid also called the “no budget, no pay” provision a gimmick to lure in the House’s most conservative members who may not have gone with the plan otherwise.
“I understand and we all understand the tea party plays a big part in what goes in the House, and they need a gimmick or two to get things done over there, but to spare the middle class another knock-down, drag-out fight, we’re going to proceed to work on this legislation and get it out of there as quickly as we can,” he said.
This morning Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., announced that the Senate will return to regular order and move a budget resolution through the Budget committee and to the Senate floor, a move celebrated by Republicans as marking the first time the Senate will adopt a budget in nearly four years. SHOWS: Nightline This Week World News
You might also like Top Stories on ABC NewsSam: Coming out Was Right Thing to DoSabres Rally to Beat Islanders 4-3 in SOConnauton Helps Lead Blue Jackets Over Bruins 6-2Arizona Police Officer, Suspect Killed in ShootoutBrowns Suspend Receiver Josh Gordon, Manziel LateSubscribe RSS | 时政 |
2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/2699 | Capitol Words a project of the Sunlight Foundation
Compare Congressional Words and/or Phrases
Pick a word or phrase
All states Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming
Tribute To The 172Nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team
Volume 152 , Number 134 Pages
Pages E2125
Legislative Body
Extensions of Remarks
Thu, Dec. 7, 2006
Rep. Don Young
Mr. Speaker, I rise today I rise to acknowledge the significant contributions and sacrifices of the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team ``Arctic Wolves,'' based out of Ft. Wainwright, Alaska. I would like to congratulate this elite fighting force of men and women who performed with distinction during an unprecedented 16-month deployment in Iraq.
Few units in the history of the Army have developed such a diverse ability to effectively fight in extreme combat situations. The 172nd formed, lived and trained in the harsh Alaska arctic conditions. Alaskan winters have as many as 21 hours of darkness a day and an average daily temperature of 15 degrees. During the initial Iraq deployment in July/August of 2005, these soldiers faced dry, desert conditions in heat topping 120 degrees, quite different from their original training conditions. The ability to adapt and continue to fight insurgents in any environment is one of the many exceptional traits of these Arctic and now, ``Desert Wolves.''
During their tour of duty, the Stryker Brigade had an outstanding combat record and an exceptional reputation for their relationship with the Iraqi citizens. During their service, 5 soldiers were Silver Star Receipts, along with the entire 172nd receiving the Valorous Unit Award. The sacrifices made by these soldiers over the last 16 months were tremendous; 26 soldiers lost their lives and another 381 soldiers were wounded, while in Iraq. The commitment of these soldiers to their Nation is admirable. This brigade, despite their extended tour, had the highest reenlistment rate in the Army with over 33 percent of assigned personnel signing up for the second life cycle.
Along with the contributions our Alaskan service members make on a regular basis to the security of this Nation we cannot forget the difficulties their families face during these deployments. Close to 5,000 Alaskan family members of the 172nd had been without their loved ones for 16 months and waited to be back in their arms of their husbands, wives, sons and daughters. While soldiers were overseas, these families in the Fairbanks community pulled together with resounding resolve. Not only am I proud to represent the Artic Wolves, but I am also proud to represent the great military families of Ft. Wainwright who patiently waited for their brave soldiers to return.
Over the last 4 months, the 172nd has received increased publicity because of their extended deployment, and the families and soldiers were asked to perform duties few are capable of handling. However, I am proud to say that our Arctic Wolves acted with the utmost level of professionalism and heroism on the ground, from the unit commanders to the most junior enlisted ranks. The 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team has made a significant contribution to the proud United States Army military history and I am proud to represent these great American Warriors. On behalf of the state of Alaska, I extend my thanks and appreciation for their exceptional service to this nation. Welcome home, Arctic Wolves.
Similar entries
Submitted Resolutions
Honoring The 56Th Brigade Combat Team Of The Pennsylvania Army National Guard
Honoring The 5Th Stryker Brigade
Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, And Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010
Recognizing The U.S. Army’S 3Rd Arrowhead Brigade-2Nd Infantry Division
Suggested Pages
job-killing
I would have voted
Recent popular words
murthy,
saldana,
vivek,
deyo,
bough
coloretti,
s-k,
nahasda,
samoa,
hualapai,
airfare,
frenzel,
malala,
ebola,
marijuana,
helios,
penelope,
telford,
keystone,
xl,
pipeline,
gavi
Sunlight Foundation
Founded in 2006, the Sunlight Foundation is a nonpartisan nonprofit that advocates for open government globally and uses technology to make government more accountable to all. Visit SunlightFoundation.com to learn more.
Like this project and want to discover and support others like it?
Join the Sunlight Foundation's open government community to learn more | 时政 |
2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/2837 | Italy MPs back migrant crackdown
Thousands of migrants sail to Italy from North Africa every year
Italian MPs have backed a plan to fine illegal immigrants up to 10,000 euros ($13,000), as the government continues to tighten immigration controls.The lower house overwhelmingly backed the bill, which also proposes jailing those who rent houses to illegal immigrants for up to three years. The bill still needs to be approved in the Senate before it can become law. Italy has just introduced a policy of returning boatloads of migrants to Libya before they can claim asylum. The move has attracted criticism, with the UN's refugee agency and the Vatican both saying the move was a breach of international law. Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi sparked further controversy when he defended the decision by saying he did not want to see a "multi-ethnic" Italy. "The left's idea is of a multi-ethnic Italy. That's not our idea, ours is to welcome only those who meet the conditions for political asylum," he told a news conference at the weekend. Public backingThe government says it faces an unmanageable flood of immigrants, many arriving on outlying islands which do not have the means to cope. More than 36,000 migrants landed on the shores of Italy last year - an increase of about 75% on the year before. The BBC's Duncan Kennedy, in Rome, says many Italians believe their country is being left on its own by the European Union to deal with the problem of immigration. And many are now ready to support stricter measures to control the flow of people into their country, our correspondent adds. Mr Berlusconi's centre-right coalition ensured the bill's speedy passage through lower house by turning it into a vote of confidence in the government. While 316 MPs backed the bill, 258 voted against. It will now go to the Senate. Vigilante groupsRocco Buttiglione, a centre-right MP, said the law would bring "slavery" to Italy by creating a class of workers without any rights. He warned that rather than turning to police when they need to, migrants would turn to the Mafia or vigilante justice. Other measures in the government's security and crime legislation include a register of homeless people, citizens' vigilante patrols, and up to three years in prison for anyone who insults the police. Critics say the right-wing government is targeting especially immigrants and Roma (Gypsies). But Manuela del Lago of the anti-immigrant Northern League party, which spearheaded the legislation, said Italy was embarking on the right path. "We don't understand why we have to keep them all here and in other countries they don't take anyone," she said.
Milan train segregation idea row
Italy turns rescued migrants back
Italian migration policy draws fire
07 Mar 09 | Europe
Italian government (in Italian)
UNHCR Italy | 时政 |
2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/2856 | How to reach us Subscribe To The Paper
Our Town West Side Spirit Our Town Downtown Chelsea Clinton News Decision '09: General Election
Published Oct 29, 2009 at 6:01 am
(Updated Nov 11, 2014)
This November, two citywide offices are up for grabs, and several local incumbents are facing Republican challengers at the polls. To give voters a better idea of the men and women vying for their support, we asked each of the candidates to fill out a brief questionnaire explaining their positions and goals in 300 words or less. Responses have been edited for style and clarity.
Manhattan Borough PresidentIncumbent: Scott Stringer, Democrat Educational background: I graduated from New York City public schools, including John F. Kennedy High School and John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Qualifications for office: As a lifelong Manhattanite, I am devoted to public service. I served for 13 years in the State Assembly, where I authored legislation to protect victims of domestic violence, led the successful fight to end "empty-seat voting" in Albany and voted against every attempt to weaken rent regulations. As Borough President, I have revitalized Manhattan's community boards, built coalitions among diverse stakeholders, used the land-use process to tackle issues ranging from affordable housing to school overcrowding, and worked to make Manhattan healthier, greener, safer and more affordable. Three goals I'd most want to accomplish during my next term: 1) Manhattan's public schools will top my agenda. Continued progress on public education is essential for the future of our children and our economic vitality. Although English and mathematics test scores have improved, many challenges remain. My work on school overcrowding created new schools and started reforming the city's planning process for school construction to prepare for the likely addition of a million residents in the next two decades. 2) I will bolster Manhattan's economic security by working to create jobs, support small business and diversify our economy beyond Wall Street. 3) I will strive to make New York the greenest and healthiest city in the United States by fighting to reduce diabetes and asthma and expanding my "Go Green" programs that add farmers markets, plant street trees and give people healthier food choices. Why my challenger is the wrong person for this job: I believe the office of borough president plays an indispensable role in giving neighborhoods a voice in development and solving Manhattan's problems. My challenger, who seems like a very nice fellow, does not. Challenger: David Casavis, Republican Educational background: B.A., SUNY Buffalo, history/education (teacher's certificate); M.B.A., PACE University; M.S. in real estate valuation and analysis, New York University. Qualifications for office: There is almost nothing left to the office of borough president except for urban land issues. I have worked on, and extensively written about, these issues for more than 20 years. These included an impact study on New York City if the city won the 2008 Olympic bid, and a projection of where the new central business district of Berlin would form after the fall of the Berlin Wall, when East and West Berlin came together as one city. I have been involved with the ULURP land-use review procedure and assembled the Society of Industrial Office Realtors' annual report. I will continue to work on such land-use issues long after my opponent moves on to his next appointive position. I hope to utilize my vast expanse of technical expertise in the field to represent Manhattan. Three goals I'd most want to accomplish during my first term: There is only one issue in any borough president's race: whether to keep a vestigial organ or to remove it. Like the human appendix, it is benign until it becomes infected?and then it must be removed. Twenty years after the U.S. Supreme Court found that the Board of Estimate proffered unconstitutional representation to different boroughs, the president of the Board of Estimate is still on the ballot. I promise that, when elected, I will make it my sole impetus to eradicate the office of the borough president, beginning with my own seat in Manhattan. The incumbent's biggest failing: I am running against an office, not an individual. Yet I am moved by the many rank-and-file Democrats who labor diligently for their party and their beliefs only to be scorned by one of the elected officials they labored so hard for.City ComptrollerJohn Liu, Democrat Educational background: I am a proud product of New York City public schools, beginning with kindergarten at P.S. 20 and going all the way through to the Bronx High School of Science. I went on to earn a degree in mathematical physics at SUNY-Binghamton. Qualifications for office: I am | 时政 |
2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/2915 | Aaron Woolf, Bill Owens chat up business owners in Potsdam
PUBLISHED: THURSDAY, APRIL 24, 2014 AT 7:25 PM
POTSDAM Democratic congressional candidate Aaron G. Woolf is being taught more about the district he hopes to represent by the man he hopes to replace, an experience he describes as a kind of apprenticeship.Rep. William L. Owens, D-Plattsburgh, did a regionwide tour of factories and small businesses with Mr. Woolf Thursday, and began the tour with his official endorsement.Im going around the district because I want people to know me, Mr. Woolf said.Mr. Owens said the two will continue to campaign together in the months to come. Mr. Owens will retire from Congress after this year.He said his successor will learn how to help businesses at home as well as in Congress.A lot of that is not related to what you can do in Washington, but to what you can do in the district, he said.The two started their tour at Potsdams Agway, 14 Pine St., where they spoke to owner Daryl T. Kolanko about the various challenges his business faces.Mr. Kolanko and Mr. Woolf spoke about how the shrinking number of small farms over the last few decades has dramatically changed the way Agway does business. Mr. Owens offered Mr. Kolanko some advice about how to ship products back and forth from Canada more easily.Mr. Kolanko, a registered Republican, said he will need to learn more about Mr. Woolf and the other congressional candidates before making his decision, but he appreciated the gesture of visiting his store.I dont have an answer yet, Mr. Kolanko said when asked whether he plans to support Mr. Woolf in November. I dont know about him. It was gracious of him to come by.He said the best thing a congressman could do to help his business is simply to improve the regional economy, creating more jobs and more paying customers.From Agway, Mr. Owens and Mr. Woolf headed to Northern Music and Video, 29 Market St.Mr. Woolf spoke with owner Christopher J. Smutz about the competition retail outlets face from online stores.He emphasized his own small-business experience. Mr. Woolf owns an organic food store in Brooklyn.Mr. Smutz said he does not yet know whom he will vote for, but said Mr. Woolf is taking a step in the right direction by meeting with area businesses.I think its a great precedent that theyre out and about, he said.The best way a congressman can help local businesses, he said, is by focusing on exactly what these guys are focusing on right now.He also said he would be in favor of an incentive to buy local, as well as a north country highway to bring more equipment and customers to the area.Mr. Woolf said he wants to see the north country focus on coordinating road, rail, and water traffic to help boost the economy and wants to improve the transportation system here.If it moves, it improves, and Im a big advocate of infrastructure in all forms, he said.Before running for Congress, Mr. Woolf was best-known as a documentary filmmaker. His most popular documentary, King Corn, examined the industrial farm industry and questioned the wisdom of government subsidies to large farms.When asked his opinion on the farm bill Mr. Woolf equivocated, saying he supports a bill that would support large farmers and small farmers alike. He did not answer questions about what such a bill would look like or who should receive government subsidies.Mr. Owens played a major role in crafting the most recent farm bill and said supporting U.S. farmers is a matter of national security, preventing the United States from having to import large quantities of food from abroad.Mr. Owens and Mr. Woolf agreed that jobs and the economy are the regions top priority, and will continue to be a focal point of Mr. Woolfs campaign.Clearly, jobs and the economy have to be where people are focused, Mr. Owens said.After leaving Northern Music and Video, the tour continued across the street to Sergis Italian Restaurant, 10 Market St.Later, the two traveled to Malone to tour Alice Hyde Medical Center. | 时政 |
2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/2922 | Baby Boomers Remain Skeptical Of The Establishment By Don Gonyea
The baby boomers were born in the two decades after World War II and known for their anti-establishment liberalism in the 1960s. But their beginnings have not made them a predictable Democratic voting block. In 2008, boomers narrowly backed Barack Obama, but they swung over to Republicans in 2010. It should come as no surprise that the baby boom generation is a bit hard to pin down in its politics. After all, it represents 37 percent of the voting age population, bigger than any other age group. And the boomer birth years of 1946 through 1964 cover a lot of time — historic milestones included a moon landing, Vietnam, Watergate and the arms race. In Portland, Maine, which happens to be the U.S. city with the highest concentration of baby boomers, former construction worker Peter Duffy, now 57, recalled that his first presidential election was 1972, when he voted for South Dakota Democratic Sen. George McGovern against Republican candidate Richard Nixon. Though Duffy says he is still a Democrat, he says he thinks government "should be run by businessmen and not politicians." Duffy says he has voted for Democrats and Republicans over the years. He backed President Obama in 2008 but this time he is considering the Republicans — especially Mitt Romney. "I'm still looking into everything, and Romney is a businessman, good businessman," Duffy says. "He's made a lot of money for Massachusetts, but you know, I'm still looking." Carroll Doherty of the Pew Research Center says many baby boomers voted for McGovern in 1972. Baby boomers were McGovern's strongest voting block in a landslide loss that year. "They've moved quite a distance since then," Doherty says. "And just over the past decade an increasing percentage of boomers say that they identify themselves as conservatives and they're taking more conservative views on the role of government." But ask a baby boomer who the best president of his lifetime has been and the top two answers are Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Baby boomers' biggest worry is the economy. Savings and investments have taken a hit, along with the value of their homes. Two-thirds say they expect to delay retirement for financial reasons. And they feel the squeeze between the cost of kids in college and the needs of aging parents. "The whole college education cost is a whole other topic," says Anne Romano, a 60-year-old in Portland. "I mean, along with health care, that's a really hot topic for me." Romano also cares for her elderly mother as well. "I will watch what she does," Romano says. "She doesn't have a lot of money; she has to be very careful and if she needs money I would chip in." Romano says she voted for President Obama and thinks he deserves a second term, even though she is frustrated by the state of the economy. The Pew study shows that older boomers, like Romano, tend to vote more Democratic and younger boomers more Republican. As a group, more than half of all baby boomers today say government should be smaller, and there's a clear trend in that direction. But Doherty adds that it's still not clear. "They favor the Republicans on some key issues," Doherty says. "You know, notably things like the deficit, but they favor the Democrats on Social Security so they're kind of conflicted at this point at a year ahead of the election." As a result, the baby boomers remain very much a swing segment of the electorate. But there has been one constant for the members of this iconic generation, going back to the time of Watergate and Vietnam. They expressed a deep lack of trust in government back then — and that lack of trust persists today.Copyright 2011 National Public Radio. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/. © 2014 WUKY. All rights reserved. | 时政 |
2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/3018 | Massacre Pushes Syria Closer to Civil War - World - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com
Massacre Pushes Syria Closer to Civil War
By John Waage
CBN News Sr. Editor
The killing of innocent children in Syria is forcing world leaders to take a hard line against the regime of President Bashar Assad.
