Datasets:

BAAI

/

IndustryCorpus_politics

like 2

Follow

Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence 710

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/3552

Distr. GENERAL 11 March 1996 Fiftieth session Agenda item 112 (c) RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY [on the report of the Third Committee (A/50/635/Add.3)] 50/197. Situation of human rights in the Sudan The General Assembly, Guided by the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1/ the International Covenants on Human Rights, 2/ the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 3/ and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 4/ Reaffirming that all Member States have an obligation to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms and to comply with the obligations laid down in the various instruments in this field, Recalling the obligation by all parties to respect international humanitarian law, Recalling also its resolution 49/198 of 23 December 1994, and taking note of Commission on Human Rights resolution 1995/77 of 8 March 1995, 5/ Noting with deep concern reports of grave human rights violations in the Sudan, particularly summary executions, detentions without trial, forced displacement of persons and torture, as described in reports submitted to the Commission on Human Rights by the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur on the question of religious intolerance, Welcoming the third and latest interim report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Sudan, 6/ and noting with concern the continuing violations of human rights in the Sudan, Concerned about continuing indiscriminate and deliberate aerial bombardments by the Government of the Sudan of civilian targets in southern Sudan, in clear violation of international humanitarian law, which have added to the suffering of the civilian population and resulted in casualties to civilians, including relief workers, Deeply concerned that access by the civilian population to humanitarian assistance continues to be impeded, which represents a threat to human life and constitutes an offence to human dignity, Expressing the hope that the continuing dialogue between the Government of the Sudan and other parties and donor Governments, Operation Lifeline Sudan and international private voluntary agencies will result in improved cooperation for the delivery of humanitarian assistance to all persons in need, Alarmed by the large number of internally displaced persons and victims of discrimination in the Sudan, including members of ethnic minorities who have been forcibly displaced in violation of their human rights and who are in need of relief assistance and protection, Alarmed also by the mass exodus of refugees into neighbouring countries and conscious of the burden that this places on those countries, but expressing its appreciation for the efforts of host countries and of the international community to assist the refugees, Deeply concerned by the conclusion of the Special Rapporteur, also stated in his previous reports, that grave and widespread violations of human rights by government agents, as well as abuses by members of parties to the conflict in southern Sudan other than the Government of the Sudan, continue to take place, including extrajudicial killings, enforced or involuntary disappearances, abductions, slavery, systematic torture and widespread arbitrary arrests of suspected political opponents, 7/ Alarmed by the continuing failure of the Sudanese authorities to investigate human rights violations and abuses brought to their attention over the past years, Gravely alarmed that since February 1994 there have been increasing reports from a wide variety of sources indicating that atrocities by the Government of the Sudan against the local population in the area of the Nuba Mountains have intensified, Concerned by reports of religious persecution in areas of the conflict zone controlled by the Government of the Sudan and of discrimination based upon

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/3600

Election 2012, Genocide, International Law, Politics Wait…We’re Going To Indict Ahmadinejad? Joe Patrice 6 Comments / Oct 24, 2012 at 3:10 PM “What, me worry?” As a legal observer of the final presidential talking points exchange debate, the moment that stood out to me was when Mitt Romney pledged to “indict” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “under the Genocide Convention.” This is not the first time Romney has expressed this sentiment, having told reporters last month that he would pursue legal action against Ahmadinejad. Uh-oh! Mahmoud, watch out for that process server. This is not exactly a “get tough” military option as much as an “empty symbolic gesture,” but that’s understandable, because, as the media can’t stop telling us, “women don’t like scary conflict.” But what exactly is Romney talking about? How does one indict the President of Iran? Let’s journey down the rabbit hole of international law… The Genocide Convention that Romney cites is the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This Convention was adopted in 1948 and defined “genocide” for the sake of international law and identified a number of punishable crimes, specifically: (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide. In this instance, Romney is accusing Ahmadinejad of violating subsection (c), publicly inciting genocide by telling Iranian students that Israel should be wiped off the map. There’s some question about whether or not he really said that, but he at least expressed enmity for Israel. And when the leader of the largest military in the region calls someone out as an enemy it’s certainly not friendly. Whether opposing a Jewish state is the same as inciting genocide against the Jewish people per the Genocide Convention would have to be determined by the court. After all, both Iran and the United States have ratified the Genocide Convention and are bound to adhere to its tenets. Open and shut. What’s that? You don’t know what court would hear this prosecution? Excellent question. International law has the unfortunate quality of being largely unenforceable. Historically, the international community established ad hoc tribunals to deal with these crimes after the fact. But setting up a new tribunal after every humanitarian crisis was never an ideal solution. This is why the world banded together to create the International Criminal Court to provide a permanent tribunal to hear charges of genocide and other war crimes. But of course neither Iran nor the United States are parties to the I.C.C. In the case of Iran, there’s skepticism about the jurisdiction of the court over international aggression and, you know, the whole whipping and stoning people thing. Meanwhile the United States refuses to ratify the treaty for fear that it might be used to prosecute American leaders for war crimes stemming from actions like hurling weaponized RC airplanes at people. So basically the I.C.C. is off the table as a mechanism for prosecuting Ahmadinejad. Is Romney suggesting that the U.S. would ratify the I.C.C. under his administration? Probably not. His principle foreign policy advisor has called the I.C.C. “one of the world’s most illegitimate multilateral institutions.” So joining the I.C.C. would require an unlikely, massive shift in policy. Now if Ahmadinejad incited genocide AND got caught with crack, we’d really have him The second option available to Mitt Romney would be the domestic legal system. As part of the ratification of the Genocide Convention, the U.S. integrated the Convention into federal law. Chapter 50A – Section 1091 of the U.S. Code criminalizes genocide using similar terms as the Genocide Convention. This law would really put Ahmadinejad in his place since it calls for a punishment of not more than a $500,000 fine or imprisonment of not more than five years, or both. There’s a five-year mandatory minimum for just having 28 grams of crack. In case you were wondering, yes the U.S. believes possessing crack is a shade worse than genocide. Unfortunately for Romney’s hypothetical future Attorney General (read: Harriet Miers), the statute also limits prosecution to the circumstance where: (1) the offense is committed within the United States; or (2) the alleged offender is a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101). Tehran is not, in fact, within the United States, so unless there’s a birtherism controversy in Iran over Ahmadinejad really being from Jersey, there’s not much chance of a federal district court hearing this case any time soon. And thus, anyone voting for Romney to see the Ahmadinejad trial will be disappointed. Joe Patrice is the author of Recess Appointment, a blog about political rhetoric, and he’ll be dropping in occasionally to write about the intersection of law and politics. To answer the question that you’re probably about to ask, he got his J.D. at NYU and spent ten years working at a Biglaw firm and a white-collar defense boutique. His favorite word is sesquipedalian. Partner Allegedly Steals Millions From Biglaw Firms To Lead Luxurious Lifestyle Sony’s Choice: Is Obama Engaged In Victim Shaming? China Compliance: Are You Ready For War With Your Own Staff? Topics Cocaine / Crack, Election 2012, Genocide, International Courts, International Criminal Court, International Law, Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mitt Romney, Politics Popular Articles Why Skype Law School Admission Interviews Are A No Good Very Bad Idea Quote of the Day: Christ Smokes Weed At Montana School of Law 6 comments

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/3799

Search RSS Robert Dreyfuss Robert Dreyfuss is a senior correspondent for The American Prospect. He is the author of Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam. He can be reached through his website. How To Get Out Of Iraq Robert DreyfussAug 15, 2005 There is a light at the end of the tunnel. It isn't the crisis-ridden process of creating an Iraqi constitution, holding a referendum, and then elections (again) in Iraq; down that bumpy path lies a future of continued insurrection and the likely breakup of Iraq, with beleaguered U.S. forces vainly trying to suppress the insurgency and prevent catastrophe. Still, there is indeed a way out of Iraq. An international conference on the war in Iraq, convened in Amman, Jordan, under the auspices of the United Nations, with the support of Russia and China, could bring together the United States, the current interim government of Iraq, and representatives of nearly a dozen Iraqi resistance groups to hammer out an agreement on a cease-fire and a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq within a year. Such a scenario might sound optimistic, but based on many discussions with current and former U.S. diplomats, military officers, and intelligence officials, plus leading Iraqis and officials of... Read more about How To Get Out Of Iraq Phoenix Rising Robert DreyfussDec 10, 2003 With the 2004 electoral clock ticking amid growing public concern about U.S. casualties and chaos in Iraq, the Bush administration's hawks are upping the ante militarily. To those familiar with the CIA's Phoenix assassination program in Vietnam, Latin America's death squads or Israel's official policy of targeted murders of Palestinian activists, the results are likely to look chillingly familiar. The Prospect has learned that part of a secret $3 billion in new funds—tucked away in the $87 billion Iraq appropriation that Congress approved in early November—will go toward the creation of a paramilitary unit manned by militiamen associated with former Iraqi exile groups. Experts say it could lead to a wave of extrajudicial killings, not only of armed rebels but of nationalists, other opponents of the U.S. occupation and thousands of civilian Baathists—up to 120,000 of the estimated 2.5 million former Baath Party members in Iraq. "They're clearly cooking up joint teams to do Phoenix-like... Read more about Phoenix Rising Humpty Dumpty in Baghdad Robert DreyfussApr 09, 2003 The Pentagon is rumbling into Baghdad completely unprepared to fashion a viable new Iraqi government, seemingly obsessed with installing the discredited and corrupt Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), as the country's leader. The task force assigned the job of putting Humpty Dumpty together again after the shooting stops is woefully ill-equipped for its mission, is keeping the Department of State at arm's length, and has few regional experts and Iraq specialists aboard. At the U.S. Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Va., where the military staff is supporting the task force, there is something akin to panic. "[The Pentagon brass] haven't a clue as to what's going on,'' said Judith Yaphe, a former CIA analyst and Iraq expert at the National Defense University. "They don't have plans for a transition in place, they don't know where the money is going to come from, they don't have any organization. And they just don't know anything about Iraq." The Pentagon plans to... Read more about Humpty Dumpty in Baghdad Just the Beginning Robert DreyfussMar 14, 2003 For months Americans have been told that the United States is going to war against Iraq in order to disarm Saddam Hussein, remove him from power, eliminate Iraq's alleged stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and prevent Baghdad from blackmailing its neighbors or aiding terrorist groups. But the Bush administration's hawks, especially the neoconservatives who provide the driving force for war, see the conflict with Iraq as much more than that. It is a signal event, designed to create cataclysmic shock waves throughout the region and around the world, ushering in a new era of American imperial power. It is also likely to bring the United States into conflict with several states in the Middle East. Those who think that U.S. armed forces can complete a tidy war in Iraq, without the battle spreading beyond Iraq's borders, are likely to be mistaken. "I think we're going to be obliged to fight a regional war, whether we want to or not," says Michael Ledeen, a former U.S. national-... Read more about Just the Beginning Persian Gulf—or Tonkin Gulf? Robert DreyfussDec 04, 2002 I n a pair of editorials after the 1991 Gulf War, one of them titled "Don't Shoot Down Iraqi Aircraft," The New York Times called the plan to create vast "no-fly zones" (NFZs) in Iraq "legally untenable and politically unwise." The editorials, based on a careful reading of United Nations resolutions, were explicit: "The [cease-fire] accord permits Iraq to fly all types of aircraft and sets no restriction on their use. Shooting them down would put the United States in the position of breaking an accord it is pledged to uphold." Saying that Washington was entering "new and dangerous territory," the Times warned, "The purpose [of the NFZs] is unclear, probably unwise and maybe even illegal." In fact, no UN resolution or other international authority exists to legitimize the NFZs, which are currently the scene of an intensifying air-to-ground firefight between an armada of U.S. and British warplanes and an ineffectual Iraqi defense system. The British-American presence over Iraq is a case... Read more about Persian Gulf—or Tonkin Gulf?