The governments of the U.S., France, Britain, Germany, Spain, Italy, Australia and Canada have expelled Syrian diplomats in the wake of a brutal massacre last Friday.
More than one hundred people were murdered in the community of Houla near the city of Homs. The United Nations claims 49 children and 34 women were included among the dead.
Click play to watch John Waage's report followed by analysis from CBN News Sr. International Correspondent Gary Lane, who's done extensive reports in Syria.
Western leaders are pointing to Assad's government as the culprit in the killings.
U.N. observers arrived in Houla over the weekend, where residents dug a mass grave for the victims. The observers are trying to hold together a failing U.N.-sponsored cease-fire between the Syrian army and opposition forces in the country.
"We have got an agreement from the government, both from in Damascus and locally, to stop any attacks from the government side," Martin Griffith of the U.N. Observer Force explained.
"So, we want to make sure that is understood locally by the government checkpoint, and then we want to make sure that the other side understands that there is a stand-down, a truce, and that they also won't attack," he said.
The Syrian government says the real account of the massacre is buried under what it called a "tsunami of lies." But leaders in Europe and the United States are outraged by the latest killings, and they're putting responsibility on the Assad regime.
"There is not the slightest doubt that there was deliberate government shelling against a civilian neighborhood in these three villages outside Homs," said Sir Mark Lyall Grant from the U.K. Permanent Representative Office to the U.N.
Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., criticized the Obama administration in an interview with Fox News, citing its lack of leadership in dealing with the Syrian atrocities and Assad in the 15 months since the uprising against him began.
"Here we have over a year, and we're now talking about possibly vetting some people," McCain said. "Nearly 10,000 people have died. This is a brutal regime of incredible proportions."
The White House and heads of European governments have been slow to push for Assad's ouster because they didn't want to antagonize Russia, which supports Assad with weapons and financial resources.
But after the latest massacre, even the Russians are on the verge of admitting that the situation in Syria is out of control.
Netanyahu Condemns Syrian Massacre
Syria's Friends, Not Brutality, Keeping Assad in Power
Twin Bombings in Damascus Wreak Havoc Syrian Troops' Shelling Gives way to Uneasy Quiet
No Sign of Compliance in Syria
John Waage
John Waage has covered politics and analyzed elections for CBN News since 1980, including primaries, conventions, and general elections. He also analyzes the convulsive politics of the Middle East. | 时政 |
2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/3033 | Analysts: U.S. will be a factor for years as Iraq remains turbulent By Joe Sterling, CNN An Iraqi soldier monitors traffic in central Baghdad on Tuesday, the official end of the U.S. combat mission in Iraq. STORY HIGHLIGHTSPolitical stability is important for Iraq, analysts agreeThere are similarities between Iraq and South KoreaU.S. troops could stay beyond end of 2011 (CNN) -- The simmering warfare and political instability in Iraq are probably far from over, and U.S. military involvement there could very well last years beyond the end of 2011 -- when all U.S. troops are scheduled to depart the war-torn nation, analysts who study Iraq say. Think-tank analysts who've written about what's next in Iraq after the U.S. combat mission formally ends Tuesday say economic and infrastructure conditions need to be improved. And, they envision a persistent American presence in an Iraq that remains unstable -- despite many improvements in the country's security forces and political culture. While U.S. and Iraqi officials point out that violence there has dropped, the attacks, like the wave of coordinated strikes across Iraq last week, will continue, they say. Video: U.S. combat role comes to an end
Gallery: Newsmakers from the Iraq War
Gallery: Life in Iraq
Video: Iraqis' views on U.S. drawdown
U.S. Armed Forces Activities
"The Iraq War is not over and it is not 'won,' " wrote Anthony Cordesman, who holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "Iraq still faces a serious insurgency, and deep ethnic and sectarian tensions." Analysts say a unified government is key to stability in Iraq and the failure of lawmakers to form a new government after the March 7 national elections could exacerbate violence. Manal Omar, director of Iraq programs of the U.S. Institute of Peace, said the "primary fear" people have with the U.S. combat mission ending is that "political parties will resort to violence to force alliances in power sharing" and "the Iraqi citizens will pay the price." U.S. and Iraqi officials point out that troops could remain past the end of 2011 if the Iraqi government requests a new deployment and both countries agree. Michael O'Hanlon, a Brookings Institution senior fellow who spearheads the organization's Iraq Index, says a full removal of Americans troops by the end of next year would be a tall order. He said "too many sectarian wounds" are "unhealed" and there are "unresolved" disputes -- like the territorial fight between Arabs, Kurds, and Turkomens around Kirkuk. "Pulling all of our remaining troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011, as presently required under a U.S.-Iraqi understanding negotiated by President (George W.) Bush and Prime Minister (Nuri al-) Maliki in late 2008, seems too risky," O'Hanlon wrote in an article in The National Interest. "Our calming presence is useful, as Iraqis themselves agreed in a recent poll by a considerable margin, and there is no military or strategic need to rush for the exits." O'Hanlon also said that any "renegotiation" of the December 31, 2011 date " requires a new Iraqi government -- and there is no sign of one emerging." Noah Feldman, an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former senior adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, wrote a column for the Wall Journal that said "Iraq faces a raft of difficulties if it is to become an effective, self-governing nation, and all of them point to the need for a continuing U.S. role in security and beyond." He noted that the U.S. troop surge blocked setbacks, such as civil war, and that only the United States "can offer a credible guarantee" that the government "is not about to collapse." "This is the reason that many observers, including Ryan Crocker, former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, expect Iraq's elected leaders to ask for troops past the planned pull-out target," Feldman wrote. He said Iraq's politicians have the most to lose from the pullout. "The cost to Iraqi politicians of asking the former occupier to stick around is likely to be offset by the tremendous gains in public confidence associated with a prolonged American commitment -- especially if they ask early in their own election cycle," Feldman said. Feldman said the situation in Iraq is similar to South Korea, where the United States left troops after the 1953 armistice for stability and security. There are nearly 30,000 U.S. troops in South Korea almost 60 years after the end of the Korean War, he said. He said the United States was in South Korea when it "was governed by a succession of military dictators" and into the 1980s as South Korea "blossomed into a free and functioning democracy." "In the coming year, the Iraqi government (once it is formed) is likely to ask the U.S. to keep some significant number of troops in the country after the pullout date of summer 2011. If so, President Obama may well agree, because it is just about the only way to avoid a resurgence of civil war and continue Iraq's tenuous progress toward consolidating democracy," Feldman said. Iraq is known for its oil wealth and the U.S. Department of Energy projects oil production will expand into 2035. But Cordesman said that despite the oil industry, Iraq's "economy is one of the poorest in the world in terms of real per capita income." "It is the second year of a budget crisis that has force it to devote most state funds to paying salaries and maintaining employment at the cost of both development and creating effective security forces," Cordesman said. The 30 years or so of conflict in Iraq has taken its toll, Cordesman said, and "it will be years before Iraq can overcome" their effect. "Moreover, the bulk of a massive international aid effort has either been wasted or consumed in dealing with the insurgency, and aid is phasing down to critically low levels at a time Iraq lacks both the funds and capability to replace aid or even take transfer of many aid projects." Rachel Schneller, a U.S. Foreign Service officer who is now a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, in an essay for Chatham House, cautions any United States withdrawal from Iraq must be responsible and added that "getting the country electrified" would be a key stride. "Nothing would stabilize Iraq more than reliable electricity, which would allow business growth and employment of those who might otherwise join militias to support their families," she wrote. Cordesman said Iraq in the future can be an asset in the region. It can help limit Iran's influence, divide Iran and Syria, give Turkey a "key alternative to economic involvement with Iran, and "play a key role in securing the entire Gulf." "The fact remains, however, that Iraq is a truly vital national security interest of the United States, and of all its friends and allies," he said.
Part of complete coverage onIraqiReport: Share your story If you or a loved one have previously served or are currently serving in Iraq, please share your story. Tell us how the war has affected your life Past: Timeline The start of the war, Saddam Hussein's capture, Falluja and more -- check out key events of the Iraq warPresent: Where are they now? Jessica Lynch, Donald Rumsfeld, Ayad Allawi. Look back at past newsmakers and where they are todayFuture: What's next Analysts envision a persistent American presence in an Iraq that remains unstablePhotos: Inside Iraq See images of the country today, more than seven years after the start of the warHome and Away See the stories behind the coalition casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan NewsPulse | 时政 |
2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/3040 | WHAT OTHERS SAY: How reasonable voices are obliterated by extremists in politics
Sunday, November 27, 2011 | 6:36 p.m. CST
Perhaps tired of Republican presidential politics getting all the laughs, a pair of Democratic pollsters last week repeated a suggestion that President Barack Obama should drop his bid for re-election in favor of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Pollsters Patrick Caddell, who worked for President Jimmy Carter, and Doug Schoen, who worked for the centrist version of President Bill Clinton who emerged in 1996, argued that the only way for Mr. Obama to win in 2012 would be for him to wage a campaign so negative that it "would make it almost impossible for him to govern, not only during the campaign, but throughout a second term."
Instead, they argued Monday on the op-ed page of The Wall Street Journal, Democrats should turn to Ms. Clinton, "the only leader capable of uniting the country around a bipartisan economic and foreign policy."
Right. Hillary Clinton. Not a divisive figure at all.
By the time next year's Thanksgiving turkey is carved, America will know its next president. Barring tragedy, it won't be Ms. Clinton. Alas, Mr. Caddell and Mr. Schoen, both now far removed from the limelight, will have to stay there.
That they should feel compelled to reprise an argument they made a year ago in The Washington Post speaks to the sad Democratic tradition of forming its firing squads in a circle. This is a party that seems congenitally unable to be content.
Yes, Mr. Obama's poll numbers are down. But his Republican challenger has yet to emerge, much less go through the crucible of an election campaign. And whoever emerges will have to persuade the American people that they should rehire the contracting firm that four years ago burned their house to the ground.
It used to be the Republicans who forever looked backward. Now it is the Democrats who idealize their past presidents (or first ladies) and present incumbents with unrealistic expectations.
The progressive journalist Jonathan Chait, formerly of The New Republic, makes that point in the Nov. 20 edition of New York magazine in the article "When did liberals become so unreasonable?"
"For almost all of the past 60 years, liberals have been in a near-constant emotional state of despair, punctuated only by brief moments of euphoria and occasional rage," Mr. Chait writes.
"When they're not in charge, things are so bleak they threaten to move to Canada; it's almost more excruciating when they do win elections, and their presidents fail in essentially the same ways: He is too accommodating, too timid, too unwilling or unable to inspire the populace."
Conservatives, he suggests, "are at least as absolutist as liberals in the ideological demands they make upon their leaders," but "are far less likely to turn against their president altogether. They assail the compromise but continue to praise the man."
Mr. Chait's article is paired with a similar cri-de-coeur by David Frum, a former speechwriter ("axis of evil") for President George W. Bush. Mr. Frum's complaint is that there's no place for moderation in his party.
"Rather than workable solutions, my party is offering low taxes for the currently rich and high spending for the currently old, to be followed by who-knows-what and who-the-hell-cares," Mr. Frum laments. "This isn't conservatism; it's a going-out-of-business sale for the baby-boom generation."
Unless reasonable voices on the right and left are heard, this is going to be a very long year.
Copyright St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Reprinted with permission. | 时政 |
2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/3155 | The prime minister will decide Israel News | Haaretz
The prime minister will decide Unparalleled power that has been given to the PM gives him the opportunity to be a a path breaker who cuts the Gordian knot of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in one fell swoop.
Reuven Pedatzur |
Sep. 1, 2010 | 12:53 AM
Benjamin Netanyahu, Barack Obama and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas before a meeting in New York in 2009.
Photo by AP
The government has no policies, and its ministers have no idea what the prime minister will tell his Palestinian dialogue partners in Washington. The phrase "the policy of the Israeli government" is a fiction. The only policy is that of the prime minister.
It is Benjamin Netanyahu alone who will, in far-away Washington, decide the future of the country. His ministers will, like the rest of us, find out the details only after he presents his political doctrine to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and other PA officials.
It appears that the power concentrated in the hands of Israel's prime minister has no corollary anywhere else in the democratic world. The media debate on the future of the coalition creates the impression that Netanyahu is a weak premier, subject to pressure from the right and the left; in practice, however, he enjoys full decision-making autonomy on issues of genuine strategic importance.
What was on the cabinet's agenda just before Netanyahu headed to Washington yesterday? Integrating mothers into the workforce and appointing a consul in Boston. The members of the cabinet did not even try to find out the contours of the map Netanyahu was taking with him to Washington or those of the agreement he wants to reach. In the same spirit, the prime minister decided on Monday to cancel a planned meeting of the forum of seven, in which the senior ministers were supposed to discuss his trip to Washington. There's no point in holding the meeting, he said, as it would in any case just be for show.
Thus, it has come to pass that the country's senior ministers, who are supposedly influencing policy, or are at least be involved in shaping it, are left guessing about Netanyahu's intentions. Industry, Trade and Labor Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer is hoping Netanyahu plans to reach a deal involving some concessions on Israel's part. He "believes," as he puts it, he know what Netanyahu thinks. Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom says the prime minister must update the ministers on the peace process in a formal meeting. Neither Ben-Eliezer nor Shalom nor any of their colleagues around the cabinet table has the slightest clue as to how Israel's borders will look if Netanyahu gets his way.
The problem is not just that the cabinet members have no idea what the prime minister is planning, but that they willingly accept this state of affairs. And when, in an effort to exert some influence on Netanyahu before he left the country, Minority Affairs Minister Avishay Braverman demanded a clear statement from Labor describing its position on peace talks, Ben-Eliezer said: "This isn't the right time to threaten Netanyahu with quitting the coalition. Now is the time we should be standing behind him, during negotiations."
Standing behind the prime minister is important and fitting, but only on condition that those doing the supporting know what exactly it is that they're supporting.
Netanyahu didn't come up with this flawed process. His predecessors also enjoyed the power that comes with the autonomy their ministers granted them. Some took advantage of this to make critical decisions on their own and brought them to the cabinet for approval afterward. That's what happened when Ehud Barak decided to withdraw from Lebanon and when Ariel Sharon decided to pull out of the Gaza Strip. In both cases, the cabinet was notified about the new policy after it was formulated and brought to the ministers for approval.
There's no doubt this a serious flaw in Israel's policy-making process on issues that affect our future. All the same, the unparalleled power that has been given to the prime minister gives him the opportunity to be a reformist, a path breaker who cuts the Gordian knot of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in one fell swoop.
Stop being shocked by anti-Arab singer Amir Benayoun
By Rogel Alpher
Netanyahu's 'view from here' By Nehemia Shtrasler
A racist can't be chief rabbi? In Israel? By B. Michael
Don't save Netanyahu, topple him By Sefi Rachlevsky | 时政 |
2014-52/4410/en_head.json.gz/3212 | The last two and a half years at the Kenya Mission to the United Nations have been
exceptionally exciting and highly rewarding. The nature of the work at the Kenya
Mission to the United Nations is not only highly varied and fast moving but exceptionally
Sadly most of what we do is not known nor truly understood back home in Kenya or
even among the Kenyan diaspora. The nature of the work, it's complexity and it's
variety makes it difficult to communicate it to Kenyans and is therefore usually
understood mostly by the cognoscenti of multilateral affairs.
Sadly our media, both print and electronic, have yet to evolve the extensive skills
needed to process the variety of information and outcomes from UN debates and conferences
for public communication and consumption.
Nonetheless, the nature of the work that we deal with, whether it has to do with
international security, public health, education, economic development, human rights,
women's and children's affairs, the law of the sea or the environment etc, is of
seminal importance not only to Kenya or Africa but also to the entire world.