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/3801

Sheldon Adelson Under Attack By Obama Successful entrepreneurs and donors to conservative issues are under brutal attack by President Obama and the liberal media machine.: : Obama in a well publicized speech business owners and said “You didn’t build that”, and his campaign this week issued a fundraising email assailing Sheldon Adelson, a private citizen for wanting to pay less taxes.: : The email concluded: “We don’t have Sheldon Adelson, and with all due respect, we don’t want him.”: It seems that Occupy Wall Street has succeeded demonizing business — and may indeed today be occupying government and media Not a week passes by that media headlines don’t accuse Adelson of some egregious matter — whether in business or in politics.: : Amongst the myriad of differences between the right wing and left-wing are their views on success.: : The right admires and respects business and executives (particularly the self made), and the left is jealous and suspicious. Adelson is indeed guilty of supporting free enterprise and capitalism.: : Is that a crime? The President skewering a private citizen because of his political beliefs is despicable. The amount of money Adelson spends on politics is dwarfed by what he gives to philanthropy (and what he spends on taxes).: : : Even: Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz blasted the Democrats for their accusations against Adelson earlier of using “dirty money” to support his super PAC donations.: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee apologized for libeling Adelson — because if they hadn’t Adelson was going to sue them for libeling him.: Sheldon Adelson was born into a poor immigrant family, the son of a Boston cab driver — and today is the world’s 14th: wealthiest man with a net worth approaching $25 Billion dollars. He is: : ideological, driven and focused — and lives by the principles his father instilled in him: “honesty and integrity.”: : The liberal fascination with Sheldon Adelson is one which will indeed out live this Presidential election — its intended to dissuade other successful people from challenging their elite insiders system.: : Adelson made his billions challenging the systems and conventional wisdom — and won. He’s made it in Vegas and cannot be intimidated, even by the Obama, and media machine. In 1979 he developed the largest computer show in the world, Comdex. “Experts” said it would never be successful — he disagreed, and won in a major way, 15 years later selling his share for $500 Million dollars. In 1989 he acquired the Sands Hotel & Casino, and in 1990 built the Sands Expo center.: : As he says, his dream came true as he succeeded in drawing millions of visitors to Las Vegas, attracting other exhibitions and succeeding beyond his wildest expectations. Adelson had to raise more than $1 Billion, raze the hotel, plan a massive 13 million square foot project — and today shares of his company are worth: nearly double that of his rivals Wynn and MGM–combined. Think that was tough? It’s not just in America Adelson thrives — his business exploded inMacau, the Chinese gambling city where once again analysts, bankers and others told him he couldn’t succeed. Adelson made back his initial $265 million investment in one year and has succeeded tremendously there.: : This month, he has decided in Madrid he will build EuroVegas, a $21-billion European gambling city which would offer Spain up to a quarter million desperately needed jobs.: : Spain would be wise not to bet against Adelson. One wonders in what universe it is acceptable for the American President to tell a hard-working private citizen… “with all due respect, we don’t want him.”: : Adelson: is famously resilient and focused on winning. He has said: “I’m a businessman. I thrive on creating projects that produce jobs, taxes and economic prosperity.”: This administration, in collaboration with the liberal media has shamefully demonized Adelson simply because of his belief in a system of free enterprise, and political disagreement with Obama. The manner in which this entrepreneur mogul has been demonized by the liberal press since he decided to assist the Republican Party is nothing short of demonic. Ronn Torossian: is CEO of 5WPR, a leading: PR agency. Despite Ridicule, Conservative Ideas Gaining Support Why do people like Rev. Jeremiah Wright travel across America to exhort audiences to denigrate Tea Party Americans as racist? First the Circus and Then the 9/11 Trial Walid bin Attash used to frequent online dating sites. “Loves to travel — sometimes at a moment’s notice,” bin Attash Can You Spot The Racist, Homophobic Anti-Semites In This Special 10 Item Quiz? As we all know, racism, homophobia and anti-Semitism are very bad and should be condemned. Not only do I condemn

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/3950

Fellow Mormon Glenn Beck Thinks Mitt Romney Is Second Coming to George Washington Published by Eugene McCormick on October 26, 2012 - 1:15am Glenn Beck was disappointed in the performance that Mitt Romney gave in his third and final presidential debate with Barack Obama on Monday night. That didn't stop the right wing conservative from comparing Romney, who practices the same Mormon faith as Romney, to the nations first commander in chief George Washington. Beck stated on his radio show Tuesday: "I don't know if it was the right thing, but I believe he's being guided. I believe he feels it's important to be less contentious. It may be that he is doing exactly what the Lord wants him to do right now." "Many of us who have been walking down this road for a long time wanted him to eviscerate the president last night, metaphorically speaking." "But our ways aren't necessarily his ways, and I hope and pray and believe that Mitt Romney is trying to seek out his ways. Last night, you saw somebody who took the stage who appeared to me to be George Washington." If you do a little research you can see that many in the Mormon faith feel a member of their religion has a destiny to reach the presidency as founding member of the Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Joseph Smith , who once himself ran for the highest office in the land, came up with what is referred to as the "white horse prophecy". Latest News: NewsPoliticsU.S. PoliticsElections 2012 View the discussion thread. Custom Search

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/3979

Internet Sales Tax Bill Passes Senate, House Expected to Challenge It 51 comment(s) - last by notyourmamma2.. on May 11 at 9:23 PM House Speaker John Boehner now plans to deliver the bill to the House Judiciary Committee The Internet sales tax bill passed with flying colors in the Senate, but the House of Representatives may prove to be more of an obstacle. The Senate voted 69-27 in favor of the Internet sales tax bill (also known as the Marketplace Fairness Act) on Monday. The Marketplace Fairness Act would allow states to force out-of-state retailers to collect sales tax on Internet purchases -- even if the e-tailer has no physical presence in that buyer's state. The legislation offers an exemption for merchants that generate less than $1 million in annual out-of-state revenue. However, many e-tailers like eBay and Overstock.com oppose the new bill, saying that it would hurt small businesses. Those who are onboard with the legislation include Amazon, which is looking to simplify its U.S. state sales tax payments, and brick-and-mortar stores like Wal-Mart and Best Buy, which have complained about the unfair advantage online retailers have when it comes to the lack of sales tax collection in certain states. Also, state government's in need of extra revenue like the idea of the new bill. The California Board of Equalization, for instance, said it made $96.4 million in sales tax on internet commerce from September-December 2012, which is the first full quarter that the state started collecting. Back in April, the Marketplace Fairness Act scored a big victory in a procedural vote of 74-20 in the Senate. It even won backing from U.S. President Barack Obama. While the Marketplace Fairness Act has had an easy time in the Senate, things are expected to change in the House of Representatives. The issue is that Republicans control the House, and they refuse to consider new federal revenue from eliminating tax breaks (which would be part of tax reform). House Speaker John Boehner now plans to deliver the bill to the House Judiciary Committee. Source: Reuters Comments Threshold -1 RE: Lies! Exactly. If there is any tax that makes absolutely no sense, it's sales tax. Imagine that. A tax on spending your money. Because already being taxed on your income isn't enough.Sales tax is the only tax I don't really agree with. At least other taxes (travel, alcohol/tobacco, gasoline, etc) aren't as barbaric as taxing something like food. Parent Senate Votes in Favor of Internet Sales Tax Bill April 23, 2013, 5:41 AM California Grabs $96.4 Million in First Round of Online Sales Tax Collection

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/4056

Not really a war Israel News | Haaretz Not really a war Keeping Hamas from taking part in the following PA elections would be the true success of Operation Cast Lead. By Amir Oren | Jan. 5, 2009 | 1:37 AM This is not a war, and it is also not the third occupation of the Gaza Strip by Israeli troops - the other two being in 1956 and after the Six-Day War in 1967. The headlines and slogans are excessive and superfluous. To the soldier in an engagement and the commander in battle it makes no difference - the risks are the same. But on a national level, it is best to be precise. Operation Cast Lead is a brigade-size raid, with an accompanying air and naval component. No more, no less - certainly not as long as there is no decision on whether to attach the reservist units being called up to the Gaza Division, or to use them as replacements for conscript units. A raid means a military incursion similar in size to the operations in Karameh in Jordan in 1968 and Litani in Lebanon a decade later. For the time being, and hopefully until its completion, this operation is significantly more economical in terms of Israelis injured: In each of the other two operations, 30 soldiers were killed, in addition to those missing and imprisoned. During the past few years, the Israel Defense Forces has carried out four major operations: the evacuation of the Gaza Strip in 2005; the campaign in Lebanon in 2006 (which took place in parallel with Operation Southern Shalit in the Gaza Strip, following the abduction of Gilad Shalit); the air strike on the Syrian nuclear reactor in 2008; and Cast Lead. You can also add Operation Defensive Shield in 2002 to this list. For Defensive Shield, five divisions were used, four in the evacuation of the Gaza Strip (two military and two police), and in Lebanon four. The difference in these operations depends very much on circumstances. A conscript force, be it a ground or an air unit, which is constantly in the field and has the necessary intelligence, planning and clear rules of engagement, will always be more efficient than reservists rushed to the fight with insufficient training. At the root of the IDF's success in evacuating the Gaza settlements rapidly, assertively and without losses lay the willingness to quickly use disproportional force. This approach was also adopted in September 2005 in response to a barrage of Qassam rockets Hamas unleashed after an incident at the Jabalya refugee camp. However, several months later, the Olmert-Peretz government abandoned the offensive approach. The decision to also deploy artillery against rocket attacks was quickly canceled following the disaster that befell the Ghalia family on a Gaza beach. One of the girls in the family, Ilham Ghalia, who was hospitalized in Tel Aviv's Ichilov Hospital, told a story that was different from what Palestinian propaganda would have us believe: Her father caused the lethal explosion when he handled an unexploded ordnance left behind from a previous incident. Decision makers in the government and IDF for some reason shelved her admission, which relieved Israel of blame. This anemic attitude contributed to the failure to prevent the attack on Kerem Shalom and the abduction of Gilad Shalit. After the violent takeover by Hamas of the Gaza Strip, Israel tried methods that had already failed in Iraq, Iran and everywhere else: sanctions. The distress in the Gaza Strip was major, but bearable. The hiatus in the fighting was exploited to import long-range rockets. Had Hamas managed to contain itself and extend the cease-fire a few more months, the next shipments - according to the staff of Defense Minister Ehud Barak - would have been able to target Tel Aviv. The end of the cease-fire created unique conditions that are not likely to repeat themselves, in the form of American, European and even Arab agreement for an aerial and ground offensive in Gaza, despite the hundreds of Palestinian casualties. As in past assassination campaigns (Shehadeh, Yassin, Rantisi), the IDF and Shin Bet security service are trying to target the extremists in order to assist the moderates. The catch is that in the current operation, both the moderates and extremists (everything is relative) are members of Hamas. The strike on the neighborhood housing the battalion commanders was not only meant to make command and control of resistance to a ground offensive difficult, but also to bolster those more sensible in the three centers of Hamas power - Gaza, the West Bank and Damascus - who recognize that the organization risks losing all it has. The challenge for Israel is to create an Arab and international envelope around Gaza, free of Hamas' rockets, and restore to it the Palestinian Authority in the form of Mahmoud Abbas or Salam Fayyad. This may require new elections in the PA, and this time only the parties willing to recognize the existence of Israel and the validity of the Oslo Accords will be allowed to participate. Bringing Hamas face to face with such a reality will be the true success of Operation Cast Lead. To get the latest from Haaretz

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/4068

Governor Walker proclaims October “Co-op Month” Governor Scott Walker’s recent signing of an official proclamation declaring October “Co-op Month” in Wisconsin is a highlight in a year-long celebration recognizing 2012 as the International Year of Cooperatives. October is traditionally recognized as “Cooperative Month” throughout the nation, a time when cooperatives and their members make a special effort to educate the public about their member-owned and member-controlled business form. Throughout 2012, cooperatives have been celebrating the International Year of Cooperatives, which was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly to recognize the diversity of the cooperative movement around the world and the role of the cooperative business model in achieving economical viability, while also contributing social and community benefits. “Cooperatives Build a Better World” is the theme for this year’s October Month celebrations. “This year October Co-op Month is particularly special, as it is the pinnacle of our 2012 International Year of Cooperatives celebration,” said Bill Oemichen, president and CEO of Cooperative Network, the organization that requested the Co-op Month proclamation. Cooperative Network is a trade association that serves more than 600 member-cooperative businesses in Wisconsin and Minnesota. “Wisconsin has a proud cooperative heritage, and we appreciate Governor Walker’s proclamation which recognizes the significant contributions cooperative businesses make in the Badger state. Today, some 2.7 million Wisconsin citizens depend on approximately 650 co-ops to market and supply agricultural products as well as to provide credit, electricity, telephone service, health care, housing, insurance, and many other products and services,” Oemichen said. The proclamation signed by Governor Walker recognizes that ”cooperatives play a major role in Wisconsin’s economy, annually recording about $8.6 billion in revenue, employing approximately 19,000 Wisconsin residents and paying nearly $780 million in wages and benefits each year.” The first official October Co-op Month proclamation was signed in Minnesota in 1948. The October Co-op Month celebration soon spread to other states, and in 1964, then U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman proclaimed the first national Co-op Month. This year’s theme, “Cooperatives Build a Better World,” highlights some of the values that set cooperatives apart from for-profit businesses: cooperative buying power and economic advantage; community commitment and interaction; democratic principles; and people helping people.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/4097

Climate Treaty Will Create World Government Dictatorship 000 NoWorldSystem The Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations will hold their 15th conference on climate change through December 7-18th. At the conference, globalists like Obama will sign the ‘Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty’ that will replace the Kyoto treaty that is set to expire in 2012. Lord Christopher Monckton, the man who warned many this week of the treaty appeared on the Glenn Beck radio program, he makes it clear that the treaty will create a World Government Dictatorship that will have complete authority over all nations by intervening in the economies and environment of any individual country in the world without consent. The treaty will also allow the distribution of wealth from developed countries like the U.S. to Third World Countries like Africa, in other words; taxpayer-funded socialist welfare! The reason why many believe Obama will sign this global treaty is because Obama has supported a global tax legislation would have given $845 billion of foreign aid to satisfy the United Nations’ goal of reducing poverty by 2015. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23T1vB24bdI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDy26iiHpWM Here’s what it says about the distribution of wealth in the Copenhagen Treaty Draft: 17. [[Developed [and developing] countries] [Developed and developing country Parties] [All Parties] [shall] [should]:] (a) Compensate for damage to the LDCs’ economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees; (b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of response measures. Meanwhile globalists like Brown are using fear of impending doom of climate change in order to pass the Copenhagen Treaty, he says “The world is watching.” “We must make history.” “If we do not reach a deal at this time, let us be in no doubt: once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement in some future period can undo that choice. By then it will be irretrievably too late. So we should never allow ourselves to lose sight of the catastrophe we face if present warming trends continue.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H42-aSOzIpQ Al Gore has said, ”This treaty must be negotiated this year. Not next year. This year.” The creation of a New World Order has been in the works for decades, technically America is already under the thumb of World Government in more ways than one. To understand what is about to take place in America we have to understand what Agenda 21 is, it’s the blueprint for the New World Order agenda for the 21st century. Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment. You can read the entire UN document here. Excerpt: “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJp0P6eggXU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TanftYACLmA The phrase ’sustainable development’ really means population control, when you think about a New World Order just think about the de-population of mankind, the enslavement of man, forcing humans into compact zones surrounded by protected wildlife where he is prohibited from entering, a socialist distribution of wealth, the complete centralization of all governments and wealth in the hands of a few dictators in the United Nations. A Total bureaucratic, technological slave-grid.. in other words, hell on earth.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/4120

The Kenya Mission to the United Nations serves as the Kenya delegation to the United Nations. Through diplomacy, negotiation, lobbying and daily monitoring of UN activities, the Mission’s main objective is to advance Kenya’s interests at the United Nations in critical areas namely: political, economic and social as well as legal, military, public diplomacy and management interests. The Mission covers a wide range of the Ministry’s Foreign Policy objectives, from peaceful resolution of disputes to protecting the environment as well as promoting sustainable development. The Mission externalizes Kenya domestic policies in a wide range of thematic issues and areas of interests to the country. The Mission conducts multilateral and bilateral relations with representatives of the 193 UN Member States, over 30 Observer Missions, many Non-Governmental Organizations with observer status and the United Nations Secretariat, which serves member states. It also works with UN Funds and Programmes such as UN children’s fund (UNICEF), the UN Developmental Programme (UNDP), the UN Gender Entity on Women (UN Women), and the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) amongst others. The Kenya Mission implements the Strategic Plan of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs from which it implements specific multi-lateral mandate based on an annual performance contract it signs with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA). This means that the Mission in New York promotes the same Mission, Vision and Core Values as contained in the MFA’s current Strategic Plan and its Service Charter, although, the service charter is adapted to the specific roles and functions of the Mission and its circumstances. This year, 2013, Kenya is celebrating its 50 years of independence and 50 years anniversary as a member State of the United Nations; Kenya became a member of United Nations (UN) on 16th December 1963 and has since played a pivotal role in shaping international multilateral diplomacy here in New York. Kenya is actively represented in all the six committees of the UN, ensuring that our national interests and views are taken into account in all areas, levels and circumstances. Other areas of focus include the reforms of the Security Council, improvement in the UN finances and strengthening of the UN capacity to deal with economic and social issues, peacekeeping and peace-building and conflict prevention amongst others. Kenya has been in the forefront of efforts to develop practical proposals for reforms of the Security Council, ECOSOC and the UN in general to make the institutions more responsive and strong to deal with modern challenges. 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. H.E. Mr. Macharia Kamau Ambassador/Deputy Permanent Representative The United Nations Headquarters in New York is the busiest and the most exciting environment I have worked in yet. There are 193 countries and over thirty (30) Missions with observer status represented here. It is truly a beehive of activity. The Kenya mission to the United Nations is rated as one of the key and significant missions represented here. Kenya enjoys a high and respected profile. H.E. Ms. Koki Muli Grignon Minister Counsellor I Joshua Mugodo Counsellor I Mr Robert Mule Ngei Counsellor II Mr. James Ndirangu Waweru Second Secretary Mr. Tom Adala Ms. Beatrice Mwaura Mr. Tobias Ogweno Administrative Attaché Ms. Alice M. Nderitu Financial Attaché Mr. John M. Kimani Defense Adviser Col. Aphaxard M. Kiugu Immigration Attaché Mr. Charles M. Munyao 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. H.E Presidents Kibaki Addresses 67th United Nations General Assembly Facts on Kenya at the UN

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/4176

Gerrymandering getting bad name from former Gov. Roy Barnes, others October 29, 2013 11:28 PM | 1024 views | 1 | 33 | | Don McKee It seems that gerrymandering, which is what the political party in power does to redraw legislative and congressional districts, is getting a bad name. Indeed, there’s a campaign by the left wing to stamp out this practice because at present it is blamed for helping those dastardly Republicans and even “destroying the fabric of the American society.” Weighing in on this topic lately was former Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes, who told a law symposium hosted by the UGA Law School in Athens that Congress should mandate the drawing of congressional districts by independent commissions instead of state legislatures, the Daily Report informs.“I will tell you we’ve got to do something because we’re the laughing stock” of the world, Barnes said, with reference to the latest partial shutdown of the federal government. “Something has to be done to equalize these districts or there won’t be change in Congress. There are just a few seats in play.”The former governor said Democratic gerrymandering of Georgia legislative districts under his watch in 2001 “was not my finest hour.” The U.S. Supreme Court came to the same conclusion at the time and ordered a lower court to fix the maps, and the court obliged, declaring them “baldly unconstitutional” in violation of the one person, one vote rule. Barnes also said gerrymandering has not been “the finest hour of those who came after me,” meaning Republicans.However, he pointed out that his successor, Republican Gov. Sonny Perdue who defeated Barnes in 2002, has endorsed the idea of assigning an independent body the task of redrawing districts. Perdue’s proposal in February 2007 called for a seven-member council appointed by the governor, the Democratic and Republican leaders in House and Senate and the council itself. The Daily Report said Perdue’s former spokesman, Bert Brantley, had tweeted that the former governor still favors the commission plan to cut down on partisanship and Perdue often speaks of “the dangers of extreme districts.”Barnes’ comments came in response to a question by Georgia Court of Appeals Judge Billy Ray II, a former GOP state senator who, the Daily Report said, “referred to a recent news report on the rise of majority party districts and their contribution to government gridlock.”The news report was not identified but they are all over the Internet, from the New York Times to a typical dailykos.com left-wing screed: “GOP Gerrymandering is a clear and present danger to America. It is destroying the fabric of the American society. It is mostly responsible for a failing middle class, a faltering economy and hate. The party that has gerrymandered majority representation out of a minority has used race, class and economic deception to achieve its goals.” Media in other countries, including our neighbor Canada take a similar line.But in truth, gerrymandering is not the root of all evil in our country, in the view some distinguished scholars whose analysis offers food for thought. That will be examined in Friday’s column.dmckee9613@aol.com Copyright 2014 The Marietta Daily Journal. All rights reserved. SK Commercial Realty names new executive vice president Homes for the holidays: Tour to showcase Marietta historic homes, buildings Expect New Spin on Braves History at SunTrust Park A legacy of integrity: Judge White dies at age 93 East Cobb Senior | There are apparently several states that use Commissions to draw district lines. However, left up to politicians who benefit from controlling the redistricting process is like asking the lion to give up the meat. Barnes was in charge of redistricting right after the 2000 census and for him to say it wasn't his finest hour is a gross understatement. He violated every reasonable principle when drawing the district lines and was severely rebuked by the courts. The late Tom Murphy, who himself was a master at the gerrymander, successfully thwarted the emergence of a Republican majority until lines were drawn after the 1990 census. It took the Voting Rights Act to break his (Tom Murphy’s) political dominance over the process. I agree that the gerrymander has led to extreme partisan deadlock in not only the U.S. Congress but in State and Local governments as well. Redistricting Commissions would go a long way in providing more balance in our legislatures. However, as long as the appointments to those commissions are done by politicians, little would change. For them to work they must be free from ANY political influence. Reply