Multilateralism is fascinating. The challenge of dealing with 193 nations, multiple
interlocutors, a cluster of international organizations and institutions, can be
exceptionally challenging but also enormously satisfying.
It takes exceptional skills and dedication to fully leverage the opportunities for
a country like Kenya that exists in a place like the United Nations. The Kenya Mission
to the United Nations, despite its small size and limited staff cohort, has proven
itself time and again to be up to the task and to have the skills and the dedication
to fully engage in the interest of the Kenyan Republic and it's people. Having said
this it does remain a real challenge for the mission to continue to play its full
role mostly owing to limited human and financial resources.
Over the past twenty-four to thirty-two months the Kenya Mission to the United Nations
has engaged in the following critical and internationally important areas of action.
A leading role for Africa in the build up to and the participation in the Rio+20
Conference on Sustainable Development. The outcomes of which will have intergenerational
implications for global development in the economic social and environmental sphere.
The reform of UNEP and UN habitat including the transformation of the governing
council of UNEP into the United Nations Environmental Assembly, a truly historic
achievement. The international negotiations on the Arms Trade Treaty that was completed and brought
up for signature, Kenya was a Co-author. A leading role in UN children’s fund (UNICEF)
as the Vice President of the UNICEF Board, a leading role in South South Corporation
as the President. A leading role as President of the International Conference on People Living with
Disabilities. A key role as Member of the Working Group of Assembly of State Party
to the International Criminal Court and it's related work. A leading African country
in the United Nations Security Council Reform Process as a Member of the Committee
of 10 Countries charged with UNSC reform responsibilities and successfully negotiated
and appointed to take up the leadership and Presidency of United Nations Forest
Fund. The Mission has also led negotiations on a number of important resolutions including
resolutions on the International Conference on Population and Development, ICPD
and resolutions on humanitarian affairs. Played a leadership role in negotiating
the United Nations Peacekeeping Budget for two years in a row as well as being Africa's
Representative on the Senior Advisory Group Strategic Committee dealing with Peacekeeping
Reform. The Mission has also been given important responsibilities, where the Ambassador
has been elected as the Vice President of the General Assembly and most recently
as the Co-chair of the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development of the General
Assembly, the most important follow up action on the platform of the Rio+20 Conference.
These are just some of the important and internationally highly regarded actions
and leadership positions that the Mission has taken on and that I as Ambassador
have provided leadership in.
I am proud of my country's ability to provide us with the wherewithal and the trust
to take on these internationally important responsibilities. I am equally proud
of the team that I have, small as it is, and its ability to respond to the challenges
and the global responsibilities that have been placed on it by our success and the
recognition of our peers.
Ambassador Macharia Kamau
Ambassador/Permanent Representative, Kenya Mission to the United Nations – New York
Previous Assignment
Ambassador Plenipotentiary and Extraordinary and Permanent Representative to United Nations Office Nairobi.
Triple Accreditation
Kenya Permanent Mission to United Nations Office Nairobi
Kenya Permanent Mission to United Nations Environment Programme
Kenya Permanent Mission to United Nations HABITAT
In addition to his diplomatic assignments, Ambassador Macharia Kamau was International Consultant to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the United Nations AIDS. He has vast experience at the United Nations where he served for over twenty five years mostly in senior management positions at the UNDP, UNICEF and UNTAG. During this period, he was deployed in various countries in Eastern and Southern Africa as well as the Caribbean.
VOL 1/ ISSUE 1/ 2013
To be a leader in pursuit of Kenya’s interests within the multilateral framework
of the United Nations.
To project, promote and protect the interests and values of the Kenyan people through
effective diplomatic engagement.
Word From the Deputy Permanent Representative | 时政 |
2014-41/1934/en_head.json.gz/15235 | Israel-News Today
Iran�s ex-president calls for talks with U.S. (WASHINGTON TIMES) By Abraham Rabinovich JERUSALEM, ISRAEL 04/06/12)
Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/5/iran-ex-president-calls-for-talks-with-us/
WASHINGTON TIMES Articles-Index-Top
JERUSALEM � A former president of Iran is calling on the Islamic republic to negotiate with the United States to avoid �an adventurous policy� involving Iranian-backed anti-Israel proxies in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani also says Iran has no intention to produce an atomic bomb. �We sincerely believe that there is no need for nuclear weapons in the region,� he said in an interview published in the Iranian International Studies Journal.Widely regarded as a moderate in Iranian politics, Mr. Rafsanjani was president from 1989 to 1997. He resigned last year from the Council of Experts that advises the supreme leader amid disagreements with the hard-line government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.In his interview, which was translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute, Mr. Rafsanjani said he tried in vain to persuade Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who founded Iran�s theocratic regime in 1979, to negotiate with Washington.�I wrote him a letter by hand and gave it to him myself because I didn�t want anyone else to read it. I wrote that refraining from talks or ties with America could not go on forever. America is one of the stronger powers in the world,� he said.Mr. Rafsanjani said he noted in his letter that Tehran was talking with other countries such as China and the Soviet Union. �Negotiating doesn�t mean that we are capitulating to them,� he said.In a response to the interview, Hossein Shariatmadari, editor of the pro-government newspaper Kayhan, said Khomeini opposed dialogue with the U.S. �because Iran�s primary conflict has been and remains with America.�Iran�s semi-official Fars News Agency, which is close to the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, said that Mr. Rafsanjani�s call for a dialogue with Washington contradicts senior officials who have said that talks with the U.S. would produce no results.The Iranian militia also noted that his call comes amid U.S. and Western sanctions against the regime�s nuclear program and heightened anti-American sentiments in the Middle East.Mr. Rafsanjani said Iran�s national interests demand good relations with the U.S., which would help prevent �an adventurous policy� involving the Iranian-backed militant groups Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon.Mr. Rafsanjani had been considered Khomeini�s principal aide and held a series of top posts over the years.However, his public criticism of current Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameni and his support of the opposition during the last presidential election have put him at odds with the regime.Pro-government newspapers expressed doubt that his remarks will influence the regime regarding upcoming negotiations with the West. (� 2012 The Washington Times, LLC. 04/06/12) | 时政 |
2014-41/1934/en_head.json.gz/15638 | 244 Hodgson to Department of External Affairs
Cablegram UN722 NEW YORK, 4 August 1947, 10.17 p.m.MOST IMMEDIATE SECRET
Security 425.
Your 425. [1]
1. I approached both the President of the Security Council and the Assistant Secretary-General and urged that United Nations official should be flown to Java to observe action taken to comply with the Resolution and to keep the Council informed. However, neither El Khouri nor Kerno was prepared to take such action without the express authority of the Council.
2. The President indicated, however, that when the Council met he would announce the replies received from the Netherlands and Indonesian Governments [2] and would give me opportunity to make a statement. This question was not on today's agenda and I had to speak on its adoption. Belgium immediately said there should be no discussion of the question unless representative were present. The President said his statement was confined to information and he hoped mine would be also. However, we shall continue to press the question and it is clear that the Council is still seized with the matter and any member can raise it at any time.
3. I gave the Council the facts given by Ballard on delay by Netherlands authorities in Batavia in transmitting communication containing the Council Resolution. [3] I then suggested that in order to keep the Council informed, to assist with the settlement and to ensure that decision of the Council was given effect to, the President should be authorized to consult with the Secretary- General with a view to despatch of a high United Nations official to the spot.
4. President noted suggestion and said he would discuss it with Acting Secretary-General.
5. It is probable that the Indonesian question will be on the agenda again for Wednesday when the various replies from the two parties will be before the Council. It is understood that Romulo will ask to participate in order to make a proposal that the Council should appoint a board of three to five arbitrators. We shall take the opportunity of elaborating more fully the proposals we advanced this afternoon.
2 See Documents 240 and 245.
3 See Document 233.
[AA:A1838/274, 854/10/4, ii] | 时政 |
2014-41/1934/en_head.json.gz/15738 | FLANK DOCUMENT AGREEMENT TO THE CFE TREATY (Senate - May 14, 1997) [Page: S4473]
Mr. LOTT...I am glad I was able to come to the floor, Madam President, and listen to this exchange. I always enjoy learning from the exchanges involving the senior Senators, like the Senators from West Virginia and North Carolina and Delaware. I wish all Members had been here for the last hour and heard this debate.
I do want to take just a few minutes, as we get to the close of debate, to speak on the Chemical Forces in Europe flank agreement or resolution of ratification because I think it is very important. I wish we did have more time to talk about all of its ramifications, but I know the chairman and the ranking member have gone over the importance of this treaty earlier today.
Madam President, we have an important treaty before us today modifying the 1990 Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Agreement [CFE]. The Flank Document adjusts the CFE boundaries to reflect the collapse of the Soviet Empire, adds reporting requirements, and increases inspection provisions.
Negotiations to modify the CFE Treaty began in 1995, because Russia threatened to violate the flank limits in the original treaty. The precedent of modifying a treaty to accommodate violations by a major signatory concerned many of us. We have also been concerned about how Russia intends to use the Flank Agreement to pressure countries on its borders--former Republics of the Soviet Union. Our concerns were dramatically heightened by the classified side agreement the administration reached to further accommodate Russian demands. This side agreement is available for all Senators to review in room S-407 of the Capitol.
The concerns about the CFE Flank Agreement are shared by a number of states which have been subjected to Russian intimidation, pressure and subversion. States with Russian troops on their soil without their consent--Moldova, Ukraine, and Georgia--have rightly expressed concern that the Flank Agreement must not undermine their sovereign right to demand withdrawal of those Russian forces. A fourth country, Azerbaijan, has been subject to Russian-sponsored coups and assassination attempts. They have been reluctant to approve the Flank Agreement without adequate assurances.
The resolution of ratification before the Senate today addresses these concerns. The resolution includes a number of binding conditions which make clear to all CFE parties that no additional rights for Russian military deployments outside Russian borders are granted.
The resolution ensures that United States diplomacy will not be engaged on the side of Russia but on the side of the victims of Russian policies. In addition, the 16 members of NATO issued a statement last week affirming that no additional rights are granted to Russia by the Flank Agreement. This statement was a direct result of the concerns expressed by other CFE parties and by the Senate.
The resolution directly addresses the administration's side agreement in condition 3 which limits United States diplomatic activities to ensuring the rights of the smaller countries on Russia's borders. This resolution ensures the United States will not tacitly support Russian policies that have undermined the independence of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and Azerbaijan. Finally, the resolution requires detailed compliance reports and lays out a road map for dealing with noncompliance in the future.
The resolution of ratification also addresses important issues of Senate prerogatives. It clarifies that the Byrd-Biden condition, added to the INF Treaty in 1988, does not allow the administration to avoid Senate advice and consent on treaty modifications or amendments. The resolution addresses the issue of multilateralizing the 1972 ABM Treaty in condition 9. The administration has raised objections to this provision as they have to many previous efforts to assert Senate prerogatives on this point. This should be an institutional position--not a partisan issue.
For more than 3 years, Congress has been on the record expressing serious misgivings about the administration plan to alter the ABM Treaty by adding new signatories. Section 232
of the 1994 defense authorization bill states the issue clearly: `The United States shall not be bound by any international agreement entered into by the President that would substantively modify the ABM Treaty unless the agreement is entered pursuant to the treaty making power of the President under the Constitution.'
Efforts to address the multi- lateralization issue since then have resulted in filibusters and veto threats. It should not surprise anyone that the Senate selected this resolution of ratification to address the issue--just as Senators Byrd and Biden selected the resolution of ratification for the INF Treaty to address an ABM Treaty issue 9 years ago.
Many of my colleagues are familiar with the issue of ABM multi- lateralization. Despite the often arcane legal arguments, the issue is not complicated. The Senate gave its advice and consent to the 1972 ABM Treaty as a bilateral agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union. The administration has proposed adding as many as four new signatories to the treaty and has negotiated limited treaty rights for those new signatories. The administration's proposal would define Russia's national territory to include these countries for purposes of the ABM Treaty. The administration's proposal would essentially define military equipment of these countries as belonging to Russia for purposes of the ABM Treaty. The administration's proposal would add new countries to the ABM Treaty but not grant them rights allowed the original signatories. This would mean that countries would have the power to block future U.S. amendments to the ABM Treaty--even though the new signatories would not have the same rights and obligations as the United States. The administration's proposed multilateralization would only address some of the military equipment covered under the original ABM Treaty--leaving a radar in Latvia, for example, outside the scope of the new treaty. Under the administration's proposal, the vast majority of states independent which succeeded the Soviet Union would be free to develop and deploy unlimited missile defenses--a dramatic change from the situation in 1972 when the deployment of missile defenses on these territories was strictly limited by the ABM Treaty.
In part and in total, these are clearly substantive modifications which require--under U.S. law--Senate advice and consent. Multilateralization would alter the object and purpose of the ABM Treaty as approved by the Senate in 1972. Multilateralization, therefore, must be subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.
The administration argues that it has the sole power to determine questions of succession. But that is not true. The Congressional Research Service opinion, quoted widely in this debate, recognizes that `International law regarding successor States and their treaty obligations * * * remains unsettled.' It also notes that `international law does not provide certain guidance on the question of whether the republics formed on the territory of the former U.S.S.R. have succeeded to the rights and obligations of the ABM Treaty' and that `a multi- lateralization agreement could include matters that would alter the substance of the ABM Treaty and require Senate advice and consent.' It is my understanding that this opinion was prepared a year ago by a lawyer who has not even seen the text of the proposed agreement.
The administration's position does not recognize the arms control precedents followed in the last decade. Arms control treaties are different from treaties on fisheries, taxes, or cultural affairs. START I was concluded with the Soviet Union but entered into force only after the Senate gave its advice and consent to the Lisbon Protocol apportioning the nuclear forces of the former Soviet Union among successor States. The Bush administration did not argue that Ukrainian SS-19 missiles were the property of Russia. Yet, the Clinton administration is
essentially arguing that Ukrainian phased-array radars are Russian under the proposed ABM multilateralization agreement. The question of successor state obligations under the CFE Treaty was explicitly recognized by the Senate when we gave our advice and consent to that treaty. During our consideration, a condition was included in the resolution of ratification which specified procedures for the accession of new States Parties to the CFE Treaty. On the issue of ABM multilateralization, Congress has specifically legislated on our right to review the agreement. To my knowledge, that has not happened on any other succession issue. Clearly, ABM multilateralization is very different from routine succession questions which have been decided by the executive branch alone.
Madam President, I agree with the administration on one important point. This is a constitutional issue. The White House has taken one position until today, and now the Senate has definitively taken another. Last January, I asked President Clinton to agree to submit three treaties for our consideration. the President has agreed to submit the ABM Demarcation agreement and the CFE Flank Agreement, which is before the Senate today. After he refused to submit ABM multilateralization, I said publicly that I would continue to press for the Senate prerogatives--because the Constitution, the precedents and the law are on our side. We do not prejudge the outcome of our consideration of ABM multilateralization. All we require is that the administration submit the agreement to the Senate. Yes, that requires building a consensus that may not exist today but such a consensus is necessary for a truly bipartisan national security policy. That is the issue before the Senate today.
Late last week, the administration recognized the Senate's desire to review ABM multilateralization. They proposed replacing the certification in condition 9 with nonbinding `sense of the Senate' language. In exchange, Secretary Albright offered to send a letter assuring us that we could address multilateralization in an indirect way--as part of a reference in the ABM demarcation agreement. But this offer was logically inconsistent. It asked the Senate to simply express our view about a right to provide advice and consent to multilateralization--and then accept a letter that explicitly denied that right. Adding new parties to the ABM Treaty is a fundamentally different issue from the proposed demarcation limits on theater defense systems. The administration's offer would allow multilateralization regardless of Senate action on the demarcation agreement. Our position is simple: We want to review multilateralization through the `front door' on its own merits--not through the `back door' as a reference in a substantively different agreement.
When the administration agreed to submit the CFE Flank Agreement for our advice and consent, we were asked to act by the entry into force deadline of May 15. We will act today even though the treaty was not submitted to the Senate until April 7--3 months after my request. We will act today even though we have a very full agenda--including comp time/flex time, IDEA, partial birth abortion and the budget resolution. We will fulfill our constitutional duty, we will address our concerns about policy toward Russia, and we will address the important issue of Senate prerogatives.
I urge my colleagues to support the entire resolution of ratification reported by the Foreign Relations Committee--including condition 9 on ABM multilateralization.
Madam President, I want to thank many Senators who have worked very hard and for quite some time on this treaty and on the ABM condition.