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/4186

Stay Central America & the Caribbean The countries of Central America's Northern Triangle (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras) have seen a significant number of their citizens migrate to the United States. Immigrants from the Caribbean represent half of all Black immigrants in the United States. As such, the ties between these countries and their diasporas have taken on new importance, as has the integration of these immigrants in their country of settlement. Research here explores the demographics, migration flows, human-capital development, interconnected policy realities, and outcomes for immigrants from Central America and the Caribbean. (For research specific to Mexico, see North America.) AllReportsPolicy BriefsBooksMultimedia & More >> By Graeme Hugo Pages« first‹ previous123456789…next ›last » Border Insecurity in Central America's Northern Triangle By Ralph Espach and Daniel Haering Transnational Crime in Mexico and Central America: Its Evolution and Role in International Migration By Steven Dudley Reports By Hugo Beteta Pages« first‹ previous12345next ›last » Circular Migration and Development: Trends, Policy Routes, and Ways Forward Guatemalan Migration in Times of Civil War and Post-War Challenges During recent decades, large-scale international migration has been an external escape valve for Guatemala, a response to the country's multiple internal problems. This article examines Guatemalan migration, primarily to the United States, into the post-war era; U.S. government immigration policies affecting Guatemalans; the impacts of migration within Guatemala; and Guatemala/Mexico migration dynamics. Online Journal Central American Immigrants in the United States Since 1990, the number of Central American immigrants in the United States has nearly tripled. This immigrant population grew faster than any other region-of-origin population from Latin America between 2000 and 2010. This article focuses on a wide range of characteristics of Central American immigrants residing in the United States, including the population's size, geographic distribution, admission categories, and demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. Beyond Remittances: Reframing Diaspora-Driven Development in El Salvador El Salvador's lengthy civil war crushed diasporas' opportunities for political or civic engagement in this small, densely-populated Central American nation. However, hometown associations—diaspora organizations that contribute to the development needs of their members' hometowns—represent a modern-day venue for civil society participation. This article explores how diasporas are contributing to development in more ways than just cash flows and projects by transforming the governance landscape. Top 10 of 2012 - Issue #10: As Migration of Unaccompanied Minors Endures, and in Some Cases Rises, Governments Seek to Respond Arrivals of unaccompanied minors to the United States surged during 2012, straining the child custody system. While the flows of unaccompanied child migrants to Europe remained stable, the European Union continues to grapple with policies regarding the treatment of this uniquely vulnerable population. Top 10 of 2011 - Issue #10: Caught between Two Migration Realities, Mexico Passes New Immigration Legislation Migration to and through Mexico has been a critical policy issue for the Mexican government since the 1980s, as large numbers of Central Americans have flowed in through the country's porous southern border, first in flight during times of civil war and humanitarian crises and later in pursuit of greater economic opportunity in the United States. Pages« first‹ previous123456next ›last » Video, Audio December 14, 2012 Young Children of Black Immigrants in America: Changing Flows, Changing Faces The event discussion, which touched on the intersection of race and immigration, focused on the demographics of Black immigrants (both African and Caribbean) in the United States and their children, their educational success, and the implications of the recently released volume’s findings for research and public policy. Video, Audio March 18, 2011 Lessons from the 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) research fellows Magnus Lofstrom and Sarah Bohn, and UC Berkeley professor of public policy Steven Raphael are issuing a new report that examines whether LAWA achieved its primary aims: reducing the unauthorized population, deterring their employment opportunities and improving employment outcomes of competing authorized workers. Their analysis also investigates whether Arizona’s legislation induced a shift away from formal employment. Video November 30, 2010 Diasporas: New Partners in Global Development Policy Over the past year, MPI has partnered with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation to examine how diasporas contribute to – or detract from - development efforts in their countries of origin. MPI and USAID have published an edited volume of the research. Please join us for the release of the book where speakers will discuss new thinking on the role of diaspora engagement in U.S. foreign and development policy. Video, Audio June 9, 2010 Discussion on Possible Solutions for Refugees and IDPs Breakfast briefing with T. Alexander Aleinikoff, Demetrios G. Papademetriou, and Kathleen Newland. Private recruitment agencies orchestrate much of the migration process, from predeparture to return. They provide information, assistance, and even financial support to migrants; facilitate transit to and from the destination; and in some cases employ migrants directly. While recruitment agencies protect migrants, sometimes removing them from abusive workplaces or even organizing repatriation, migrants’ dependence on them for so many services also creates many opportunities for exploitation and abuse. This brief assesses the forms of regulation that are being proposed and enacted to oversee recruitment agencies and identifies several areas for further improvement. Diasporas can play an important role in the economic development of their countries of origin or ancestry. Beyond their well-known role as senders of remittances, diasporas also can promote trade and foreign direct investment, create businesses, spur entrepreneurship, and transfer new knowledge and skills. Policymakers increasingly recognize that an engaged diaspora can be an asset — or even a counterweight to the emigration of skilled and talented migrants. Skilled migration is often thought to have overwhelmingly negative effects on countries of migrant origin. Yet recent research and policy experience challenge this assumption and offer a more nuanced picture, as this brief explains. Countries of origin and destination can in fact benefit from skilled migration when it is correctly structured, and efforts to restrict skilled nationals’ ability to leave their countries of origin may have unintended costs, in addition to being ethically problematic. Demetrios G. Papademetriou Randy Capps Marc R. Rosenblum Victoria Rietig Multimedia see all > The Global Boom in Investor Immigration: What Are the Lessons For Policymakers?

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/4215

Democrats closing ranks About this blog I guess Mass. Democrats don’t want a primary like the one that allegedly hurt Martha Coakley hindering their expected rematch with Scott Brown.This just in from Sen. John Kerry:“While I began last week to formally step out of politics and it’s very important that I respect the apolitical nature of the post I hope to soon occupy, as Massachusetts’ senior senator today and as a colleague of Ed Markey’s for 28 years, I’m excited to learn of and support his decision to run for the United States Senate. Ed’s one of the most experienced and capable legislators in the entire Congress and it would be an almost unprecedented occasion for such an accomplished legislator to join the Senate able to hit the ground running on every issue of importance to Massachusetts. Ed’s someone who authored and passed a visionary energy bill to deal with climate change; he’s one of Congress’ foremost experts on the Internet, telecommunications and new energy economies; he was a leader on nuclear weapons issues; and he’s the House’s leading, ardent, and thoughtful protector of the environment. Ed’s upbringing in Malden and his service as the Dean of our delegation means he knows in his heart and in his head just what is important to every corner of our state. He’s passionate about the issues that Ted Kennedy and I worked on as a team for decades, whether it’s health care or the environment and energy or education. He’s gutsy and tough, smart and sharp, a workhorse in Congress who has never forgotten where he came from or who sent him to Washington.” - Sen. John Kerry Recent Posts

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/4294

Analysis: Sri Lankan election a last chance for healing Publisher Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN) Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN), Analysis: Sri Lankan election a last chance for healing, 26 January 2010, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/4b61b2492.html [accessed 28 December 2014] DisclaimerThis is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States. COLOMBO, 26 January 2010 (IRIN) - Sri Lanka's first post-war election may not deliver any substantial improvement in healing long-lasting divides between the country's majority Singalese and minority Tamal communities unless the winner institutes substantive power sharing. Neither of the frontrunners, incumbent President Mahinda Rajapaksa, nor his main challenger, former army commander Sarath Fonseka, has offered any concrete measures on how to address these issues after the 26 January poll. Both have promised to be much more active in addressing the grievances of the country's 2.64 million Tamil minority but have stopped well short of clearly defining what they plan to do. "A lot will depend on how far the winner is willing to go," says Jehan Perera, executive director of the Colombo-based advocacy group National Peace Council. "[There are] a lot of promises, but no guarantees." The International Crisis Group echoed that sentiment in a report released on 11 January, Sri Lanka: A Bitter Peace, which states that neither had offered credible proposals for political reforms that would address the marginalization of Tamils and other minorities. "Whoever wins, donor governments and international institutions should use their development assistance to support reforms designed to protect the democratic rights of all of Sri Lanka's citizens and ethnic communities," the report said. More than 14 million Sri Lankans are expected to elect their sixth executive president to a six-year term. Both frontrunners are from the majority Sinhala community, thus making the minority Tamils, who comprise about 12 percent of the population, a deciding factor. But Tamil politicians have divided themselves between Rajapaksa and Fonseka. Tamil member of parliament Vinayagamurthi Muralitharan, alias Karuna, who broke away from the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in 2004, supports the incumbent along with several other Tamil parliamentarians, while the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), the major Tamil party in Sri Lanka's parliament, has weighed in behind Fonseka. The TNA has the single largest representation in parliament with 21 members. Crucial elections Although their politics may differ widely, both camps agree the election is vital to the minority Tamils. "For the first time all the voters are looking at the national picture and deciding. The Tamils know that their vote will be decisive at [the] national stage," Muralitharan said. "This is a very important election for the Tamil people. The reason is that this is the first time that we have asked the Tamils to support a candidate [outside the TNA]," Mavi Senathiraja, a TNA member of parliament, told IRIN. The TNA has been calling for greater development of the Tamil areas and speedy resettlement of tens of thousands of civilians who were displaced by the final phase of the fighting last year between government forces and the LTTE, who had fought for an independent Tamil homeland for more than two decades. More than 280,000 were displaced in the fighting and living in government camps soon after the war ended in May 2009. Since December the government has accelerated their resettlement and some 170,000 have returned to their villages, but the TNA says the resettlement process is not to their satisfaction. "The IDPs are not being resettled properly. They are taken from one camp to another. If this continues, the Tamils will lose their sense of belonging to a particular place; their sense of identity. Therefore, the Tamils have to vote in order to stop this," Senathiraja told IRIN. Political support Opposition leader Ranil Wickremasinghe is backing Fonseka, and it was he who swayed TNA support, Perera said. A former prime minister and leader of the country's largest political party, Wickremasinghe was the principal mover behind the 2004 peace accord with the Tigers and is largely seen by them as a more moderate national leader, although it is unclear what role, if any, he would play in a Fonseka government. However, Senathiraja told IRIN that Fonseka and Wickremasinghe had promised to look at a long-term political solution to address Tamil grievances. "They have responded in a positive way and have given us the assurance to address these issues," Senathiraja said. "Fonseka has given us the assurance that he will make every effort for the reconciliation process once he is elected." However, Muralitharan still feels the incumbent holds the best chance for the Tamils, adding that a change of administration could derail ongoing development projects. "The Tamils need to think before they vote. Many development projects are being carried out, especially in the north and east. There may be delays but all these will be affected if the wrong person is elected president." More autonomy for the Tamils has been a long-standing TNA demand, and the Tamils have long complained of being treated as second-class citizens. In addition, they feel government decisions and policies in education, agriculture and natural resources have further marginalized them. contributor/ds/mw Search Refworld by keyword and / or country All countries Afghanistan Resettlement

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/4301

All In The Political Family It seems clear to us that the dual investigations centering on two of our local politicians, State Senator Malcolm Smith and Representative Gregory Meeks, points out once again that non-profits should not be run by and for the benefit of politicians and their families. Take, for example, New Direction Local Development Corporation. Founded in 2001 by the initiatives of Meeks and Smith, state papers show that Smith’s wife, Michelle, was a founding board member. Also on the initial board, papers show, was Cathy Green, the wife of Darryl Green, Smith’s former business partner. Green was convicted in 1999 of stealing $500,000 from city agencies and private firms that hired him as a consultant on affirmative action hiring practices. He was also a partner, along with former Congressman Floyd Flake, in the Aqueduct Entertainment Group, which was just awarded a $300 million “Racino” deal at the aging racetrack in Ozone Park. Flake, you will remember, was the political mentor of both Smith and Meeks. Records show that between 2001 and 2006 Smith helped funnel at least $56,000 to the charity through state earmarks. The largest chunk of money came to New Direction at the behest of Smith, $250,000 from the developer of a cargo facility across Rockaway Turnpike from JFK Airport. The deal to trade the right to build the facility in return for community development money was brokered by Smith, Meeks and City Councilman James Sanders Jr. Edwin Reed, who is listed as the treasurer of New Direction, is also the head of the development arm of Flake’s church, the Greater Allen AME Church in Jamaica. Flake has become the power behind the scenes in Queens Democratic circles. His development group was recently given the keys to Aqueduct Racetrack to run a gambling Racino there. A week before Flake’s group got the nod, the minister was talking up Andrew Cuomo for governor. Shortly after the deal was made, Flake visited the governor in Albany and then declared that his mind was not made up and that he might back Paterson for a full term. Under the New Direction umbrella, Smith and Meeks started a charity for Katrina victims who had come to New York City. It collected some $30,000. It paid out less than $2,000. Now, federal investigators are looking for the missing money. They are also looking into New Direction and the connection between Meeks and Smith and the Aqueduct deal. Some non-profits that deserve a closer look are also closer to home. You’ll remember Democratic District Leader Geraldine Chapey’s Trinity Seniors organization. She ran a single van, providing rides for seniors to luncheons and events. For that, she took in more than $1.5 million in public money over a ten year period, both from city agencies and from local politicians who provided her with earmarked funds. Allowing politicians to run their own non-profits, or to turn them over to family and cronies only provides the possibility of corruption, and the practice should be stopped now. Return to top

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/4304

Hahn Holds California Seat for Democrats Kyle Trygstad Roll Call Staff President Barack Obama carried it in 2008 by 30 points, but the state’s first independent redistricting process is expected to make it more viable for Republicans, as it was in the 1990s. Hahn lost her first bid for the seat in 1998, when Harman vacated it to run for governor. Hahn went on to represent south Los Angeles on the City Council. She lost her second bid for higher office in the 2008 Democratic primary for lieutenant governor. Hahn’s win in the House race builds on her family’s political success. Her father, Kenneth Hahn, served on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors for 40 years, and her brother, James Hahn, is the only person to serve as Los Angeles mayor, city controller and city attorney. The victory follows the death of her mother on Monday. KyleTrygstad@rollcall.com | @KyleTrygstad

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/4305

GOP Senators, Hillary Clinton Disagree on Troops Leaving Iraq Melanie Starkey Roll Call Staff Oct. 23, 2011, 12:22 p.m. Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call File Photo Sen. John McCain (left) said the United States should have negotiated with Iraq to keep U.S. troops there, and Sen. Lindsey Graham said the Iraqi military still needs outside help. Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and John McCain (Ariz.) slammed the Obama administration today for deciding to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq this year, while Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton emphasized America�s commitment to the nation during a swing through the morning political shows. �This was an ongoing discussion,� Clinton said on �Fox News Sunday.� �It started, you know, several years ago. It kept going, and at the end of the day, as in many discussions and negotiations, an agreement was reached that met the needs of both sides. The president has fulfilled the commitment he made to the American people. We�ve also, under the president�s leadership, fulfilled the commitment requested by the Iraqis.� She expressed the decision as respecting the will of a sovereign nation and ally. �Now, you can�t on the one hand say you are all for democracy and sovereignty and independence where people make their own choices, and on the other hand say when a choice is made that is foreseen by our own government � going back to the Bush administration and validated by the Obama administration and the current government in Iraq � that that somehow is not appropriate, because that is what we were there for: to give the Iraqi people the chance to make their own decisions,� said Clinton, who also appeared on CNN�s �State of the Union,� ABC�s �This Week� and NBC�s �Meet the Press.� The Republican hawks argued that the administration could have negotiated an agreement that would have allowed U.S. troops to remain in Iraq. �I think it�s a serious mistake,� McCain said on �This Week.� �And there was never really serious negotiations between the administration and the Iraqis. They could have clearly made an arrangement for U.S. troops. ... I believe we could have negotiated an agreement. And I�m very, very concerned about increased Iranian influence in Iraq.� Graham said that Iraqi leaders were open to a continuing U.S. presence when he visited in May. �The Iraqis have no air force. They have no intelligence-gathering capability. They have � they need counterterrorism assistance. There are missions only we can do. The Iraqis were in my view open-minded to this,� he said on �Fox News Sunday.� �This was a failure by the Obama administration to close the deal. ... It was his job, the Obama administration�s job, to end this well. They failed.� According to McCain, Iraqis were ready to negotiate, but the United States didn�t come to the discussions with a clear plan.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/4358

Man complains of Obama supporters working lines tampabaycom Tuesday, November 4, 2008 8:56pm RIVERVIEW -- Early morning lines provided a campaigning opportunity for some political supporters and Jerry Cugno didn't appreciate it one bit. Cugno arrived at his Summerfield Crossing Community Center polling place shortly before it opened Tuesday to find a line he estimated to be an eighth of a mile long. What annoyed him was that two women were working the crowd on behalf of Barack Obama, asking people who they support and trying to sway those not on board. One of the women was within 35 feet of the entrance to the precinct, easily in violation of a state rule prohibiting voter contact by campaigners and others within 100 feet polling site entrance. Cugno said he complained to poll workers, who he said refused to address the matter. When he finally got through to the Supervisor of Elections Office, he said he was hung up on by the person who answered the phone. "I watched her work the line for over 40 minutes," Cugno said. "It was crazy." A spokeswoman for Hillsborough Supervisor of Elections Buddy Johnson said she was not aware of anyone hanging up on people calling to complain. She said the office received a number of calls from people complaining about voter contact within the 100-foot buffer. "If they call us, we call the clerk (of the polling site) and remind them of the 100-foot rule," said Mia McCormick, the spokeswoman. "And if there's still a problem, we call law enforcement." -- Bill Varian and Janet Zink, Times Staff Writer [Last modified: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 11:39am]

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/4389

Senate OKs gun bill; House debate goes on Hundreds of pro-gun advocates gather outside and inside the state Capitol today to protest the gun control package that will likely be voted on later today. Published April 03. 2013 11:00AMUpdated April 04. 2013 12:42AM After a six-hour debate on the gun control, mental health and school safety bill Wednesday, the state Senate voted 26-10 in favor of the bill and sent it to the House.The 151 House legislators debated the bill late into the night."The tragedy in Newtown demands a powerful response. It demands a response that transcends politics," Senate President Pro Tempore Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, said Wednesday.Legislators in favor of the bill said they recognized that no one was completely happy with the bill, but that it was a response to the Dec. 14 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School and would be the most comprehensive bill in the nation to address gun control, mental health and school safety.Those opposed to the bill said it would not prevent another Newtown tragedy and that mental health issues should have been addressed more strongly.In the Senate, six of the 14 Republicans and 20 of the 22 Democrats voted in favor of the bill. The two Democrats who opposed the bill were state Sen. Andrew Maynard, D-Stonington, and state Sen. Cathy Osten, D-Sprague."I went out and I talked to people on every side of the issue for the last two-and-a-half months, and at the end of that process, I had to cast the most challenging vote of my legislative career," Maynard said.The people who have committed mass murders in the recent past have been young men who seemed socially isolated and appeared to be taking their frustrations out on the world, he said. This bill addresses responsible gun owners in the state and wouldn't actually prevent a tragedy such as Newtown from occurring again, Maynard said."I think people hell-bent on doing these kinds of acts are not the sort of people who will pay much attention to new laws," Maynard said.Osten said there is a clear problem with mental health services in this state. Adam Lanza was troubled for years and was ignored, she said."Adam Lanza was the one who killed those 20 young children and six adults," Osten said. "He is the one we should hold accountable today, not the legal gun owners in this state."Williams said the bill does address mental health issues and "for those saying we cannot move forward on gun proposals because it (the tragedy) is all about mental health, I would strongly disagree."If the laws under discussion and vote Wednesday had been in effect before the Sandy Hook massacre, Lanza's mother could not have purchased an AR-15 type assault rifle or high-capacity magazines with more than 10 rounds, Williams said.Newtown parents attending the session said the bill was a good start, but there is still more to be done.Nearly in tears, Jessica Pinkney, whose daughter is a first-grader at Middle Gate Elementary in Newtown, said, "My daughter … she starts soccer up again this spring, and it's very sad because there are five girls that won't be playing soccer anymore, and it's just upsetting."Her niece was in one of the Sandy Hook classrooms during the shooting. She survived, but she heard everything that happened and is now having night terrors, Pinkney said."My mom lost her best friend, Mary Sherlach," Pinkney said. "We have been friends with the Sherlachs for 30 years."Sherlach was the school psychologist at Sandy Hook, one of six adults killed that day at the school.Her husband, William Sherlach, was one of the family members of Sandy Hook victims who came to the state Capitol on Monday to ask that a ban on the possession of high-capacity magazines with more than 10 rounds be included in the bill.That measure did not make it into the proposal.Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, who represents Newtown, said he couldn't adequately describe how he felt after the bill was passed in the Senate."There have been a lot of hours put into the bill, a lot of hours put into meeting with people, talking to people, whether it is (a) town hall meeting or public meetings or with experts," he said.There are still people who think the bill goes too far and others who think it doesn't go far enough, he said. Citizens and elected officials will continue to have the right to advocate for their beliefs, he said.The Capitol was filled with hundreds of gun advocates throughout the day who opposed the bill. They came to have their voices heard, said Robert Crook, executive director for the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen.Constituents could be the reason senators voted as they did on Wednesday, said state Sen. Andrea Stillman, D-Waterford, who voted in favor of the bill."I am sure constituent input had certainly some influence on the way we all voted," she said.Osten said many from the rural 19th District have reached out to her. This bill puts people who purchase weapons for hunting and competition at risk, she said.Osten said she would like to say that the bill makes changes so that "no one would have to see another dead 6-year-old, that no one would have to respond to a tragedy as significant as what happened down at Sandy Hook. But this legislation does not provide that protection, in my opinion. It puts at risk legal gun owners."As a former correction officer, she said one of the problems is that criminals are able to bargain away the gun charges against them. "We can create a registry of those who commit crimes, but if we don't find them guilty of weapons charges, the registry will be left empty," she said. The bill proposes a statewide dangerous weapons offender registry.She said this bill also does nothing to stop the daily gun violence in urban cities.State Sen. Art Linares, R-Westbrook, said the bill created "unnecessary harm" for law-abiding citizens."I do believe we need to head in the direction of improving our mental health system in the state of Connecticut," he said.The bill, House Bill 1160, proposes universal background checks, an expansion of the assault weapons ban and a ban on the sale of high-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. The bill also requires background checks for the purchase of ammunition.The bill would expand mental health programs and more tightly monitor how insurance companies provide mental health services. Schools would have access to more funds for school security infrastructure and would be required to maintain safety plans.j.somers@theday.com Raw Video: Gun control opponents in Hartford Senate Bill 1160, An Act Concerning Gun Violence Prevention and Children's Safety

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/4398

Rep. Courtney meets with local farm owners, others on immigration reform U.S Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District, speaks with Chris Soto, founding director of Higher Edge in New London, about immigration reform Thursday at Cushman Farms in Franklin. Franklin - Local farm owners and community members met with U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District, on Thursday at Cushman Farms to discuss their immigration reform requests.The U.S. Senate passed a bipartisan bill on immigration reform in June, and the U.S. House of Representatives now has an immigration reform bill, H.R. 15, with bipartisan support, before it.Congress must address immigration reform now, he said. "Time is the enemy in Washington right now," Courtney said. It is time to contact House Speaker John Boehner and tell him to call the bill to the floor of the House, he said.The bill would provide a path, albeit one with hurdles and regulations, to citizenship for undocumented immigrants in the United States. It would provide a quicker path for undocumented agricultural workers and undocumented youth.Henry N. Talmage, executive director of the Connecticut Farm Bureau Association, said many employers are frustrated with the current H-2A Certification, which allows U.S. employers to bring nonimmigrant foreign workers into the country to perform agricultural labor on a temporarily basis if there are no domestic workers.Employers must follow certain rules. They must spend money advertising the jobs locally, provide foreign workers with a place to stay, and pay the foreign workers relatively high wages - for example, $14 an hour, local farmers said.Employers don't want to break the law, but sometimes, it's easier to just accept a Social Security card with no questions rather than go through the H-2A program, Talmage said."I bet 60 percent of non-H-2A workers are 'documented' but illegal," he said.If the House bill passes, it would allow undocumented agricultural workers to apply for a "blue card." After five years, they could use their "blue card" to apply for a green card, or permanent residency. Five years later, they could apply for citizenship.With a blue card, workers would be allowed to stay in the United States and accept one seasonal job after another on whichever farms they would like to work. This would remove the frustration of having to send a well-trained worker home and train a new worker, Richard Holmberg, owner of Holmberg Orchards in Gales Ferry, said.Farm work requires skill, local farmers said, and one untrained laborer can really damage a farm.Steve Jarmoc, president of Jarmoc Tobacco in Enfield, said the bill also would help with the problem of having to advertise to American citizens. He said he has had Americans show up for work and then decide the work is "not dignified enough" or "just too difficult for them."The bill also provides undocumented immigrants in general with a path to citizenship. For example, an undocumented immigrant could apply for Registered Provisional Immigrant status if they have been in the country since Dec. 31, 2011, have not been convicted of a felony or three misdemeanors, pay their taxes and pass background checks, among other requirements. Once the person has had RPI status for at least 10 years, he or she could apply for a green card.Three years after that, the immigrant could apply for citizenship.Mother Mary Jude Lazarus, diocesan director of the Hispanic Ministry, said the bill is not "amnesty." There are many hurdles, penalty fees and requirements for undocumented immigrants to meet before they can qualify for provisional status, she said.But it does provide a path to citizenship, she said.This is a step forward because "legalization is not enough, legalizing residents but not making them citizens … makes you a second-rate citizen," she said.The bill provides a relatively quick path for youth, who were brought to the country illegally by their parents, to become citizens. They could apply for RPI status and after five years could apply for a green card. They could apply for citizenship as soon as they received a green card."Anything that gives us light at the end of the tunnel is good," said Chris Soto, founding director of Higher Edge in New London, which helps low-income and first-generation students graduate from college.Soto said one of his biggest concerns is how to help students access loans and grants."Five years, I think that is something we can get behind," Soto said.j.somers@theday.com