I particularly would like to thank Chairman Helms, Senator Biden, Senator Gordon Smith, and their staffs for all the work they did to get this resolution before the Senate today. Also, I would like to thank Senators who helped in insisting on Senate prerogatives--Senator Warner and Senator McCain, Senator Smith, Senator Kyl, Senator Shelby, Senator Lugar, and Senator Hagel. A number of Senators on the committee and some not on the committee have been very much involved in this process. I commend them all.
Senators have had concerns about how and why this agreement was negotiated, and we had concerns about a side deal the administration made with the Russians concerning the allocation of equipment under the treaty.
The Senate has addressed these concerns decisively in this resolution of ratification. The resolution places strict limits on the administration's flank policy. It ensures that we will be on the side of the victims of Russian intimidation and that the United States will stand up for the independence of States on Russia's borders.
Most important, this resolution addresses a critical issue of Senate prerogative, our right to review the proposed modifications to the 1972 ABM Treaty. It was a decade ago that another ABM Treaty issue was brought in this body. That debate over interpretations of the ABM Treaty was finally resolved in the resolution of ratification for the INF Treaty in 1988.
Today, we are resolving the debate over multilateralization of the ABM Treaty in this resolution of ratification. For more than 3 years now Congress and the executive branch have discussed back and forth the appropriate Senate rule in reviewing the administration's plan to add new countries to the ABM Treaty.
Condition 9 requires the President to submit any multilateralization agreement to the Senate for our advice and consent. It does not force action here. It just says we should have that opportunity. We should be able to exercise that prerogative to review these changes. It ensures we will have a full opportunity to look at the merits of multilateralization in the future. I believe the Constitution and legal precedence are in our favor.
Today, the Senate will act on the Conventional Forces in the Europe [CFE] Flank Agreement in time to meet the May 15 deadline. In spite of the limited time we had to consider the agreement and the very full schedule that we have had on the floor, we are meeting that deadline.
I did have the opportunity to discuss this issue with our very distinguished Secretary of State yesterday, and we discussed the importance of this CFE Flank Agreement. Also, we talked about how we could properly and appropriately address our concerns about multilaterilization. I suspect that she probably had something to do with the decision to go forward with it in this form, and I thank her for that, and the members of the committee for allowing it to go forward in this form. | 时政 |
2014-41/1934/en_head.json.gz/15849 | Jewish Peace News (JPN) is an information service that circulates news clippings, analyses, editorial commentary, and action alerts concerning the Israel / Palestine conflict. We work to promote a just resolution to the conflict; we believe that the cause of both peace and justice will be served when Israel ends the occupation, withdrawing completely from the Palestinian territories and finding a solution to the Palestinian refugee crisis within the framework of international law.
Rami Elhanan: "I am Bassam Aramin" and more
In these pieces below, two bereaved fathers reflect on their losses. Rami Elhanan is the father of Elik Elhanan, an activist with Combatants for Peace, and Smadar Elhanan, a young woman killed in a suicide bombing in Jerusalem ten years ago. Rami is active with the Bereaved Families Forum which, like Combatants for Peace, is made up of Israelis and Palestinians together working for an end to the bloodshed. In Rami’s essay, just published, he talks about the trip he made last week to Warsaw, a trip that Bassam Aramin, whose daughter Abir was killed last year by Israeli troops, was prevented from making.Rami’s essay highlights the presence and absence of Palestinian partners, and specifically of one partner, Bassam. Bassam and his family are so present - present in shared bereavement, friendship, and struggle to transform their communities and end the violence. And yet Bassam and his family and Palestinians in general are so absent: absent from the international forums to which they’re invited to speak but are denied the necessary visas that would allow them to attend, and thus absent in their own voices, and absent as victims and survivors and partners for justice and peace. This absence is especially stark in the official speech of the Israeli government, for whom Palestinians are present almost only as terrorists or, at least, as responsible for their own suffering and deaths. Indeed, in keeping with that discourse, the Israeli army suggested that Abir Aramin, who died from a bullet in the back of her skull, was responsible for her own death.Rami, Bassam and the other members of their groups are guiding lights for work for justice and against the ongoing oppression, violence and suffering. They bestow upon any of us great gifts: their dedication and insight, which suggest immense emotional and psychic labor they must do to live with their heartbreak and take up the public mantle of struggle for peace. And their work with the Bereaved Families Forum (http://www.theparentscircle.com/), and Combatants for Peace (http://combatantsforpeace.org/) is a reminder of the great power people can generate when coming together to organize for change.Included in this post are:1) Rami Elhanan’s essay about his trip to Warsaw last week, published by Search for Common Ground (www.commongroundnews.org)2) Bassam Aramin’s op-ed about Abir’s death, from February 2007, published originally in The Forward and reprinted by Search for Common Ground.3) An email from The Rebuilding Alliance (http://www.rebuildingalliance.org/) with two pieces of good news: the U.S. State Department’s 2007 Country Report for Israel and the Occupied Territories includes a paragraph about Abir’s death; and Abir’s Garden, playground built by Combatants for Peace in memory of Abir, opened last month in Anata, Abir’s hometown.4) On March 10th, Terry Gross interviewed Bassam Aramin and Zohar Shapira (also of Combatants for Peace) on the radio program “Fresh Air.” Here is the link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88036198Sarah Anne Minkin********I am Bassam AraminRami Elhananhttp://www.commongroundnews.org/article.php?id=22853&lan=en&sid=0&sp=0&isNew=1JERUSALEM—Last Thursday evening, my family was invited to dinner at the home of Bassam Aramin, in Anata.Anata is a twenty minute ride from Motza, twenty light years away from Jerusalem.We ate a mountain of maqloube with almonds and yogurt. Bassam told us about his meeting with the actor Shlomo Wizcinski who is slated to play Bassam in a new play. And my wife gave his wife, Salwa, a gift: a silver pendant with the name of her daughter Abir, may she rest in peace, made by a Jerusalem silversmith.We laughed. It was fun. It was emotional.And then, on the television screen, we saw the images of the attack on the Jerusalem Merkaz Harav school.And again a cold hand seizes your heart, and again the blood freezes in your veins, again that sword twists inside you, knowing again there will be no rest until that blood is avenged. On the side of the screen, a news ticker of stark updates from Gaza: eight dead in one hour.And beside the television, Salwa is bitter with tears for the mothers of the dead.It was hard. Truly hard."Alright," said Bassam when we parted. "At least we'll see each other in Warsaw on Sunday…"The two of use were invited by Warsaw television and HBO for the premier of a new documentary about the Israeli-Palestinian bereaved families organization, Parents Circle-Families Forum. I was glad. I knew that together we would be able to pass on a message of hope to people who, for the most part, had not the faintest idea about the conflict. I knew that by virtue of our shared grief people would listen to us—and perhaps even talk about peace.I was naïve. I completely forgot that the average Palestinian couldn't just get up one morning, like most free men, and travel to wherever he pleases. Despite a barrage of telephone calls, scores of angry emails, pleas and shouting, Bassam stayed at home without a visa.And thus I find myself Monday evening at the Polish National Theater in Warsaw, alone, in front of a curious Polish audience, two ambassadors, Israeli and Palestinian, and an empty chair—Bassam's chair.The film begins. Deathly silence. Heartbreaking stories of unbearable human anguish, without political demands, without attempts to quantify suffering. Stories of bereavement and futile attempts to give even a little meaning to the incredible, needless loss each family experienced. An unsure outreaching of a hand to the other side, a hug, reconciliation, and the shade of a smile, a bud of hope. Men and women, faces lined with suffering, in extreme close-up, telling and telling. A sigh can be heard from the audience in the dark hall, and perhaps tears falling—the atmosphere is heavy and onerous.As the screening ends, the Israeli ambassador fidgets in his seat, his body language communicating impatience and blatant aggression. "Count to ten!" shouts an Israeli from the audience, but it's already too late.He stands and takes the single microphone, and everyone, including the Palestinian ambassador, sits admonished like disobedient children, listening to the words of His Lordship. And he explains, his Honor, that he had had misgivings and hesitancies about appearing at the evening's event after what happened in Jerusalem on Thursday, but out of respect for the bereaved families he had decided to come. And he went on to say that Israel would be resolute in its fight against terror, without compromise. And that there is no comparing the pain of someone who was hurt by terror with that of someone who was hurt as a result of others acting in self-defense…that Israeli children don't go blow themselves up in the market in Gaza, and…And then someone from the audience yells at him that Israel sends tanks and fighter planes to Gaza, that the Israeli occupation is also a form of terrorism. Immediately the same ugly argument restarts, with His Excellency affirming that everyone has a right to their opinion—meanwhile his press agent has no idea where to bury himself from embarrassment, in front of his astonished Polish hosts. We too, myself and my son, cast our eyes downwards in shame at this strange behavior, this bombastic performance of our representative in Warsaw.That same morning, across from the remains of the Warsaw ghetto wall, I had asked myself how I, as a Jew, as an Israeli and as a human, could express my feelings about Bassam's loss. Then, I was not able to come to any conclusion. And now, in a split-second decision, I said to those assembled at the screening, "I—am Bassam Aramin! I represent here the missing character of this brave and noble combatant for peace."I told them that the fact that Palestinians are missing from nearly every international forum that speaks about the conflict is a source of embarrassment. I said that this absent bereaved father, this ex-prisoner who chose the path of reconciliation and peace, is a powerful voice against the glaring injustice that continues to assert that there is no one to talk with, that there is nothing to talk about, and that we should give up talking.At that point, the ambassador assembled his bodyguards and left in a suitably royal huff. The head Rabbi acknowledged that "there is no pain like your pain," and the panel nodded in agreement out of Polish politeness.We went together to be photographed, and afterwards to drink and then to eat, and while present physically, my soul and in my heart were in Anata. I could not for an instant stop thinking about Bassam and Salwa Aramin. I though to myself that only Bassam, with his nobility and his endless smiles, could have made the ambassador embarrassed and lower his glare in shame; only he could have helped him understand that the attacks in Gaza preceded the ones in Jerusalem, that Sderot preceded Gaza, that the Occupation preceded Jenin, and ad infinitum—an endless cycle of senseless violence…But Bassam was not there with me. I left Warsaw with a bowed head, wounded, shamed and hurting.And that is all there is. It is up to us to move forward… or not.###* Rami Elhanan is the father of Smadar Elhanan, who was killed in a suicide bombing in Jerusalem in September, 1997. He lectures daily for the Israeli-Palestinian bereaved families organization Parents Circle-Families Forum. This article, translated from Hebrew by Miriam Asnes, is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.********A plea for peace from a bereaved Palestinian fatherby Bassam Aramin14 February 2007http://www.commongroundnews.org/article.php?id=20386&lan=en&sid=0&sp=0&isNew=1ANATA, West Bank – I fought with my daughter on the day she was shot.On her way out the door to school, Abir announced, in that way children have of doing, that she would be playing with a friend that afternoon rather than coming straight home to study for an exam scheduled for the next day. She was 10 years old, smart, dedicated to her schoolwork and still a little girl.She wanted to play. I told her to not even think about it.If I could tell her anything now, it would be: Go. Do whatever you want. Play.Because now, she never will. She will never laugh again, never hear her friends calling her name, never feel the love of her family wrapped around her at night like a warm blanket.Abir, the third of my six children, was shot in the head as she left school January 16, caught in an altercation between Israel Border Guard troops and older kids who may or may not have been throwing rocks. She died two days later.I know what the Israeli army has said about the incident, and I know what Abir's older sister Arin saw with her own two eyes: Abir was running away from the troops when she suddenly stopped and fell, and blood splattered onto the ground. An independent autopsy confirms the most likely cause of death: a rubber bullet, through the back of Abir's head. I have that bullet in my house, because poor Arin, watching her sister get shot, picked up the bullet and brought it home. I was not surprised when the Israeli army tried to blame Abir for her own death. First we were told that she was among the rock throwers; then we were told that "something" blew up in her hands - though her hands remained miraculously in tact - before she could toss it at the Border Guard jeep.I was not surprised, but the anguish that such fabrications cause my wife and me is hard to express. Our baby was killed - must her name and innocence be desecrated, as well?It would be easy, so easy, to hate. To seek revenge, find my own rifle, and kill three or four soldiers, in my daughter's name. That's the way Israelis and Palestinians have run things for a long time. Every dead child - and everyone is someone's child - is another reason to keep killing.I know. I used to be part of the cycle. I once spent seven years in an Israeli jail for helping to plan an armed attack against Israeli soldiers. At the time, I was disappointed that none of the soldiers was hurt.But as I served out my sentence, I talked with many of my guards. I learned about the Jewish people's history. I learned about the Holocaust.And eventually I came to understand: On both sides, we have been made instruments of war. On both sides, there is pain, and grieving and endless loss.And the only way to make it stop is to stop it ourselves.Many people came to support and comfort us as Abir lay dying, her small face chalk white, her eyes forever closed. Among those who never left my side were a number of men I have recently come to love as brothers, men who know my past, and who share it. Men who, like me, were trained to hate and to kill, but who now also believe that we must find a way to live with our former enemies.Israeli men. Every one of them, a former combat soldier.These men and I are members of Combatants for Peace. Each of us, 300 Palestinians and Israelis, was once on the front lines of the conflict. We shot, bombed, tortured and killed. We believed it was the only way to serve our people.Now we know this not to be true. We know that to serve our people, we must fight not each other but the hatred between us. We must find a way to share this land each people holds in the depths of its soul, to build two states side by side. Only then will the mourning end.I will not rest until the soldier responsible for my daughter's death is put on trial and made to face what he has done. I will see to it that the world does not forget my daughter, my lovely Abir.But I will not seek vengeance. No, I will continue the work I have undertaken with my Israeli brothers. I will fight with all I have within me to see that Abir's name, Abir's blood, becomes the bridge that finally closes the gap between us, the bridge that allows Israelis and Palestinians to finally, inshallah, live in peace.If I could tell my daughter anything, I would make her that promise. And I would tell her that I love her very, very much.###* Bassam Aramin lives in Anata, just outside of Jerusalem. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.Source: Forward, 9 February 2007, www.forward.com********Dear Friend of the Rebuilding Alliance,This morning, attorney Shamai Leibowitz wrote, "Our efforts to get Abir Aramin's death reported in the State Department's 2007 Country Report for Israel and the Occupied Territories were successful. The report, released yesterday, includes the following paragraph. While not being critical (they never are), the mentioning of the witnesses and the pathologist report implies that there is a cover-up by the authorities."On January 19, 10-year-old Abir Aramin died from a wound to the back of the head inflicted as she was leaving school during clashes between Israeli Border Police and Palestinians. The Jerusalem District Prosecutor closed the investigation July 31 for lack of evidence. On September 25, the Israeli NGO Yesh Din appealed, alleging that according to 14 witnesses and independent Israeli pathologist Dr. Chen Kugel, she was shot with a rubber-coated bullet while running away. At year's end the Prosecutor's Office had not taken further action. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2007/100597.htmThe Aramin family's visit in January to the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor at the U.S. State Department in Washington proved to be key to inclusion of their case in the U.S. State Department's Country Report on Human Rights Practices. We are now in the process of translating the Yesh Din appeal into English and creating a web-based timeline of what happened as a resource for you to present to your elected representatives. We plan to have this available in May, when Bassam Aramin and Combatants for Peace return to the U.S. for a speaking tour and to receive the Courage of Conscience Award from the Peace Abbey (they were nominated by September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows).Why pay attention to this case? The Aramin Family and the whole of Combatants for Peace believe it is vitally important to bring this case to justice, to set precedent so soldiers will stop shooting children, and to demonstrate that justice will prevail over violence. According to B'Tselem, not one of the 884 cases of Palestinian children killed by Israeli soldiers has ever been prosecuted.Here's how you can help::1. First, please take a moment now to send the Aramin family words of encouragement and hope. When the Israeli State Attorney rejected their appeal on the day after Combatants for Peace held the memorial ceremony for Abir at her school (and the opening of playground part of the Abir's Garden project in her memory), the family felt like she was "being killed all over again." E-mail them a picture of beauty, note of condolence, a photo of yourself if you want, or even a short video. Their e-mail address is FortheAraminFamily @ RebuildingAlliance.org2. Please make a donation, large or small, to help pay for film-interviews with the eyewitnesses, the independent pathologist, and the legal team. We'll use the interviews to create a web-based chronology that shows what really happened to Abir. In this time of such danger, grief, and loss, our good work is all but overshadowed by it all. May you draw solace and strength from Zohar Shapira's words, on February 9th, at the opening of the playground named for Abir. Zohar is Combatants for Peace coordinator for the Abir's Garden Project. He wrote that in addition to the 120 adults (mostly former fighters) who attended, there were "dozens of children that were all the time playing and laughing around. The joy [the playground] brought those children was much over my expectations." Now we hear it is crowded with children and parents past dark, the first playground in Anata.Sincerely,Donna Baranski-WalkerExecutive Director of the Rebuilding Alliance................................................................--------Jewish Peace News editors:Joel BeininRacheli GaiRela MazaliSarah Anne MinkinJudith NormanLincoln ShlenskyAlistair Welchman-------Jewish Peace News blog: http://jewishpeacenews.blogspot.com-------Jewish Peace News sends its news clippings only to subscribers. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or manage your subscription, go to www.jewishpeacenews.net