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/4433

Clinton Calls Netanyahu Out on Settlement Expansion Project http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/clinton_calls_netanyahu_out_on_settlement_expansion_project_20100312/ Just days after Vice President Joe Biden’s good-will trip to Israel, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to deliver a stern warning about Israel’s announcement, which unfortunately coincided with Biden’s visit, that it will build 1,600 more housing units in East Jerusalem. —KA The Washington Post: Relations with Israel have been strained during the Obama administration, and Biden’s trip was intended as a fence-mending mission. Now it has led to the biggest crisis between the two countries in years. Clinton called the prime minister “to make clear the United States considered the announcement a deeply negative signal about Israel’s approach to the bilateral relationship and counter to the spirit of the vice president’s trip,” State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters at his regular news briefing. Clinton, he said, reinforced “this action had undermined trust and confidence in the peace process and in America’s interests.” Wikimedia Commons / U.S. Department of State Better times for Bibi and Hillary: Israel’s Netanyahu meets with U.S. Secretary of State Clinton in May of 2009. x

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/4449

Benghazi, forgotten: Never this President’s priority Last week America marked the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and the first anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi. Four Americans died in Benghazi, and a month later President Obama said of the killers, “my biggest priority now is bringing those folks to justice, and I think the American people have seen that’s a commitment I’ll always keep.”A year later we see that the President is as committed to justice for the Benghazi four as O.J. Simpson was to finding his wife’s “real killer.”On Sept. 9, The New York Times ran a story on the administration’s lack of progress in its supposed pursuit of justice. “Some military and law enforcement officials have grown frustrated with what they believe is the White House’s unwillingness to pressure the Libyan government to make the arrests or allow American forces to do so, according to current and former senior government officials,” the Times reported.The President of the United States has more resources at his disposal than any other human being on the planet. We know who the suspects are. We know where they are. One has sat for several TV interviews. If bringing them to justice were Obama’s “biggest priority,” it would have been done by now.Americans wonder whether justice for four dead countrymen is a priority at all.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/4452

Another View -- Tom Eaton: Havenstein is the candidate we always say we want TOM EATON AS CITIZENS, we constantly talk about the problems with “professional politicians” and say we would prefer people who have worked in the real world to run for office. We want someone who has run a business and understands the impacts (both positive and negative) that government can have on our economy. We want someone who has served in our communities and knows how to help those who need our assistance. We want someone who has been a leader, but also has been devoted to family. And we always ponder why more people like that don’t run for office.Well, the citizens of New Hampshire now have the opportunity to elect someone like that. Walt Havenstein has never run for elected office before, but as a successful businessman, a devoted husband, father and grandfather, a person who has dedicated substantial time to serving in the non-profit world, and as someone who has served all of us as a Marine, he embodies what we all wish for in a candidate.More importantly, Walt has been a leader his entire life, and that is one thing our state needs more than ever. He graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and served our country for 28 years as a Marine. He was vice chairman of the Marine Corps Scholarship Foundation and he and his wife Judy have been leaders in the fight against juvenile diabetes for more than 20 years. Walt has also served with Dean Kamen as chairman of U.S. FIRST, an organization which has helped tens of thousands of high school students around the country become inspired by math, science and engineering.Walt has also been a leader in business. He worked for ITT and Raytheon before joining Sanders Associates in Nashua in 1999 as president. He led the company through the acquisition of Sanders by BAE Systems and oversaw several operating groups of the company as executive vice president of BAE Systems North America. Several years later he became president and CEO of BAE Systems Inc., overseeing 50,000 employees and running a company with $20 billion in sales and a budget three times the size of New Hampshire’s annual budget. Clearly, this is someone who understands the economy, how to grow a business, manage a large organization, and get things done.After BAE, Walt went to work as CEO of SAIC, a consulting and contracting company. Within a few months of starting there, he was confronted with a growing scandal. A long-running contract with the City of New York, known as CityTime, was rife with kickbacks, bribes, money laundering and fraud. Instead of circling the wagons, pointing fingers at others, and hiding the truth, Walt went to work to solve the problem. He took hold of the situation, fired the people involved, and put in place policies to fix the situation. That is what good leaders do.Now, Walt is running for governor of New Hampshire, and the contrast between Gov. Maggie Hassan and Walt couldn’t be starker. Gov. Hassan is a professional politician, having run for one office or another for the past 15 years. She has shown a lack of leadership skills in addressing our state budget, economic stagnation, and the Medicaid enhancement tax crisis.Walt Havenstein is not a professional politician. He is going to take action like a leader even when acting like a politician is the safer course of action. That is just the way Walt does things.We all talk about wanting fewer politicians and more leaders. We talk about wanting someone who has lived and breathed the private sector and not someone who just likes to talk about it. We want someone who has actually supported our communities and not just cut ribbons and appeared in photo opportunities.The Democrats have already shown their hand in trying to tear down a good man who is willing to serve New Hampshire as he has served every other organization he has worked for: with dedication, honesty and hard work. Walt Havenstein is the leader we all wish would run. Now it’s our turn to vote for him.Tom Eaton of Keene is a former state Senate president.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/4474

Yeltsin Says Bombing Iraq Might Bring 'World War' By Daniel Williams Washington Post Foreign Service Thursday, February 5, 1998; Page A21 MOSCOW, Feb. 4—President Boris Yeltsin warned President Clinton today that bombing Iraq could mean "world war," and he chided the American leader for performing "too loudly" in the latest Middle East crisis. Yeltsin's statement was an alarming version of a message delivered repeatedly by his foreign policy advisers: Russia steadfastly opposes the use of force in Iraq. The reproach directed at Clinton was a new twist. Speaking at a meeting with First Deputy Prime Minister Anatoly Chubais, Yeltsin said he was trying "to somehow make Clinton understand that he might run into a world war by his actions. "He's acting too loudly, too loudly," Yeltsin said. "You have to be more careful in a world that is saturated with all kinds of weapons, and sometimes in the hands of . . . terrorists. It's all very dangerous. And then to say right away, 'let's shower them with planes, then let's shower them with bombs' . . . no, it's not at all like Clinton, to put it frankly." The tone was one Yeltsin periodically uses when publicly scolding his cabinet members. During the Cold War, such language might have put armed forces across the globe on alert. In remarks that rambled at times, Yeltsin offered himself as a steady hand on the wheel of the crisis. "Bearing in mind my very close links" with the leaders of the United States, Germany and France, he said, "I could, of course, play a big role here." He said that if the use of force against Iraq came to a vote in the U.N. Security Council, members would vote against it. [The Clinton administration played down Yeltsin's comments. "We are confident that the purpose of Russian diplomacy is to pursue a diplomatic solution to this matter," White House spokesman Mike McCurry said.] Iraq is a test case for Moscow's effort to restore the global influence it lost after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The campaign, spearheaded by Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov, so far has been carefully calibrated to avoid conflict with the United States. Yeltsin is known for making off-the-cuff foreign policy statements, sometimes to the distress of his aides. In the past, unexpected outbursts have been attributed to fatigue, illness or drinking. Yeltsin's spokesman, Sergei Yastrzhembsky, used an unusual method today to try to calm international nerves over the "world war" remark. Before anyone had had a chance to write a story, he blamed the press. He accused American reporters with poor linguistic skills of misinterpreting Yeltsin's remarks to mean Russia would attack the United States. "It would be hard to imagine a more ridiculous, or let's say, absurd, interpretation," he said. Yeltsin's statements came against the backdrop of conflicting reports on the progress of Russia's diplomatic mission to Baghdad. The Russians claimed on Monday that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had agreed to open eight presidential compounds to the inspection team, as long as the inspectors were designated representatives of Security Council members and diplomats from the council nations accompany them. The visits would be limited to buildings and would not include the area surrounding them. U.S. officials dismissed the reported offer as inadequate. Cable News Network, citing unidentified sources, reported a variation of this offer today. Immediately after Moscow announced the "breakthrough" on Monday, Iraqi officials denied there was a deal. On Tuesday, Gennady Tarasov, the Foreign Ministry spokesman, shrugged off the contradiction as "information turbulence." Tarasov insisted that Russian special envoy Viktor Posuvalyuk had scored a breakthrough and would stay in Baghdad "as long as he needs to fulfill his mission successfully." [As Turkish Foreign Minister Ismail Cem traveled to Baghdad for talks to defuse the crisis, Ankara sharpened its tone against Iraq, saying a U.S. strike would be justified if Baghdad failed to comply with U.N. resolutions, special correspondent Kelly Couturier reported. "If Iraq does not heed our warning . . . a U.S. operation to enforce U.N. resolutions will have some sort of justification," Prime Minister Mesut Yilmaz told reporters.] Russian officials insist they are as eager as the United States to ensure the elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The difference, the Russians argue, is that American tactics will not work. "The strategy of military strikes on Iraq will not achieve the desired results," Tarasov said. Moreover, Tarasov added, the United States must get new authorization from the Security Council for military action -- a position Washington does not accept. He did not say whether Russia would use its Security Council veto if the issue was taken up there. The Russians say that, thanks to six years of U.N. inspections, Iraq's capacity to produce nuclear weapons has been eliminated. Iraq also has accounted for 115 out of 117 missiles in its arsenal and, in any case, no delivery systems exist to propel the rockets. As for chemical weapons, "although some questions still remain . . . the picture is pretty clear," Tarasov said. The biological weapons program is still in question, he added. Nevertheless, further inspections must be carried out with respect for the "sovereignty, national dignity and lawful interests" of Iraq, Tarasov concluded. This language is similar to the formulation Iraq used when it curbed inspections of presidential compounds. The Iraq issue has quickly become a domestic political cause among Russian politicians. Gennady Zyuganov, the Communist leader, said that in this atmosphere, the parliament should not ratify the long delayed START II strategic arms limitation treaty. "Americans act like drunk cowboys," he said. "They have lost all sense of propriety. To consider a treaty that deprives the country of its nuclear protection -- this is something no self-respecting politician will do." Ultra-nationalist politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky called on Yeltsin to put troops in southwest Russia on alert. Liberal politicians also are opposed to bombing Iraq, arguing that Washington must get further U.N. authorization before launching any attack. © Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/4537