Sarah Anne Minkin
Klein: "Laboratory for a Fortressed World"
The following article by Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (2007), is from the July edition of The Nation, but it has been updated to reflect some of the more recent events in Gaza. Klein's article remains compelling because she argued then, at the height of the 2003-07 economic boom, that the military industrial complex was driving Israel's tremendous economic growth (for the past five years, Israel has had the largest GDP growth of any Western country). Since last summer, the Tel Aviv stock market has essentially mirrored the recent woes of the US economy, but this is a predictable pattern, given that the US is Israel's biggest trading partner.Klein's "theory" (as she calls it) about the source of Israel's tremendous economic growth in the past five years is overly reductive, but there is more than a kernel of truth in her argument. She claims that, contrary to the pronouncements of globalization cheerleaders like the NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman, Israel's economic success cannot be attributed simply to its encouragement of high tech entrepreneurship and basic science. Its success must be understood, rather, as a product of its ability to use the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank as a laboratory for defense industry innovation -- and as a convenient showroom for potential buyers. After 9/11, when "Homeland Security" became an industry unto itself, Israel prospered because its military infrastructure was geared to implementing technological solutions to political and "security" problems. Israel has thus been a major innovator in fields like avionics (aviation communications and navigation) and aerospace technology, high tech surveillance, anti-ballistic weaponry, remote control warfare, physical segregation technology, and so on. Klein's article suggests that the effectiveness of such technologies can be tested at will on the "home-front" -- that is, against Palestinians, who lack anything like a serious deterrent force.Where Klein's theory falls short is that she doesn't adequately account for the fact that many, if not most, young Israeli computer scientists and engineers gain their training in the military, and then go on to start the kind of technology companies that have proliferated wildly in Israel and whose products are much sought after abroad. The entire Israeli hi-tech sector, and not just military technology per se, is thus an outgrowth of Israel's hypermilitarization. The Israeli economy's tech sector grew by 20% in 2006 alone, and Israel is now the foreign country with the second most US stock exchange-listed companies. Klein's point that Israel's military-derived technologies are an economic growth-driver because they can be tested in situ is correct, but it is insufficient for describing the magnitude of the military's tremendous penetration of the country's economy. Palestinians under occupation can indeed be seen as human "guinea pigs" and not just military targets, as Klein claims, but the society's militarization is far more profound than even she suggests.A recent book worth reading on this subject is Le Monde editor Sylvain Cypel's Walled: Israeli Society at an Impasse (2007), which probes the roots and consequences of the "cult of force" that grips the nation.One group resisting the further militarization of Israel is New Profile. You can read about its political platform and work here.Naomi Klein will be the keynote speaker this weekend (March 28-30, 2008) at the kickoff event of a new Canadian organization that aims to become an alternative to the Canadian Jewish Congress. The Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians (ACJC) says in a press release that it will organize as a network of anti-occupation groups dedicated to building real peace and justice in the Middle East. Jewish Voice for Peace and Brit Tzedek v'Shalom are among the international organizations attending the event in Toronto. You can read more about the new organization here.--Lincoln Shlensky-----------------------Laboratory for a Fortressed WorldBy Naomi KleinArticle available online at: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070702/klein[from the July 2, 2007 issue of The Nation]Editor's Note: This article has been updated with additional detail on recent developments in Gaza.Gaza in the hands of Hamas, with masked militants sitting in the president's chair; the West Bank on the edge; Israeli army camps hastily assembled in the Golan Heights; a spy satellite over Iran and Syria; war with Hezbollah a hair trigger away; a scandal-plagued political class facing a total loss of public faith.At a glance, things aren't going well for Israel. But here's a puzzle: Why, in the midst of such chaos and carnage, is the Israeli economy booming like it's 1999, with a roaring stock market and growth rates nearing China's?Thomas Friedman recently offered his theory in the New York Times. Israel "nurtures and rewards individual imagination," and so its people are constantly spawning ingenious high-tech start-ups--no matter what messes their politicians are making. After perusing class projects by students in engineering and computer science at Ben Gurion University, Friedman made one of his famous fake-sense pronouncements: Israel "had discovered oil." This oil, apparently, is located in the minds of Israel's "young innovators and venture capitalists," who are too busy making megadeals with Google to be held back by politics.Here's another theory: Israel's economy isn't booming despite the political chaos that devours the headlines but because of it. This phase of development dates back to the mid-'90s, when Israel was in the vanguard of the information revolution--the most tech-dependent economy in the world. After the dot-com bubble burst in 2000, Israel's economy was devastated, facing its worst year since 1953. Then came 9/11, and suddenly new profit vistas opened up for any company that claimed it could spot terrorists in crowds, seal borders from attack and extract confessions from closed-mouthed prisoners.Within three years, large parts of Israel's tech economy had been radically repurposed. Put in Friedmanesque terms: Israel went from inventing the networking tools of the "flat world" to selling fences to an apartheid planet. Many of the country's most successful entrepreneurs are using Israel's status as a fortressed state, surrounded by furious enemies, as a kind of twenty-four-hour-a-day showroom--a living example of how to enjoy relative safety amid constant war. And the reason Israel is now enjoying supergrowth is that those companies are busily exporting that model to the world.Discussions of Israel's military trade usually focus on the flow of weapons into the country--US-made Caterpillar bulldozers used to destroy homes in the West Bank and British companies supplying parts for F-16s. Overlooked is Israel's huge and expanding export business. Israel now sends $1.2 billion in "defense" products to the United States--up dramatically from $270 million in 1999. In 2006 Israel exported $3.4 billion in defense products--well over a billion more than it received in US military aid. That makes Israel the fourth-largest arms dealer in the world, overtaking Britain.Much of this growth has been in the so-called "homeland security" sector. Before 9/11 homeland security barely existed as an industry. By the end of this year, Israeli exports in the sector will reach $1.2 billion--an increase of 20 percent. The key products and services are high-tech fences, unmanned drones, biometric IDs, video and audio surveillance gear, air passenger profiling and prisoner interrogation systems--precisely the tools and technologies Israel has used to lock in the occupied territories.And that is why the chaos in Gaza and the rest of the region doesn't threaten the bottom line in Tel Aviv, and may actually boost it. Israel has learned to turn endless war into a brand asset, pitching its uprooting, occupation and containment of the Palestinian people as a half-century head start in the "global war on terror."It's no coincidence that the class projects at Ben Gurion that so impressed Friedman have names like "Innovative Covariance Matrix for Point Target Detection in Hyperspectral Images" and "Algorithms for Obstacle Detection and Avoidance." Thirty homeland security companies were launched in Israel in the past six months alone, thanks in large part to lavish government subsidies that have transformed the Israeli army and the country's universities into incubators for security and weapons start-ups (something to keep in mind in the debates about the academic boycott).Next week, the most established of these companies will travel to Europe for the Paris Air Show, the arms industry's equivalent of Fashion Week. One of the Israeli companies exhibiting is Suspect Detection Systems (SDS), which will be showcasing its Cogito1002, a white, sci-fi-looking security kiosk that asks air travelers to answer a series of computer-generated questions, tailored to their country of origin, while they hold their hand on a "biofeedback" sensor. The device reads the body's reactions to the questions, and certain responses flag the passenger as "suspect."Like hundreds of other Israeli security start-ups, SDS boasts that it was founded by veterans of Israel's secret police and that its products were road-tested on Palestinians. Not only has the company tried out the biofeedback terminals at a West Bank checkpoint; it claims the "concept is supported and enhanced by knowledge acquired and assimilated from the analysis of thousands of case studies related to suicide bombers in Israel."Another star of the Paris Air Show will be Israeli defense giant Elbit, which plans to showcase its Hermes 450 and 900 unmanned air vehicles. As recently as May, according to press reports, Israel used the drones on bombing missions in Gaza. Once tested in the territories, they are exported abroad: The Hermes has already been used at the Arizona-Mexico border; Cogito1002 terminals are being auditioned at an unnamed US airport; and Elbit, one of the companies behind Israel's "security barrier," has partnered with Boeing to construct the Department of Homeland Security's $2.5 billion "virtual" border fence around the United States.Since Israel began its policy of sealing off the occupied territories with checkpoints and walls, human rights activists have often compared Gaza and the West Bank to open-air prisons. But in researching the explosion of Israel's homeland security sector, a topic I explore in greater detail in a forthcoming book (The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism), it strikes me that they are something else too: laboratories where the terrifying tools of our security states are being field-tested. Palestinians--whether living in the West Bank or what the Israeli politicians are already calling "Hamasistan"--are no longer just targets. They are guinea pigs.So in a way Friedman is right: Israel has struck oil. But the oil isn't the imagination of its techie entrepreneurs. The oil is the war on terror, the state of constant fear that creates a bottomless global demand for devices that watch, listen, contain and target "suspects." And fear, it turns out, is the ultimate renewable resource.
Lincoln Z. Shlensky
It is important to look at how a nation can generate wide-spread popular support for vicious public policy decisions. In Israel, like in the US, schools are often on the front line of efforts to mold and indoctrinate young people into accepting and affirming the belligerent agenda of the military establishment. The following news item reports a demonstration aimed at resisting this agenda. It took place today in response to a public relations initiative in which 8000 IDF officers entered Israeli high schools, and it aimed to call attention to the way in which the IDF brainwashes schoolchildren. The demonstration was initiated by New Profile, an organization that opposes the militarization of Israeli society. (Members include JPN’s Rela Mazali and Racheli Gai.)The demonstration, accurately enough, involved people dressing up as IDF officers and washing a large model of a brain. This is playful but at the same time incredibly subversive: it goes to the heart of the occupation. Schoolchildren are indoctrinated into a system of military values and interests, and this translates directly into a mindset that supports and enables belligerent policies towards the Palestinians. The mindset privileges men over women, Jews over Palestinians, and military force over political negotiation. As the old saying goes, when you are holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail. For more information about New Profile, see: www.newprofile.orgFor video footage of the washing (in Hebrew, but with some priceless images) see: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3523799,00.html.Judith NormanAbe SeligThe Jerusalem Post, Mar. 24, 2008 http://www.jpost.com [Posted on Occupation Magazine -- http://www.kibush.co.il/]Activists decry IDF presence in schoolsIn a move to protest the IDF’s plan to send thousands of officers into the country’s schools on Wednesday, New Profile - a movement opposed to what they see as ‘brainwashing’ by the army - plans to set up a demonstration in which members dressed as IDF officers will wash a large model of a human brain.The organizers of the planned protest hope to draw attention to the IDF`s nationwide campaign for students and voice their opposition to the `militarization of Israeli society.` The demonstration will take place opposite Tel Aviv`s Cinematheque and next to the city`s Ironi Alef High School, which has one of the highest draft-dodging rates in the country.`I think the fact that military officers have free access to schools exploits the status of soldiers and the status of schools,` said Lotahn Raz, a New Profile activist and organizer of Wednesday`s demonstration, which he called a `street performance.``We want to reach out to students across the country and tell them that they have an opportunity to think differently. We also want to reach out to the larger Israeli public and tell them that the army should not play a part in our schools,` he added.Raz, who did not serve in the army for `ideological` reasons, told The Jerusalem Post that the issue was not about enlistment, but about the army putting pressure on students to enlist.`The army is something that they need to think about,` he said. `It shouldn`t be an automatic decision. But the army coming in and exploiting their position of power is brainwashing.``The army is a hierarchical organization,` Raz continued. `It doesn`t have respect for life, and they have no regard for the equality of women. It encourages following orders instead of individual thinking.`Lt.-Col. Ronen Ofer, one of the officers in charge of the program, said on the Knesset Channel Monday that `we`re not coming to change the educational program or replace teachers. We want to talk to young people for a short amount of time about why the military is important and about certain values that have helped us succeed in the past.`The show`s host asked Ofer if the program had encountered any negative reactions, as `the spirit of the country isn`t what it was 30 years ago.``We`ve tried the program out at three different schools already,` Ofer answered, `and the kids were very welcoming and received us well.`But Raz told the Post that the values to which Ofer referred were not the the kind that should be expressed in schools.`They`ve brought us constant conflict with our neighbors,` he said. `The military`s presence in schools is reminiscent of countries we`d rather not like to think of ourselves as. If there is a change in the attitude of young people and Israeli society in general about the military, maybe that`s what needs to be heard.`
Judith Norman
On the return of Palestinian refugees and the present and future Israel
The letter below, written by Tomer Gardi, touches on some of the core topics of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, on prevailing attitudes to it in mainstream Israel and on chances and hopes for a true solution.Brief, simply worded and direct, the letter broaches the "cockfight" typical of most exchanges in Israel about the origins and solutions of the conflict, precluding civil and real dialogue between Israelis of different opinions.It outlines a view of the current state of Israeli society as not democratic but, rather, "a democracy only for Jews", militarized, brutalized and exploitative and oppressive of both Jews and Palestinians. The letter construes this condition as directly related to Israel's measures towards maximizing Jewish numbers and minimizing the number of Palestinians, making the country "a barricaded fortification, a huge, suffocating stockade, a prison we have constructed around us."The letter concludes with Gardi's stand on the return of Palestinian refugees and his vision of a possible post-conflict state and society.Tomer Gardi, who authored the letter, is an active member of the Israeli non-profit "Zochrot" (or "Remembering"), "a group of Israeli citizens working to raise awareness of the Nakba, the Palestinian catastrophe of 1948" (quoted from the Zochrot website at: http://www.nakbainhebrew.org/index.php?lang=english). Gardi is also editor of a Hebrew literary periodical Sedek [literally meaning "a crack"] focusing on topics that relate to the Nakba and its active erasure and aftermath within Israeli culture and society (the first edition is available on-line at: http://www.nakbainhebrew.org/images/sedek_small.pdf; the second is available through the website of Pardes publishers – see below). Sedek is published jointly by three organizations: "Parrhesia", a group of artists working to develop "a civil communications language: respectful, humanist, in dialogue; an alternative to the language of force used by the market and the regime" (http://www.parrhesia.org; Hebrew-to-English translationmine, RM), the independent publishing house, Pardes (http://www.pardes.co.il) and Zochrot.His letter is an answer to a position piece posted on the internet version of the Hebrew paper Ma'ariv, in which publicist Ben-Dror Yemini expressed his strongly negative view of Zochrot and its activities. (Yemini's piece [in Hebrew] can be accessed [via link] from the URL of Gardi's Hebrew letter, provided below.)While none of the above organizations are household names in Israel, a discussion – or even a cockfight – raising the possibility of Palestinian return would not have been published in Ma'ariv till just a few years ago. As Gardi rightly points out, "people are being eliminated here daily … [and t]owns [are] being bombed on both sides of the border." Nevertheless, the visible existence of this debate in the public sphere in Israel, along with the terms and concepts it introduces is, in and of itself, a change.Rela Mazali---------------------------------Racheli Gai added:For readers who would like to learn more about the ongoing joint Israeli-Palestinian study and formulation of questions regarding refugee return:A Badil/Zochrot US Speaking Tour is taking place from March 27 - April 7, 2008.It's titled:"Acknowledging the past; Imagining the future: Palestinians and Israelis on 1948 and the right of Return".The speakers will be Mohammad Jaradat from Badil and Eitan Bronstein from Zochrot.About BADIL (taken off their website) : Badil Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights takes a rights-based approach to the Palestinians refugee issue through research, advocacy and support of community participation in the search for durable solutions.BADIL ('badeel') is an Arabic word that means 'alternative'. Badil's alternative approach to the question of Palestinians refugees and displaced persons is based on international law, relevant UN resolutions, and the participation of refugees themselves.To find out more, go to www.badil.orgThe tour will visit Providence RI, Boston, Chicago, Portland OR, Seattle, New York City, and Lancaster and Phildelphia PA.Full tour information can be found at http://www.afsc.org/israel-palestine/badilzochrottourorganizers.html---------------------------------http://www.nakbainhebrew.org/index.php?id=666Ma'ariv NRGMarch 19, 2008Translated by Charles KamenDear Ben Dror Yemini,I read your posting yesterday on the NRG site about Zochrot. I read, and thought to myself, “Forget it.” Why make the effort to respond? The differences between us seem so great, and I’d have to write so much even to get within hearing distance, so that even now, while I’m sitting and writing, I say to myself again, “Forget it; why even bother. Get on with your life.”I’m strongly tempted to drop the whole thing. But there’s something else tempting me, my fingers itching on the keyboard, to join the cockfight. Perhaps because of the tremendous distance I’d have to travel to reach you, it’s easier and more tempting to get within shouting distance, rather than close enough for an actual conversation. I’m tempted. You yelled, “Enemy!” I’ll yell back, “Fascist!” You yelled, “Warped!” I’ll respond, “Racist!” You yelled, “Hamasnik!” I’ll cry, “Settleroist!” And we’ll go on like that until both of us are dead, hopefully in the fullness of our years, two bitter, hoarse foes.It’s difficult to resist a temptation, and doubly difficult to resist two. But I’ll try anyway, try to get close enough to talk, by writing these words. Although I’m a member of the group you’re attacking, I’m also writing as an ordinary person. I don’t have the strength to formulate a document that all the members of the organization will discuss, reword, agree to and sign. Its activists, including me, hold many different views.You accused Zochrot of acting to eliminate the Jewish state. A fairly common accusation. In my view, though – if you really want to know – a state isn’t something to be eliminated. A state is only a tool, a civil instrument that groups of people need in order to organize their communal life. I don’t see any essential difference between a state and a municipality, a local council or a regional council. I think it’s absurd to talk about eliminating the state. A state can be changed, and its citizens should engage in a political discussion about the nature of social arrangements in the territory where they live. A state can’t be eliminated because it isn’t a living entity. A state is institutions and government offices. What can be eliminated, killed, destroyed is not the state, but people. And people are being eliminated here daily in any case.I don’t think Israel is a democratic state. Although its legislation includes some liberal democratic elements – my freedom to write this, for example – there’s a big difference between a regime that contains democratic elements, and a democracy. This May, the political entity known as the state of Israel will celebrate sixty years since its establishment. Subtract the forty-one years (1967-2008) that Israel has ruled over Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza who have no rights, and another seventeen years (1949-1966) during which the Jewish majority imposed military rule over the Palestinian minority inside the borders of Israel, and you’re left with two years out of sixty that Arabs were not subjected to Israeli military rule. It’s hard for me to call that “democracy.” Israel is, in essence, a democracy only for Jews.Zochrot actually does hope to threaten this regime, openly. Not by surreptitious spying, or by trickery, but publicly, for all to see. We want to threaten this regime and change it fundamentally, not only for reasons of justice and morality – reasons always denigrated as being no more than the fantasies of idealistic dreamers. The continuing Israeli project, whose essence is to push as many Arabs as possible out of as much territory as possible, is a disaster not only for the Palestinians who are being pushed out, but also for us who are doing the pushing. I’m really amazed by how upset you are at the fact that citizens want to bring about a fundamental change in Israel’s current social and political order. Look outside, read the papers – what’s so wonderful here that it’s worth preserving? A country of oligarchs and of people collecting bottles in the streets? Towns being bombed on both sides of the border? Unemployment, poverty, violence, aggressiveness?You characterize Zochrot’s aim as “transferring power to the enemy.” That isn’t my aim. My political vision is that the people who live in the territory to which the laws of the state apply, between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, should have the right to rule and participate in its government. Why shouldn’t Jews live in Beit El and Beit Shemesh, Kiryat Shmona and Kiryat Arba, Dugit and Deganya, or Arabs live in Hebron and Haifa, Ramallah and Jaffa, call their towns Haif’a and Yaf’a – what’s the big deal? Israel is already a Jewish-Arab state. Why not make it a Jewish-Arab democracy?Zochrot does support the return of the Palestinian refugees – not only supports, but acts to make it a reality. Here, too, not only for reasons of morality and justice which are easy to mock, and to ignore as fantasies. The stubborn efforts to prevent the refugees’ return has turned the country into a barricaded fortification, a huge, suffocating stockade, a prison we have constructed around us. I support the right of Palestinian refugees to live wherever they choose between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, because I prefer living in an open rather than a closed society, willingly heterogeneous, whose resources are invested in education, culture and welfare rather than in airplanes and fences, a society that doesn’t reek of gun oil.It isn’t possible in a short text on the internet to give much detail about the vision of this kind of society, especially since much is still unknown. It has to be developed and expanded into a comprehensive and convincing political paradigm, in opposition to the one that assumes that maintaining a Jewish majority is the necessary condition for living here. What kind of economy will this society have? What will be the relation between religion and the state? How will the Palestinian refugees be absorbed? What arrangements will there be for compensation? How will the country’s resources be reallocated, not only between Arabs and Jews, but also among the classes? What relations will exist among social groups? What about those strange groups of people who are neither Jews nor Arabs – they exist in the world as well as here – Philippine migrants, Ukrainians, Chinese, Romanians, Sudanese, a growing number of migrants who aren’t Jewish but nevertheless entered by virtue of the Law ofReturn? How will cities be planned, water resources allocated? What arrangements can be made to insure the security of citizens of the new state during the transition from occupation to civilian democracy? What can we learn from the experience of other countries, like South Africa, Albania, Namibia, Bosnia, Cambodia, Ruwanda? This coming June, Zochrot will hold a conference to begin discussing these questions. You’re invited, Ben Dror Yemini, along with all the other readers.................................................................--------Jewish Peace News editors:Joel BeininRacheli GaiRela MazaliSarah Anne MinkinJudith NormanLincoln ShlenskyAlistair Welchman-------Jewish Peace News sends its news clippings only to subscribers. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or manage your subscription, go to www.jewishpeacenews.net
Rela Mazali
JPN Editors
Alistair Welchman
Joel Beinin
Rebecca Vilkomerson
Racheli Gai
Ofer Neiman
Click here to join the JPN mailing list
On the return of Palestinian refugees and the pres...
2002-2007 Archive (March 2007-February 2008 not yet available) | 时政 |
2014-41/1934/en_head.json.gz/15888 | California Rep. Ellen Tauscher accepts State Department post, setting off political scramble to replace her
Now that Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Alamo) has accepted a position in Hillary Rodham Clinton's State Department, the race is on to fill her seat from California's 10th Congressional District, just east of the Bay Area but more middle-of-the-road than neighboring districts.. Early money is on state Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, who said he is ready to rumble as soon as Tauscher is confirmed by the Senate to be undersecretary of
State for arms control and international security.
“If the seat opens up, I am going to run,” he told the newspaper The Hill. “My hesitation is out of respect for Ellen. When she’s comfortable with it, then I’ll officially do it.”
DeSaulnier is close to Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez), an ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) who can help in the fundraising department (both are seen above at a rally where Tauscher urged a repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy). And DeSaulnier can tap into the local grass-roots operation that supported Barack Obama.
But Republicans are hungry to challenge him. Although the seat has gone Democratic since Tauscher defeated Republican Rep. Bill Baker in 1992, Republicans see an opportunity in the special-election campaign -- probably to be held in September -- to send a message in Washington and Sacramento about the perils of raising taxes.
As Human Events noted this morning, DeSaulnier has been at the forefront of efforts to raise taxes on Californians to deal with the state's budget crisis. Obama did carry the district last fall by a 2-to-1 margin last November, but Republicans note that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger won by 16 points in his 2006 reelection bid, and special elections usually draw a small electorate, favoring strong local candidates.
Former San Francisco 49ers tight end Brent Jones has been mentioned as a possible candidate. But political handicappers are putting serious money on Contra Costa County Sheriff Warren Rupf (who has considerable name recognition as a four-time countywide elected official) and attorney Tom Del Beccaro, vice
chairman of the state GOP, who regularly appears in ads for the
Republican cause and is considered one of the party's best communicators.
Tauscher meanwhile put out a statement warning that confirmation is not a sure thing, although as far as we know she has no "skeleton-in-the-closet" tax problems.The confirmation process for senior posts in government is fraught with uncertainty and can take weeks, if not months. My staff and I will continue to work on the issues and challenges facing the 10th District and our nation, including growing the economy, making health care more affordable, developing a green energy policy, repairing our infrastructure, easing congestion and improving the quality of life for families. We will do that with the same level of energy and commitment as when I was first elected in 1996.-- Johanna Neuman
Register here now for automatic alerts via Twitter on each new Ticket item. Photo: Joanna Jhanda / Bay Area News Group | 时政 |
2014-41/1934/en_head.json.gz/16176 | Senator John Hoeven
Republican of North Dakota
Mailing address: G11 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington DC 20510
and online contact form
ND Office Phone: 701-250-4618
Links to Campaign Contribution Data for John Hoeven:
Sen. Hoeven's campaign committee activity
Detailed list of campaign contributions to Senator Hoeven
Additional resources for Congressional and North Dakota politics:North Dakota political directoryFifty states' Political NewsThat's My CongressUnconventional SourcesNorth Dakota campaign shirtsSweatshop-Free Political T-ShirtsElection 2012 Bumper StickersCongressional Campaign Buttons
These Liberal and Conservative Ratings for the U.S. Senate are frequently updated as new bills are introduced, new roll call votes are held, and members of the Senate cosponsor existing bills. Our most recent update: December 31, 2012.
Republican Senator John Hoeven of North DakotaSen. Hoeven's Liberal Action Score: 0The Liberal Action Score is calculated by compiling a series of measured liberal actions (both roll call voting and bill cosponsorship) in the 112th Congress and comparing John Hoeven's behavior against a liberal standard: Respect for constitutional protections of American civil liberty
A score of 0 means that Senator Hoeven has participated in 0% of our slate of liberal actions in the 112th Congress.
Representative Hoeven has failed to take any of the slate of liberal actions we have identified for the 112th Congress.
Unfinished Business:Liberal Bills Senator Hoeven has failed to support through cosponsorship:
S. 186
As the text of S. 186 points out, "October 7, 2011, will mark the 10-year anniversary of the start of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan." This war has cost more than a third of a trillion dollars and has spilled the blood of more than a thousand Americans and uncounted civilians of Afghanistan. Ten years into the war, the Taliban is just as strong, Afghanistan is just as fractured, and there is no clear way out. S. 186 declares simply, "It is the policy of the United States to begin the phased redeployment of United States combat forces from Afghanistan not later than July 1, 2011." S. 186 would have the President submit his plan for phased withdrawal from Afghanistan during the same year.
Senator Hoeven has failed to cosponsor S. 186. After you read the text of S. 186, call Sen Hoeven's office at 701-250-4618 and ask him to support it by adding his cosponsorship.
If passed, the Respect for Marriage Act (S. 598) would repeal DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. Enacted in the 1990s, DOMA removed the presumption (based in the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution) that same-sex marriages carried out in one state would be recognized in other states or by the federal government. S. 598 would restore cross-state and federal recognition, recognition that different-sex marriages continue to enjoy. Senator Hoeven has failed to cosponsor S. 598. After you read the text of S. 598, call Sen Hoeven's office at 701-250-4618 and ask him to support it by adding his cosponsorship.
To a person only following expressions of popular culture, it might seem that the United States has moved beyond discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transexuals. But in the workaday world, it's still legal for people to be fired from their jobs for no other reason than than their choice of whom to love. And a dirty not-so-secret secret of labor unions has been their historical practice of excluding gay and lesbian workers from full participation and leadership. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (or ENDA) would make workplace discrimination in hiring and promotions illegal, and would also prohibit discriminatory behavior against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender members of American labor unions. If passed, ENDA would bring the law into the 21st Century along with the majority of Americans who have realized what matters at work is what you do, not who you love. Senator Hoeven has failed to cosponsor S. 811. After you read the text of S. 811, call Sen Hoeven's office at 701-250-4618 and ask him to support it by adding his cosponsorship.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Nor shall any State deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." These are the American standards of nondiscrimination, chiseled into our legal bedrock in the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. S. 821, the Uniting American Families Act, is a bill to bring America into closer compliance with the 14th Amendment by ending government discrimination according to the status of permanent couples. According to law, same-sex couples in permanent relationships cannot marry; only different-sex couples can. The creates two classes of couple in the United States. They are separate. Are they equal? Not currently. Under current immigration law, married immigrant spouses of citizens and permanent residents have a preferred route toward gaining permanent resident status themselves. Unmarried partners of citizens and permanent residents have this avenue closed to them. That is unequal treatment under law for immigrants under American jurisdiction, and it is an unequal abridgment of legal privilege for the citizens whose permanent partners wish to join them.
The Uniting American Families Act would end this status discrimination by amending various the immigration laws that discriminate against same-sex couples when one member of a couple is a citizen or permanent resident and the other is seeking citizenship or residency status. Senator Hoeven has failed to cosponsor S. 821. After you read the text of S. 821, call Sen Hoeven's office at 701-250-4618 and ask him to support it by adding his cosponsorship.
The Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act, as proposed in the 112th Congress, forbids the United States government from spending money to use, sell or transfer cluster bombs unless the following requirements are met:
In 2010 there were 22,000 mercenaries hired by the USA in Iraq and Afghanistan; in 2011 the number of hired mercenaries climbed to more than 28,000. By March 2011, there were more private military contractors paid by the U.S. in Iraq than there were U.S. soldiers. In remarks at an event introducing the bill, Representative Jan Schakowsky explained why this is a problem: "Military officers in the field have said contractors operate like cowboys, using unnecessary and excessive force uncharacteristic of enlisted soldiers. In 2007, guards working for a firm then known as Blackwater were accused of killing 17 Iraqis, damaging the U.S. mission in Iraq and hurting our reputation around the world. Later that year, a contractor employed by DynCorp International allegedly shot and killed an unarmed taxi driver."
Military contractors have often acted with disregard for human dignity and when they break the law have frequently used loopholes to escape accountability. The result is inexcusable, violence in the name of the United States with no calls for justice. S. 1428 would finally bring this physical, psychological and political disaster to an end, stopping the use of mercenaries for traditional military security and combat roles.
Senator Hoeven has failed to cosponsor S. 1428. After you read the text of S. 1428, call Sen Hoeven's office at 701-250-4618 and ask him to support it by adding his cosponsorship.
S. 219, a bill introduced by Senator Jon Tester, would require senators to file campaign finance reports electronically with the Federal Election Commission, not on paper with the Senate. This may not sound like an important distinction, but the practical effect of the current system is to delay the processing of campaign contribution reports -- often until after an election is over -- and to make the discovery of unsavory campaign expenditures by reporters and citizens more difficult. Tester's bill, the continuation of | 时政 |
2014-41/1934/en_head.json.gz/16290 | 9/11 Report
The U.S. government was ill-prepared to detect mistakes by al-Qaida plotters and stop the worst terror attacks in American history, the Sept. 11 commission said Wednesday in a final report that recommends sweeping overhaul of the nation's intelligence services to disrupt future attacks.
Bush thanked them for a "really good job" and said the panel makes "very solid, sound recommendations about how to move forward."
"I assured them that where the government needs to act we will," Bush said.Ummm--how about resigning?Less than four months before the presidential election, the commission's work already has ignited partisan debate over whether Bush took sufficient steps to deal with terrorism in the first year of his administration. Republicans have argued that Bush had just eight months to deal with the terror threat while Clinton's administration had eight years.Have they argued that Clinton tried to deal with it, with some success, in those eight years, while the Bushies used their eight months to ignore the issue, cut the funding, and when the threat got really serious go on vacation?Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar in the Clinton and Bush administrations and now an ABC consultant, said on the network's "Good Morning America" the commission avoided controversy. "To get unanimity they didn't talk about a number of things, like what effect is the war in Iraq having on our battle against terrorism. Did the president pay any attention to terrorism during the first nine months of his administration? The controversial things, the controversial criticisms of the Clinton administration as well as the Bush administration just aren't there."