Search Main menuHomeStoriesRegionsSocials Secondary menuSubscribeAboutState.gov Switzerland 1 - 12 of 50 Stories December 9, 2014 The International Fight To Conquer Kleptocracy and Corruption Fighting corruption is a global imperative. Today, on International Anti-Corruption Day, it is more important than ever that the international… more 1 Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform Roundtable Highlights a Global Problem On April 11 in connection with the spring World Bank/International Monetary Fund meetings taking place in Washington, D.C., representatives of… more 0 Equal Futures Partnership -- A New Agenda for Progress Today, at the UN General Assembly, I had the privilege of co-hosting an event to mark the one year anniversary… more 0 A Framework for the Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met in Geneva, Switzerland, September 12-14, to discuss… more 2 Building Consensus in Support of a Global, Inclusive, Free, and Open Internet Next week, the United States will join the Member States of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) at the fifth World… more 1 Celebrating Girls in ICT Day Today we celebrate Girls in ICT Day, established by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) in 2010 to inspire girls to… more 2 Securing Human Rights Online: Internet Freedom Fellows Program At the frontlines of the fight for freedom of expression and peaceful assembly are human rights defenders, who often depend… more 5 Real Progress in the Global Fight Against Non-Communicable Diseases On November 9, health officials representing member states of the World Health Organization agreed to a global monitoring framework and… more 0 Photo of the Week: Prevention and Control of Non-Communicable Diseases This week's Photo of the Week comes to us from Eric Bridiers with U.S. Mission Geneva and shows participants in… more 2 Water Should Be a Priority in Every Nation's Foreign Policy I was glad to see more than 200 people in the audience for a discussion on water, peace, and security… more 6 Advancing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention With Bio-Transparency and Openness Initiative As head of our delegation to the December 2011 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) Review Conference, Secretary Clinton detailed… more 0 Travel Diary: Action Group on Syria Meets in Geneva On June 30, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton traveled to Geneva, Switzerland for the meeting on the Action Group… more 7 Pages12345next ›last » . Civil Society Leaders Talk Freedom at Middle East Forum About the Author: Kent Patton serves as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs. DUBAI, October 15 --… more 3 What Is the Most Effective Way To Encourage Democracy Within Repressive Regimes? October 24, 2008, marks the 13th anniversary of Aung San Suu Kyi's house arrest. She is one of more than… more 12 Secretary Rice: Education Is a National Security Issue Yesterday, Secretary Rice participated in a conversation with PepsiCo Chairman and CEO Indra K. Nooyi and CNN News Anchor Campbell… more 9

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/4538

Op-Ed: "Independence Day for South Sudan" Posted by DipNote Bloggers July 10, 2011 Women Laugh After Performing Dance During South Sudan Independence Celebrations in Juba Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton authored an opinion piece on South Sudan's independence; the piece appeared in today's print edition of The Washington Post and online here. You can also read the text below. Independence Day for South Sudan This weekend, in Juba, South Sudan, Africa's 54th nation was born. Millions of people are celebrating a new national identity and new national promise. Like on our own July Independence Day 235 years ago, there is reason to hope for a better future -- if the people and leaders of both Sudan and South Sudan commit themselves to the hard work ahead. This day was far from inevitable. For more than two decades, Sudan has been riven by intense fighting over land and resources. Just a year ago, talks between the Sudanese government in the north and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement in the south had stalled. Preparations for a referendum on southern independence had fallen behind. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed in 2005 appeared close to collapse. A return to open conflict seemed likely. Thankfully, people on both sides and across the world worked together to chart a different path. Activists, religious groups and human rights advocates focused attention on the conflict and refused to let it fade. Last year, President Obama committed to reenergizing the peace effort. Since then we have redoubled our engagement with partners in the north and south, as well as in the African Union, Europe and the United Nations. Most of all, though, Saturday's successful outcome is a testament to the will and dedication of the people of Sudan and South Sudan and their leaders. They have shown that even under the most difficult circumstances, peace is possible if people are willing to make hard choices and stand by them. But just as independence was not inevitable, neither is a lasting peace between Sudan and South Sudan. Decades of war have left deep distrust on both sides and significant social, political and economic challenges. Both nations will have to take decisive steps to consolidate progress. First, they must quickly return to the negotiating table and seek to complete the unfinished business of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. That means settling outstanding questions related to finances, oil and citizenship; demarcating remaining border areas; and fully implementing their agreement on temporary arrangements for the contested Abyei area, which lies along the border of Sudan and South Sudan, including the redeployment of all Sudanese military forces. The violence that has flared in Abyei in recent months cannot be allowed to return and jeopardize the larger peace. Second, South Sudan must address its internal challenges. Its people face wrenching poverty, inadequate education and health care, and the continuing presence of armed militia groups. To succeed, South Sudan will have to begin building an effective, democratic and inclusive government that respects human rights and delivers services with transparency and accountability. Over the years, American development experts in South Sudan have helped build new roads, clinics and schools; worked with farmers to grow more food; and trained more effective civil servants. As we move ahead, the United States and the world will be there as South Sudan lays the foundation for its future. Third, Sudan must address its own challenges. Sudan's future success rests on its ability to end its isolation in the international community. That is the only way it will secure access to international financing, investment and debt relief. The United States is prepared to help -- including by normalizing our bilateral relations -- and we have taken some initial steps in that direction. But we can move forward only if Sudan fulfills its obligations and demonstrates its commitment to peace within its borders and with its neighbors. One urgent step both sides must take is agreeing to a cessation of hostilities in the northern border state of Southern Kordofan, which started in early June. We are deeply concerned about the continued aerial bombardments, harassment of U.N. staff and obstruction of humanitarian relief efforts. The longer this fighting goes on, the more difficult it will become to resolve. We also remain deeply concerned about the humanitarian and security crisis in Darfur. Sudan's government must move to address the economic and political grievances of the Darfuri people, and to hold perpetrators accountable for their crimes. The United States will continue to work with international partners to build on the progress made in the peace process that is now coming to a close. After decades of conflict, the people of this region have reason to hope again. When I met with leaders of Sudan and South Sudan last month in Addis Ababa, I reminded them that they have the power to chart a better future for all Sudanese. As they do, they can be assured that the United States will be a steadfast partner. above64 July 11, 2011 W.W. writes: we need much more effort mr.dee | Vietnam July 11, 2011 Dee in Vietnam writes: They look very happy in that day. Their faces too bright and they smile and dance. Previous: Ambassador Rice Leads U.S. Delegation to South Sudan »« Next: DipNote: The Week in Review . Planting the Seeds of Sustainability in South Sudan More Work To Bring War Criminals to Justice Investing in Security: Program Develops New Generation of Humanitarian Demining Leaders Story Tags Sudan 60 South Sudan 13 Latest Stories

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/4598

John Esposito: War during Ramadan? John Esposito is a professor at Georgetown University and the founding director of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. Esposito is a specialist in Islam, political Islam, and the impact of Islamic movements. He is a consultant to the Department of State, corporations, universities, and the worldwide media. He joined the CNN.com chat room from Washington D.C. John Esposito CNN: Can you tell us about Ramadan and its significance? JOHN ESPOSITO: Ramadan is one of the five pillars or essential practices of Islam. It is a month-long fast that occurs annually. Muslims from dawn to dusk do not eat food or drink. It is also an important time for believers to reflect on the meaning of their religion and its role in their lives. So, it combines both a period of fasting with religious reflection, and also the doing of good works. CNN: What sorts of traditions are practiced during Ramadan? ESPOSITO: At the end of the fast each day, when you have what's called the breaking of the fast, a meal is taken, which in fact is called breakfast. It's a time for families to come together and it's often a time when special foods are actually made, special sweets for this period, and it also becomes a time for families to eat together with other members of the family or friends, and to visit in the evening. CHAT PARTICIPANT: Have the Taliban said whether they are going to stop the fighting on Ramadan? ESPOSITO: I think that the way the issue is actually put, as far as I know, is will the United States and the coalition stop the bombing? I haven't seen many putting it the other way, particularly since you'd have to say that the Taliban are responding to the daily bombings, as well as now to the movement of the Northern Alliance within Afghanistan itself. So if you asked the Taliban if they would stop fighting, they'd say that that's not the right question. They see themselves as defending themselves against those who are fighting against them. CHAT PARTICIPANT: If the U.S. were to stop operations during Ramadan, wouldn't it confirm suspicions that we're fighting against Islam? ESPOSITO: I don't think that necessarily would be the issue. I think rather that the issue is for some whether or not the continued bombing during Ramadan will not leave the U.S. open to being accused of being insensitive to Muslim beliefs. And in fact, that becomes an issue, because the vast majority of people being bombed, whether the Taliban or the civilians, are Muslims. The broader issue is how Muslims in many parts of the world will respond to continued bombing during Ramadan. For many Muslims, it's the continued bombing itself that has become an issue, let alone if the bombing were to continue into the month of Ramadan. CNN.COM SPECIAL REPORT CNN NewsPass Video Agencies reportedly got hijack tips in 1998 MORE STORIES CNN: Is there a precedent for violence or military operations during Ramadan? ESPOSITO: Yes. In fact, there have been times in Muslim history when warfare has been carried out. The 1973 Egyptian-Israeli war is popularly referred to as the Ramadan War. It was launched by Egypt's president Anwar Sadat, who fought it as a jihad, and the war was very much cast in sort of religious symbols and religious language. That would be a major example. CHAT PARTICIPANT: According to Islamic community officials, the Taliban aren't true Muslims so, why should we care if it's Ramadan or not, in Afghanistan? ESPOSITO: Because we're bombing many civilians in Afghanistan, we're bombing many people, not just the Taliban. What that means is that there's obviously a high risk that many Muslims may be killed. Another reason why this may be an issue is that many feel that bombing during Ramadan will in fact inflame and feed extremist reactions in the Muslim world, as well as broader based reactions against the bombing. We have certainly seen that a number of countries considered our allies, their leaders, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, have expressed very strong reservations. CHAT PARTICIPANT: If that is the case, are there any advantages to the U.S. to discontinue during this holiday and would not this give the Taliban a chance to regroup? ESPOSITO: Realistically, I don't think that there's that much significant regrouping that can take place. One of the things to consider is that we were told from the beginning that the Taliban doesn't have a significant air force or significant military power. We have in fact now been bombing for weeks, and maintain that we've hit many of their sites. So, I don't see it as an issue. I think the only possible significant issue that could arise would be if the United States felt that it knew where Osama bin Laden was, and that it was closing in on him. CNN: How do you think Islamic renewal affects Muslims' viewpoints about U.S. strikes during Ramadan in Afghanistan? ESPOSITO: I think that the situation is a little bit broader than even Islamic renewal. Yes, it's important if by that we mean that in many Muslim societies, Islam has become an even more visible part of people's every day beliefs and lives. Then there are a number of things that happen. For many Muslims, because it's a sacred month, they will not want to see this fighting taking place in particular, because despite the coalition, the leaders, at least the military leaders, are primarily the U.S. and Britain. Also, those who identify with their fellow believers in Afghanistan -- not with the Taliban, but with the Muslim people -- are already increasingly concerned that this bombing is not only taking lives, but will devastate the country irreparably. I think it's also important to note that [High Commissioner for Human Rights] Mary Robinson of the United Nations herself came out a few weeks ago against the continued bombing, because of the massive impact that it will have on Afghans, especially as the winter approaches. CHAT PARTICIPANT: If the U.S. were attacked on Christmas, would Christians around the world make this a holy war? ESPOSITO: I think that today we've become a very secular nation, so we probably wouldn't frame it in that language. But one should recall that during the Vietnam War, it was a practice that every Christmas there would be an attempt to stop the warfare. I think there would be a sensitivity, and I think clearly that for many Christians in the U.S., if the U.S. were attacked on Christmas, it would make the attack doubly offensive. Just as if Israel were attacked during one of its holy days, it would make the attack that much more objectionable. CNN: Do you have any closing comments to share with us? ESPOSITO: I think it's important for people who don't know much about Islam or Muslims to realize that there is a tremendous diversity within the Muslim community, whether in America or overseas. And, that with regards to September 11, an overwhelming number of Muslims came out against that attack on humanitarian grounds, as well as religious grounds. But it's also important to remember that Ramadan is a very special and holy month for many Muslims, and that for many Muslims, when they see Afghanistan continuing to be bombed, their concern is not with the Taliban, but with the people of Afghanistan. Muslims and non-Muslims can relate to the potentially devastating economic impact, masses of people becoming refugees, facing starvation. These issues concern many people. CNN: Thank you for joining us today ESPOSITO: I've enjoyed this very much, and I hope to be in contact with you again soon. John Esposito joined the CNN.com chat room by telephone and CNN provided a typist. This is an edited transcript of the interview which took place on Monday, October 29, 2001. RELATED STORY: • Northern Alliance presses U.S. to rethink strategy RELATED SITE: • Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/4647