"What they didn't do is say that the country is actually not safer now than it was then because of the rise in terrorism after our invasion in Iraq."
posted by Bob @ 11:56 AM << Home | 时政 |
2014-41/1934/en_head.json.gz/16346 | Gov. Haley Budget vetoes $94 million from state budget
By JEFFREY COLLINS
AP Photo/Jeffrey Collins
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley vetoed about $94 million from the state budget on Monday, but she retained money for a preschool program. COLUMBIA — South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley vetoed about $94 million from the state budget on Monday, but she retained money for a preschool program supported by her likely rival in next year's governor's race.
Haley chose on Tuesday to keep $26 million to expand full-day 4-year-old kindergarten in the $6.7 billion spending plan. Haley said she backs the goal of getting children in high poverty areas ready for school and is willing to see if this approach works.
“I'm not going to say that my way is the only right way to do it,” Haley said.
The program was backed by state Sen. Vincent Sheheen from Camden, who plans to run against Haley in a rematch of the 2010 governor's race.
Fellow Democrats made it the biggest issue as they tried to influence Haley's decisions during the six days she had to consider her vetoes. The money extends state-paid, full-day 4-year-old kindergarten to 17 poor school districts and increases access for needy children in 53 districts statewide.
“With this funding, South Carolina has taken a tremendous step toward providing at-risk children with a high-quality public education,” Senate Minority Leader Nikki Setzler said in a statement.
Haley issued a total of 81 vetoes on Tuesday, the same number she issued last year. The House meets on Wednesday and the Senate meets on Thursday to consider the vetoes. Last year, lawmakers overturned 48 of Haley's vetoes.
Haley said once again her goals with vetoes was targeting the use of money the state is getting one time for expenses that will continue into the future, as well as earmarks that were not requested by agencies. She knocked out $100,000 for repairs to the Barnwell County courthouse, $450,000 for three museums and $1 million for a visitor's center in Orangeburg.
The governor also vetoed $3 million requested by Lt. Gov. Glenn McConnell to pay for vouchers so caregivers can hire someone to stay with elderly relatives for a day in case of family emergencies or other conflicts.
Haley said this year's budget has no recurring money for Medicaid, so chances are the program might not be funded next year.
Other vetoes included more than $2 million to health programs designed to combat various disorders like HIV prevention, colon cancer prevention and the organ donor registry. Haley said the diseases tug at everyone's heartstrings.
“How do we decide to distribute funds to fight colon cancer but not breast cancer? How do we choose these ailments and nonprofits over all others?” Haley wrote in her veto message.
Haley rejected $5 million to increase payments for nursing homes, saying the General Assembly shouldn't decide whether payments for medical needs should be increased and the money hasn't been allocated for the next budget.
The governor also went after predictable targets such as the South Carolina Arts Commission, which she has taken on for the past three years. Before she vetoed the agency's entire budget. This time she vetoed $417,000 in operating money for the commission while keeping more than $1 million in grant funding, saying the agency could tap that grant money to survive. But Arts Commission Executive Director Ken May said he can't spend money the Legislature allocated for one thing on another.
“We're tired of being targeted,” said May, who was rallying supporters of the arts to call lawmakers again. The agency has survived vetoes the last two years thanks to the Legislature.
Haley also went after a second traditional target, the Sea Grant Consortium, vetoing almost $90,000 for the director's salary.
On Monday, Haley went ahead and signed a bill guaranteeing that she and the Legislature accomplish one of her goals this year to put more money toward South Carolina bridges and roads. The governor backed lawmakers' plans to use a combination of new revenue, reallocated sales taxes on vehicles and borrowing to raise up to $1 billion for the Department of Transportation over the next 10 years.
Haley also praised lawmakers for adding $20 million to the budget to improve computer security after a hacker stole more than 6 million Social Security numbers and bank account information from South Carolina taxpayers and businesses. The money will also pay for free credit monitoring of more than 1.4 million people who signed up for the service.
The total proposed budget for 2013-14 is $22.8 billion, when adding in $7.6 billion in federal money and $8.4 billion in “other funds,” which includes agency fees, fines and grants. The fiscal year starts July 1.
Follow Jeffrey Collins on Twitter at http://twitter.com/JSCollinsAP | 时政 |
2014-41/1934/en_head.json.gz/16382 | ONLINE EDITION FRIDAY FEBRUARY 2, 2007
Why She's Voting for Johnson on Feb. 6
As you may be aware, we have a very important special election coming up on Feb. 6. This is an exciting opportunity. Port Washington's own Craig Johnson (D), our local Nassau County Legislator, will be running for the New York Senate Seat recently vacated by Michael Balboni who left to join Eliot Spitzer's (D) team in Albany. I'm writing today to ask for your help in supporting Craig. Craig is not only a dear friend of mine, but more importantly, he is a tremendously talented and dedicated public servant. As a Nassau County legislator, Craig has been a leader in the ongoing effort to restore fiscal stability to Nassau County. Working with County Executive Tom Suozzi, Craig has brought Nassau County back from the brink of bankruptcy and has passed three consecutive no-tax increase budgets. Craig has been our independent voice for common-sense reform and conservative budgeting. He supports dozens of community groups and has made preserving our parks, open spaces and environment a top priority. Craig was instrumental in getting Christopher Morley Park to host the Oasis summer camp program again this past summer. As many of you are aware, he was also instrumental in bringing Food Allergy Guidelines to all Nassau County Schools to help keep Nassau County's children safe. Why should we elect Craig to the Senate? Craig's record shows that he will lower our taxes; he will fight for more affordable healthcare; he is committed to protecting the environment; he cares about the rights of women and children; he is an advocate for medical research, and he will bring integrity back to Albany! The Special Election is Feb. 6-- less than two weeks away!! His opponent, Republican Maureen O'Connell, is campaigning hard, and will put up a strong fight. With only weeks to go it is up to those of us who believe Craig Johnson can do wonderful things for Nassau County and New York, to get the word out -- or more accurately, to get out the vote! Thus, I am asking you to do something that will benefit you, your family and your community. If you would not ordinarily make it to the polls for a special election like this, please do it anyway Please make a note in your calendar now to go to your regular general election polling place on Tuesday, Feb. 6 anytime between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m. and vote for Craig Johnson. For more information on Craig, please visit www.craigjohnsonforsenate.com Jill R. Mindlin An Official Newspaper of the
Port Washington News| | 时政 |
2014-41/1934/en_head.json.gz/16662 | Deputy Director, Europe and Asia - International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES)
Testimony :: Gavin WeiseDeputy Director, Europe and Asia - International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES)
Elections in Ukraine Gavin Weise, Deputy Regional Director, Europe & Asia International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) Testimony before the U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki Commission) on Ukraine’s Upcoming Elections: A Pivotal Moment May 17, 2012 Copyright © 2012 International Foundation for Electoral Systems. All rights reserved. Permission Statement: No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system without the written permission of IFES. Requests for permission should include the following information: • A description of the material for which permission to copy is desired. • The purpose for which the copied material will be used and the manner in which it will be used. • Your name, title, company or organization name, telephone number, fax number, email address, and mailing address. IFES 1850 K Street, NW Fifth Floor Washington, D.C. 20006 U.S.A. Email: editor@ifes.org Fax: 202.350.6701 Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, members and staff of the Helsinki Commission. My name is Gavin Weise, I am the Deputy Director for Europe & Asia at the International Foundation for Electoral Systems, also known as IFES. IFES is a global leader in democracy promotion. We advance good governance and democratic rights by providing technical assistance to election officials, empowering the under-represented to participate in the political process and applying field-based research. Since 1987, IFES has worked in 135 countries, from developing to mature democracies. IFES has been active in Ukraine over the past two decades. IFES has provided support to nascent electoral institutions following Ukraine’s independence; offered legislative assistance to fundamental laws; gauged citizens’ sentiment and attitudes through annual public opinion research; and worked with a diverse range of civil society groups and experts to improve the quality and transparency of elections in the country. Currently we are actively promoting debate and analyses of electoral laws and other election issues among civil society experts; building the capacity of civic organizations to play a meaningful role in electoral and political processes and reform; supporting the Central Election Commission in its efforts to prepare for the 2012 elections; and will embark on longer-term institutional reforms. Before moving to my remarks, I want to first pause and sincerely thank the Helsinki Commission for inviting IFES to speak today, but more so for simply holding this event. Over the past two years, really since Ukraine’s last presidential election in 2010, organizations such as IFES, and those of my colleagues here today, have followed events closely in the country with an eye toward this October’s parliamentary elections. While Ukraine had a record of relatively competitive, considerably free and fair, and competently run elections for several years up through the 2010 presidential election, the local elections in the fall of that year gave us all cause for serious concern. The conduct of those elections, subsequent deterioration of rights and freedoms as documented by a number of organizations, the much-publicized and seemingly selective political persecution of former government and current opposition figures, and recent developments with regards to the upcoming October election, have only heightened those concerns. Since I am joined by my colleagues of the two political party institutes, I will focus my remarks on IFES’ core competencies, namely the legal framework and administration of elections. In doing so, I will touch upon a number of persisting or new weaknesses in the electoral legislation, draw your attention to some recent developments in preparation for October’s elections, and finally and perhaps most importantly, highlight what additional issues may surface in the coming months based on IFES’ experience, observations and work in the country. First of all, in regards to the current electoral legislation and the context under which it has come about, I would begin with the 2010 local elections, which were widely regarded as the most problematic elections in the recent history of Ukraine. For an account of the 2010 local elections and some of the issues encountered, you may refer to the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine’s own statement of November 3, 2010. This preliminary statement cited concerns over insufficient training of election officials, ballot lottery, commission membership and complicated registration procedures, among others. It also stressed weaknesses in the recently passed local election law which changed the rules of the game late in the process and, in the opinion of most experts, to the detriment of the opposition parties and several prominent independent candidates. In that statement the embassy also indicated a willingness to provide assistance to future electoral reforms in Ukraine. On the heels of these elections, President Yanukovich announced his intent to embark on comprehensive electoral reform. Reform is of course a natural, ongoing process when a government, legislature or interest group seeks to improve and amend an institution or practice. Our own country shows no shortage of controversial topics that many would like to change in one way or another: campaign finance, redistricting and the electoral college, just to name a few. And while this commitment to legal reform was welcome in Ukraine, many stakeholders were surprised, and indeed dismayed, by the government’s choice to begin with the parliamentary election law, a law that was regarded by many as being the least flawed of Ukraine’s four primary election laws. A reluctance of many stakeholders within the opposition, civil society and international organizations to participate in the government’s working group on election reform was increased by the fact that the government made many key decisions, including a change in the electoral system, even before the working group’s first meeting. Out of this process a new draft parliamentary election law was put forward. IFES, together with assessments of the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR, has drawn attention to both positive and negative provisions in the law through its formal assessment of the law, and subsequent analysis. This analysis is available on our website and copies are also available here today. Of note, the final version of the law prepared by the parliament’s temporary special committee was not broadly discussed with experts and adopted in the first and final reading during one day with a number of changes from the drafts analyzed by international organizations. IFES later prepared its comments on the final law after its adoption which it circulated widely among stakeholders and the diplomatic community. And it is of course this law which will regulate these elections in October. Now, I would like to make a general comment regarding the electoral system, itself. Since the beginning of the reform process, the government of Ukraine let it be known that the electoral system would be a parallel electoral system, whereby half the deputies would be elected through proportional representation according to a nationwide vote, and half would be elected in winner-take-all electoral constituencies (not unlike our elections for the House of Representatives). Inherently there is nothing wrong or right in such a system. However, I would like to draw your attention to the last time such a system was in place, exactly 10 years ago, during Ukraine’s 2002 parliamentary elections. Those elections were held at a time of a government waning in popularity; yet eventually produced somewhat surprising results to the benefit of the pro-government political force, to the point of it successfully retaining significant control of the legislature. More specifically, in 2002, Nasha Ukraina received 23.57 percent of the popular vote in the nationwide constituency, and won 25 percent of the seats in the legislature, while pro-governmental pro-Kuchma “Zayedu” received 11.77 percent of the vote in the nationwide constituency, yet won 22.4 percent of the seats. How did this happen? The pro-Kuchma “Zayedu” bloc did extraordinarily well in single-member districts. Academics have since shown how in districts where the lion’s share of the popular vote was clearly for one political party, the single member candidate vote in the same territory was rather oddly, not. A commonly held assertion among experts and academics was that in some cases use and control of administrative resource in certain territorial regions helped ensure a victory for pro-governmental candidates where the pro-governmental party did not enjoy a plurality of support. What is important to note, is that today in Ukraine, we have a similar scenario unfolding: a parallel electoral system is now firmly in place. A number of polls, including IFES’ own from two weeks ago, shows the leading party in Ukraine, the governing Party of Regions, is in decline with support from only about 20 percent of the electorate. Meanwhile, the major oppositional parties cumulative support totals are polling now higher than the Party of Regions. So in a sense, we have a similar “mix” heading into the 2012 polls as we had in 2002; a governing force waning in popular support, about to compete in an election where half of the seats will be determined in single-member districts. In addition, the government holds considerable power at the local territorial level, clearly helped by the outcomes of those controversial local elections two years ago. Of course, we are not in 2002 but 2012 and can conclude nothing at this time. However, the parallel is striking and must not be dismissed. A more technical issue we are now confronted with concerns the boundaries of those new single member-electoral districts. Just how many districts each administrative region of Ukraine would have was determined on April 28, 2012, and the borders of the districts were released made widely public on May 5. It is difficult to assess the Central Election Commission’s performance in creating the boundaries for these constituencies because the law included only three sub-articles to regulate this process. Efforts to develop a supplementary law on territorial organization of elections seem to have evaporated. Although there had been an earlier legislative intent, and indeed its creation was referenced in the early draft of the law, it simply did not happen. On a positive note, the Central Election Commission seems to have adhered to the 12 percent limit on the variation of voting population as prescribed by law, meaning the districts are to be relatively equal in population and thus the votes of citizens relatively equal. The Central Election Commission has allocated these districts to Ukraine’s regions proportionally to the number of voters registered there. We understand that attempts were recently made to challenge the new boundaries through the court system, but that the cases were dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff’s allegations, even if proven to be true, would not amount to a contravention of the law. In other words, it is proving difficult to challenge the legality of an act, when said act has little in the way to regulate it. As IFES cautioned in several of its reports, leaving the law vague and devoid of several basic international norms of districting has yielded little in the way of predictability for contestants or guidance for election commissioners, potentially leaving the commission open to criticism as a consequence. Here we should also point out that between the initial draft of the new law and the final version, one of the only provisions in the draft law related to districts – that districts must be contiguous – was inexplicably removed. As the districts have now been unveiled, we not surprised to see that there are districts which are noncontiguous. Unless the desire is to keep, in the same election district, a community of interest, such as an ethnic minority, or an established territorial unit (e.g. city, township, etc.) together, that, too, happens to be non-contiguous, by international standards there is no justifiable reason for doing this. In addition, there were no public or expert consultations, or certainly no expert input known to the public. How the districts were drawn in terms of political intentions, if they were indeed drawn for these reasons, will require some degree of political insight. A number of local groups have begun this analysis. Indeed, there is no doubt this expertise exists in Ukraine, and such information will certainly come to light. IFES, together with civil society partners, is itself working on a comprehensive technical analysis of the new districts which it hopes to release in the next week. Another set of issues to watch relates to the formation of district and polling station election commissions, which are essentially the chief electoral bodies for their respective areas. This will take place by August 24, and September 26, respectively. Election commissioners in Ukraine, at each level of election administration, are chosen purely on a partisan basis. In other words: all commissioners are nominated by a political entity. Because of the number of registered parties in Ukraine, and the numbers expected to compete for these elections, places on these commissions will be at a premium. Political factions already in the current parliament are guaranteed one place on each commission. With regards to the composition of the remainder of the commissions, there are a number of concerns. Instead of drawing lots from the entities competing in a district for the remainder of seats on the commission, on April 19 the Central Election Commission adopted a procedure whereby a single lottery will determine the ranking of political parties, which will then be used to fill each of the 225 district commissions around the country. This practice is contrary to an earlier IFES recommendation, as we believed separate lotteries for each district race should have been held. Each contestant to each electoral contest should have equal chance to gain the open positions on the presiding electoral commission. Should a party unfortunately draw near the bottom of the list in the lottery, they may lose any chance of getting even one of the 225 district commissions anywhere in the country. Drawing near the top gives them a high probability of membership or increased membership in every commission. Also, the timeframe for submission of the candidates for membership in the commissions is very tight – three days. If there are any mistakes in the submission, the nominating party or candidate is informed and must file a corrected submission the very next day or an application is rejected. However, the manner in which parties and candidates are informed of such decisions is not clearly defined by the law. If a political entity misses the slim deadline because they did not learn until later that there was an issue with their submission, this is potentially an unfair practice. Should it be systemic, it could result in significant underrepresentation of certain parties and candidates on the commissions. In terms of electoral administration, I should start by saying the Central Election Commission of Ukraine has an unenviable task. Training up to half a million election commissioners in a matter of a few weeks would be a difficult charge for any country. While organizations like IFES are willing partners of the election commission and will contribute some technical advice in planning, design and execution of training programs, overall, the burden of responsibility falls on the commission, itself.. The Central Election Commission will also face a significant challenge in educating voters on changed voting procedures. Again, IFES and other members of the international community can be of assistance here, but ultimate responsibility will rest with the election commission. Another challenge is that the commission will be overburdened with tasks in the upcoming months – it has to register candidates in each of the 225 single-member districts and the national party lists for the national district, accredit thousands of local and international nonpartisan observers, and thousands more candidates, party proxies and observers. Recently the election commission responded to this challenge through draft amendments to the parliamentary law, seeking to transfer some of its obligations to the district election commissions. However, experts do not believe this will prove successful. Understandably, there is resistance to further amending the legal framework so soon before an election. Beyond mere logistical challenges, we must remember that in Ukraine election commissions are de facto not independent from political influence as they are formed by the political entities whose interests they represent on the commission. Such a concern has been raised by international organizations that observed previous elections, such as the OSCE/ODIHR. This issue is of crucial importance as commissions in Ukraine have a legal function to adjudicate certain types of election challenges and disputes; essentially deciding for or against a political entity’s interests is arguably better served with a certain degree of neutrality. Finally, I would point to a few additional issues to be cognizant of in the upcoming campaign and election. First, is the possibility that voters will be able to use the option in Ukraine of voting in their current temporary location to strategically change their polling place. This was a potential problem that IFES highlighted in its analysis of the draft law and should be closely monitored. In this regard it is worth noting that the system of voting in place, of temporary stay, bears a similarity to the absentee ballot system that was a major source of fraud during the 2004 Presidential elections. Second, concerns the commonly recognized phenomenon that all major political entities receive financial and other support from Ukraine’s wealthiest benefactors – a factor in perpetuating the corruption that is one of the hallmarks of political life in Ukraine. However, the legal framework does little to regulate or bring transparency to such relationships. The new parliamentary election law requires only the most basic level of disclosure and leaves ample room for campaign costs to be hidden as third party expenditures or services in-kind. Furthermore, discrepancies between the election law and the law on political parties make it easy for candidates to conceal both the sources of their funding and the full extent of their spending by funnelling it through political parties. Third, Election Day, itself, may well be complicated by unwieldy procedures that ought to be clarified by the Central Election Commission in advance of the election; and of course, the ever present possibilities of abuse of state resources, vote buying schemes and other illegal practices that can thrive with impunity under a weak system of law enforcement. Let me conclude by stating what the international community, including the United States, could do to support consolidation of democracy in Ukraine through a transparent, competitive and credible election this October. First, do not take your eye off ball now. It is understandable that organizations such as IFES, NDI, IRI and others who are deeply invested in electoral and political reform perhaps put greater priority on these developments in countries like Ukraine, and for a longer period of time. But now we are less than six months from Election Day. Over the next few months important developments will take place that will surely tell us just how transparent, credible and evenly contested these elections might be. Today’s testimony has given you only highlights of some concerns; many others will be seen in the upcoming weeks and months, and I urge you all to stay focused on these concerns. To this end, it is of course vital for the U.S. and the larger international community to support nonpartisan observation efforts. We must pay close attention to and respond to electoral administration needs and help non-partisan human rights organizations, NGOs and media outlets have meaningful access to needed resources – especially through statements from entities such as your own, that continue to show that the U.S. is supportive of a democratic, free and fair election in Ukraine. Second, I urge you to not take your eye off the ball later. Ukraine fatigue in the West has correlated positively with the government’s recidivism with respect to human rights, obvious aggressions towards political rivals and efforts to solidify the hold on power. For our part, IFES has and will continue to advocate for improved democratic electoral legislation and practices, and compliance with international standards and best practices, but with an understanding of nuances and particularities of the country. We hope that the U.S. will continue to value and advocate for the continued role of international organizations like IFES, the Venice Commission and others to their Ukrainian counterparts. Despite issues or concerns raised today, I would say that we certainly do not know what the outcome of these elections will be. But however the conduct – and whatever the outcome – it will be necessary to continue to engage Ukraine. Performance in the elections will determine in large part just how that engagement may take shape. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and I am happy to answer any questions you may have. | 时政 |
2014-41/1934/en_head.json.gz/17254 | NATO’s relations with Austria
NATO-Austria relations are conducted through the Partnership for Peace framework, which Austria joined in 1995. NATO and Austria actively cooperate in peace support operations, and have developed practical cooperation in a range of areas.
NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and the President of Austria, Heinz Fischer (June 2011)
NATO highly values its relations with Austria. The Allies view Austria as an effective partner and contributor to international security, which shares key values such as the promotion of international security, democracy and human rights. Austria selects areas of practical cooperation with NATO that match joint objectives.
An important area of cooperation is the country’s support for NATO-led operations. Austria has worked alongside the Allies in security and peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and currently has personnel deployed in Afghanistan and Kosovo.
Framework for cooperation
NATO and Austria detail areas of cooperation and timelines in Austria’s Individual Partnership Programme (IPP) which is jointly agreed for a two-year period. Key areas include security and peacekeeping cooperation, humanitarian and disaster relief, and search and rescue operations. The IPP is soon to be replaced by an Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme (IPCP) in accordance with NATO’s new partnership policy.
Austria runs the Centre for Operations Preparation, a Partnership Training and Education Centre. It also leads the Balkans Regional Working Group in the framework of the PfP Consortium of Defense Academies and Security Studies Institutes (a voluntary association which works “in the spirit of PfP”, funded by Austria, Germany, Switzerland and the United States).
Key areas of cooperation
Security cooperation In 1996, Austrian forces joined those of NATO Allies in securing the peace negotiated in the Dayton agreement for Bosnia and Herzegovina. The country contributed a battalion to the NATO-led peacekeeping forces there until 2001. Austria is currently contributing a mechanized company and support units to the NATO-led peacekeeping force in Kosovo (KFOR), amounting to over 400 troops. Austria took command of KFOR’s Multinational Task Force South (MNTF-S) in early 2008.
Austrian forces joined the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan in 2002, providing expertise and logistical support. Throughout 2005, Austria deployed troops to work alongside the German-led Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Kunduz province to provide security for the Afghan parliamentary elections.
Austria has made a number of units available for potential PfP operations. In each case, deployment must be authorized by the Austrian Council of Ministers and approved by the Main Committee of the Austrian Parliament.
Defence and security sector reform Participating in peacekeeping and peace support operations alongside NATO Allies has reinforced Austria’s own process of military transformation. The PfP Planning and Review Process (PARP) influences and reinforces Austrian planning activities. Through PARP, Austria has declared an increasing number of forces and capabilities as potentially available for NATO-led operations. Austria’s ability to take part in peace support operations is further enhanced by its participation in the Operational Capabilities Concept (OCC) process.
The Allies and other partners also benefit from Austrian expertise. The country is contributing to NATO’s programme of support for security-sector reform activities, with a special emphasis on the Balkan region.Austria has contributed to Trust Fund projects in other Partner countries. Along with individual Allies and Partners, Austria has made contributions to voluntary trust funds to support, for example, the destruction of mines and/or munitions in Albania, Kazakhstan, Montenegro, Serbia and Ukraine.
Civil emergency planning Civil emergency planning is a major area of cooperation. The aim is for Austria to be able to cooperate with NATO Allies in providing mutual support in dealing with the consequences of major accidents or disasters in the Euro-Atlantic area. This could include dealing with the consequences of incidents involving chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear agents, as well as humanitarian disaster relief operations.
Science and environment Under the NATO Science for Peace and Security (SPS) Programme, scientists from Austria have participated in numerous advanced research workshops and seminars on a range of topics. Since 2005, Austrian personnel have participated in over 20 activities. Topics have included preparedness against bio-terrorism, strengthening influenza pandemic preparedness and emerging biological threats.
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 Austria is the embassy of Croatia.
Evolution in milestones 1995
Austria signs the Partnership for Peace Framework Document.
Austria joins the PfP Planning and Review Process (PARP)
Austria deploys peacekeepers to the NATO-led peacekeeping force in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Austria opens a diplomatic mission at NATO Headquarters. 1999
Austrian forces participate in the NATO-led peacekeeping force in Kosovo, KFOR.
H.E. Dr Thomas Klestil, the President of Austria, meets NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson at NATO HQ on 3 July to exchange views on key issues in international security.
Austrian forces join the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. 2004
During a visit to Vienna on 18 November, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer praised Austria for its contribution to NATO’s missions and Partnership for Peace programme.
Austria has increased the units declared for NATO/PfP missions. In the future they will consist of a framework brigade.
Austria takes command of KFOR’s Multinational Task Force South (MNTF-S).
NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen visits Vienna on 30 June 2011 and met President Heinz Fischer, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Vice-Chancellor Michael Spindelegger and Minister of Defence Norbert Darabos. They discussed the partnership between NATO and Austria, the situation in the western Balkans and the NATO-led operations in Libya and Afghanistan. Rasmussen expressed strong appreciation for Austria’s substantial contribution to the NATO-led mission in Kosovo and for its constructive role in the western Balkans and its firm commitment to the region.
NATO praises Austrian commitment to broad security agenda 30 Jun. 2011
''Wounds of war'' – experts assess the impact of military combat19 Apr. 2011
NATO science workshop assesses environmental impact on military operations11 May. 2010
De Hoop Scheffer visits Austria 18 Nov. 2004
President of Austria visits NATO 03 Jul. 2002
The Partnership for Peace programme
The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC)
Statement by Franz Cede, Head of the Mission of the Republic of Austria to NATO at the meeting of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council at the level of Defence Ministers 08 Jun. 2006
Speech by the NATO Secretary General at the Diplomatic Academy in Vienna, Austria03 Nov. 2005
Speech by Günther Platter, Minister of Defence of the Federal Republic of Austria at the meeting of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council in Defence Ministers Session 09 Jun. 2005
more PDF Library
SPS Country Flyers
- Science for Peace and Security (SPS) | 时政 |
2014-41/1934/en_head.json.gz/17505 | Home > How to fix county government?
How to fix county government?
January 23, 2013 — The frayed relationship between Sullivan County Manager David Fanslau and the majority of county legislators has been on display in public in recent weeks, as press conferences and news reports made clear that a majority of legislators are working to terminate his employment. Swept along with the dissatisfaction of some legislators with their manager has also come a proposal from Legislator Jonathan Rouis to switch to a different form of county management. We at The River Reporter wonder if changing the form of county government from a legislature that appoints a county manager to one having an elected county executive is really necessary, or if the current unhappiness in the government center is just a matter of personalities and power. If the latter, we recommend that when the heat of the moment subsides, cooler consideration should be given before institutionalizing a new political office in the courthouse.
It’s not surprising that the legislature sees the need for change. In the past 25 years, all county governments in New York State (NYS) have faced increasingly complex operations, and there’s been a strong trend toward counties exploring different ways of doing things. This includes both investigating new management alternatives and other changes in operations. During these economically challenging times, counties with fewer and fewer resources are still being pressured to deliver the same (or even increased) services.
Currently 31 NYS counties have a manager or an administrator form of government. Seventeen have elected county executives, with Montgomery County set to become the 18th in 2014. In nine counties, the chairman of the county legislative body serves as administrator.
The ideal county manager is a highly-trained, experienced professional administrator who serves at the pleasure of elected leaders. All the power is concentrated in the elected council. When the manager and elected officials work in partnership and where legislative leadership is strong, a well-functioning county government can result. Legislative-administrative problems often develop when the flow of information is inadequate. Whether this is the case in Sullivan County, depends on whether one perceives the flow of information from Fanslau to the legislature as sufficient. Some legislators allege that Fanslau has failed to provide them requested information promptly and completely, something that is part of a manager’s job. At least one legislator says this not the case; he charges some of his colleagues are trying to micromanage county government. From the outside, it’s hard to tell if these are problems of personality, or a power struggle, or a result of the structure of our local government. Yet the tensions are clear.
There is, however, no guarantee that tensions like these would go away with a county executive form of government. A county executive is a different animal altogether from a county manager. He or she is elected by the voters and has significantly more autonomy than a county manager. He or she is also expected to be a leader in policy. Generally, a county executive has veto power over legislative acts (although the legislature can override it with a supermajority vote). Professional administrative experience is not required as it is for a county manager. Because the executive is elected, partisan politics enters the equation when this new, politically dominated branch of local government is established. A county legislature cannot fire a county executive; if they do not like the situation, they have to live with it.
It seems clear that just exchanging a county manager for a county executive is not automatically a cure for tensions between an administrator and the legislature. Whatever the structure of government, Sullivan County government faces many challenges ahead—getting government’s fiscal house in order, building a vibrant local economy, preserving the precious resources of clean water, air and the natural beauty we all love. Whether either form of government would be better able to achieve these goals may well be worth discussion.
[For some useful charts of the two different forms of county government, see page 47 of the New York State Department of State’s Local Government Handbook, available online at www.dos.ny.gov/lg/publications/Local_Government_Handbook.pdf.]
Source URL: http://www.riverreporter.com/editorial/4302/2013/01/23/how-fix-county-government
Links:[1] http://riverreporter.disqus.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.riverreporter.com%2Feditorial%2F4302%2F2013%2F01%2F23%2Fhow-fix-county-government | 时政 |
End of preview. Expand
in Dataset Viewer.
Industry models play a crucial role in driving enterprise intelligence transformation and innovative development. High-quality industry data is key to improving the performance of large models and realizing industry applications. However, datasets currently used for industry model training generally suffer from issues such as insufficient data volume, low quality, and lack of domain expertise.
To address these problems, we constructed and applied 22 industry data processing operators to clean and filter 3.4TB of high-quality multi-industry classified Chinese and English language pre-training datasets from over 100TB of open-source datasets including WuDaoCorpora, BAAI-CCI, redpajama, and SkyPile-150B. The filtered data consists of 1TB of Chinese data and 2.4TB of English data. To facilitate user utilization, we annotated the Chinese data with 12 types of labels including alphanumeric ratio, average line length, language confidence score, maximum line length, and perplexity.
Furthermore, to validate the dataset's performance, we conducted continued pre-training, SFT, and DPO training on a medical industry demonstration model. The results showed a 20% improvement in objective performance and a subjective win rate of 82%.
Industry categories: 18 categories including medical, education, literature, finance, travel, law, sports, automotive, news, etc. Rule-based filtering: Traditional Chinese conversion, email removal, IP address removal, link removal, Unicode repair, etc. Chinese data labels: Alphanumeric ratio, average line length, language confidence score, maximum line length, perplexity, toxicity character ratio, etc. Model-based filtering: Industry classification language model with 80% accuracy Data deduplication: MinHash document-level deduplication Data size: 1TB Chinese, 2.4TB English
Industry classification data size:
| Industry Category | Data Size (GB) | Industry Category | Data Size (GB) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Programming | 4.1 | Politics | 326.4 |
| Law | 274.6 | Mathematics | 5.9 |
| Education | 458.1 | Sports | 442 |
| Finance | 197.8 | Literature | 179.3 |
| Computer Science | 46.9 | News | 564.1 |
| Technology | 333.6 | Film & TV | 162.1 |
| Travel | 82.5 | Medicine | 189.4 |
| Agriculture | 41.6 | Automotive | 40.8 |
| Emotion | 31.7 | Artificial Intelligence | 5.6 |
| Total (GB) | 3386.5 |
For the convenience of users to download and use, we have split the large dataset into sub-datasets for 18 industries. The current one is the sub-dataset for the politics industry.
Data processing workflow:
- Downloads last month
- 99
Size of the auto-converted Parquet files (First 5GB):
3.01 GB
Number of rows (First 5GB):
809,127
Estimated number of rows:
55,332,896