Brussels, 27 May 2013 Remarks by Štefan Füle, Commissioner for Enlargement and Neighbourhood Policy to the press following the EU-Turkey Association Council ''We had a very good, open and interactive exchange of views on a whole range of issues with all of us aware of the importance of 2013 for strengthening the relationship between the EU and Turkey. I have welcomed the current momentum in the accession negotiations. The positive agenda has played an important role in this, and I look forward to continue our common work on its implementation in order to keep the positive momentum in the accession negotiations. As a result there is a chance for opening of at least one chapter during the Irish Presidency (22-regional policy – it would be the first chapter opened after three years.) We have encouraged Turkey to sustain this momentum, by taking steps towards meeting the opening benchmarks on other chapters, such as the chapter 19 on social policy and employment. But there is responsibility for both sides: Turkey and EU Member States need to make the momentum sustainable and in this context I recalled the GAC conclusions from December that say: ''It is in the interest of both sides that the negotiations regain momentum.'' A key for adding a new quality to our relations with direct impact on citizens is also to start as soon as possible our visa dialogue leading ultimately to visa free travel between the EU and Turkey. I have again encouraged Turkey to sign the readmission agreement without delay, which would allow the dialogue on this very important issue to start. I have welcomed recent reforms, notably the adoption of the 4th judicial reform package: an important milestone on the way to full respect for fundamental rights. Swift implementation of the package will allow properly addressing issues still restricting fundamental rights in practice and further efforts are still needed. Finally, I have also underlined that the implementation of the Additional Protocol would inject new life into the accession process. Several chapters could be opened and some even closed relatively quickly. In relation to this we could turn this ''one flower policy'' Minister Davutoğlu was mentioning in the context of the possibility to open one chapter soon, into a flourishing garden of several chapters. ''

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/4683

The Campaign For Jobless Benefits Begins In Congress By David Welna Jan 5, 2014 ShareTwitter Facebook Google+ Email Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., along with Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., is co-sponsoring the three-month extension of unemployment benefits up for a vote in Congress this week. Win McNamee The Senate gets back to work Monday after a two-week holiday break. Just as Majority Leader Harry Reid promised, the first piece of legislation getting a vote will be a three-month extension of the long-term unemployment benefits that ran out a week ago for 1.3 million jobless Americans. Though the Senate unemployment measure is bipartisan, it's not clear it has enough votes to beat a GOP filibuster. Regardless, Democrats are banging the drum on the issue as a midterm election year begins. In a conference call with reporters organized by the White House, Labor Secretary Tom Perez pointed out that when former President Bush first signed long-term unemployment benefits in 2008, the average unemployed worker went jobless for 17 weeks. The current out-of-work average, he said, is 36 weeks — 10 weeks longer than state unemployment benefits last. "It would be unprecedented, given the current rate of long-term unemployment, for Congress to fail to act to extend these benefits," Perez said. "That is why we are so heartened by the bipartisan bill that Sens. Heller and Reed have introduced." Betsy Stevenson, a member of the president's Council on Economic Advisers, warned that failure to extend benefits could mean the loss of another 250,000 jobs this year, precisely when the overall economy is starting to pick up steam. "It seems like a silly time for Congress to fail to do something that's both essential for the people who need it and helpful for our economy," Stevenson said. Prospects for reviving the jobless benefits are uncertain at best in the Democratic-led Senate. The legislation faces even bigger hurdles in the GOP-controlled House. Before he left Washington three weeks ago, House Speaker John Boehner was asked whether he'd let a jobless benefits bill come to the floor. Boehner did not say no — after all, extending those benefits enjoys wide public support, even among Republicans. But he did attach some significant strings. "When the White House finally called me last Friday about extending unemployment benefits, I said that we would clearly consider it, as long as it's paid for and as long as there are other efforts that'll help get our economy moving once again," Boehner said. There are no offsets in the Senate bill to pay for the $6.2 billion cost of the three-month extension, and House Democrats say they would not vote for any GOP attempt to pay for the bill by tapping other workers' benefits. Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., is counting on Republicans ultimately caving to popular pressure. "Once it's debated and the stories of people become more and more known, I think that's going to move the mountain here," Levin said. President Obama kicks off that effort on Tuesday with a White House rally featuring long-term unemployed workers.Copyright 2014 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/. Related Program: NPR's Weekend Edition on KUER 1View the discussion thread. © 2014 KUER. All rights reserved.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/4745

Paul Waldman June 12, 2014 In a new study, a surprising number of conservatives say they'd like to live in a rural area. So what's stopping them? Today the Pew Research Center released a gigantic and fascinating report on increasing levels of political polarization in America, and while many people will be picking over the data, there's one particular thing I want to point to. One of the questions they asked was this: "If you could live anywhere in the United States that you wanted to, would you prefer a city, a suburban area, a small town or a rural area?" The results were stark: Everyone has their preferences, of course. But I find it remarkable that a full 76 percent of consistently conservative respondents say they'd rather live in a rural area or a small town, as do 66 percent of those who are mostly conservative. And only a tiny 4 percent of the consistently conservative said they'd like to live in a city. Among Republicans as a whole, 34 percent said they'd prefer to live in a rural area, and another 31 percent in small towns. So my question is, what's stopping them? If you want to move to someplace in the middle of Kansas, they'd be happy to have you, and housing is cheap. But America has been growing steadily less rural since the country's founding; every census since 1800 has found a smaller percentage of Americans living in rural areas than the census before it (there's a nice chart here that shows the progression). In 2012, only 15 percent of Americans lived in rural counties. The easiest answer to the question of why all these conservatives aren't moving to rural areas is that there just aren't enough opportunities there. Cities are expensive, but they're also a place where there are jobs to be had. But I also suspect that like the politicians who represent them, they pay lip service to the gentle lifestyle and all-American values of small towns, but their affection doesn't quite extend as far as actually going to live there. Every time you hear a politician extoll the virtues of small towns, the first thing you should ask is: "Does that guy actually live in a small town?" Because chances are he grew up in one, then moved to the big city to make his way in the world. If he hadn't, you wouldn't have ever heard of him; he'd be the mayor of Smallville, not a candidate for president. If you have big ambitions, staying in a small town is going to be a big problem. So today, the politician tells you of his small town roots and all the valuable things he learned there to assure you that he's still connected to the common folk. But as for himself, he got the hell out a long time ago. PinItInstapaperPocketEmailPrint mikeshupp030 Mon, 2014-06-16 06:47 Permalink Once you move to a small town, you're basically stuck there by low real estate prices. Example: it's say 1990, you've got a house or a condo reasonably close to LA, and you think you can make it as an independent author or software writer or whatever in a nice rural area. So you sell your house for 200,000 bucks or so and eventually settle in East Unknown, Idaho where you buy a 150,000 home -- nicer actually than what you had in LA, though you suspect winter heating bills will take up some of the difference. A year goes by, and your independent career hasn't taken off. Maybe two years. Time to move back to LA you decide -- LA wasn't wonderful, it was filled with obnoxious liberals and other riffraff, but an engineering job in LA paid 70,000 per year, and the best work anything like that you can find in East Unknown is 30,000 per year. But alas, the best offer you can get on your house in East Unknown is 155,000 -- less than you paid, taking inflation into account. And in LA, something like the house you used to have, in an area comparable to where you lived before, is now 250,000 or 275,000 dollars, or perhaps even more. So moving back is going to be a pain. And if you had been listening, everybody who knew and liked you before you embarked on your great Idaho adventure had been trying to warn you about that. And maybe you should have done a better job of listening... And that's one take on why rural-loving conservatives stay in the big city. Got to tell you, I loved the year and a half I spent in rural Colorado, back in the lack 1980s. The views were gorgeous, I liked the people, I loved my house. But I wasn't making a living -- and when I came back to LA, the aerospace engineering business was in a nose dive and never recovered, and I haven't owned a house since. So I speak with some authority here. Log in or register to post comments mch Tue, 2014-06-17 01:05 Permalink This is a hugely complicated issue. I live in one of the bluest (maybe the bluest) rural areas in the US, the Berkshires of MA. Many of us are happy here (compare areas in VT, ME sort of, parts of CT -- NH is, weirdly, almost completely out of this idyll) because we have access to the best of both worlds. Birds waking you up in the morning; 3 hours from NYC and Boston. (And you don't even have to drive to either place for all kinds of "culture.") Our children have great schools. There are jobs for professional-class types -- who can also commute. Need I mention water? You need to be near water, weather lakes, rivers, ocean. Thanks to modern transportation, we're near all three. Most of all, you know one another -- neighborhood (hardly limited to small towns, but for some reason, people tend to associate neighborhood with small towns only). I'm pretty sure that most people, conservative or liberal, longs for everything that each imagined environment offers. ASSERTING this longing in the way the Pew survey picks up may be a conservative tick these days, that's all. Log in or register to post comments Queering Congress Will Latinos Help Re-Elect Obama? Citizen Bopp Romney's Economic Plan: Dubya 2.0 Corn, Corn Everywhere, But Not a Bite to Eat You need to be logged in to comment.(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy) Follow @paulwaldman1 Articles By Paul Waldman RSS feed of articles by Paul Waldman Follow @theprospect

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/4782

Redistricting In Maryland Imperils Longtime Congressional Republican Share Tweet E-mail Comments Print By Jeff Brady Originally published on Fri October 19, 2012 12:38 pm Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., at a House Small Business Committee hearing on Sept. 21, 2011. After two decades in Congress, a redrawn district has put his re-election in question. T.J. Kirkpatrick The Washington Times /Landov John Delaney campaigns before the Democratic primary on April 3. Luis M. Alvarez Democrats have an uphill battle to take control of the House of Representatives in November. But one bright spot for the party is in Maryland's 6th Congressional District. State Democrats redrew the district's boundaries, and now it favors their party. That leaves 10-term Republican Rep. Roscoe Bartlett in trouble. "My opponent is a member of the Tea Party, which is an organization that came to Washington to do nothing — to defeat everything they try to get done," Democrat John Delaney charged at Wednesday's debate in Hagerstown. "I want to go to Washington and get things done," said Delaney, as his supporters cheered. Bartlett responded: "I joined the Tea Party because I thought that what they wanted to do was what America needed, and that is to focus on the Constitution." At 86, there's no indication that Bartlett is changing the political views he has shown in Congress for two decades to match his new constituency. That's fine with conservative voters in the western part of the district, which encompasses the far western part of the state. "I like that he's a family man and I like that he is consistent with what he stands for," says Republican Hannah Dickerson of Hagerstown. "I'm definitely pro-life — so I want somebody that believes in that." The Washington Post had this to say about the redrawn district: "Until now the state's most Republican district, it becomes majority Democratic. Adds minorities, mostly from District 8 and Montgomery County, pushes the white share of population down 21 percentage points. It loses people to Frederick and Carroll." Bartlett is one of only two Republicans from Maryland in Congress; both of the state's senators are Democrats, as are six of its eight House members. Delaney, 49, is the wealthy co-founder and chairman of CapitalSource, a commercial lender. Democrats in Hagerstown have grown accustomed to being the minority. But now some are looking forward to a win in November. "Although I don't know that much about Delaney, anything is better than Roscoe," says Democrat Donald Johnson. "I'm looking forward to him having a difficult climb since they redistricted." Most here agree it will be difficult for Bartlett to get re-elected, though there's been little public polling in the race to back that up. Still, the race is being closely watched. "It really sets up the fundamental battle between the old district and the new district. Bartlett looks like the old district," says Don Kettl, dean of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland. "The voters will have to decide if Delaney looks like the new one." In an interview with NPR, Bartlett had this to say about his opponent: "Not only does Mr. Delaney not live in the district, he doesn't even vote frequently." Delaney's campaign says he didn't vote in two elections in the past decade and that he lives just 300 yards outside the district boundary, a fact that doesn't disqualify him from running. On the campaign trail, Delaney prefers to focus on his experience as a successful businessman. To make sure voters learn about him in television ads, Delaney has raised more than $3 million — half of it his own money. Bartlett raised only about a third that amount. The discussion over how redistricting was handled by Democrats in Maryland is not over. Republicans succeeded in putting a question on the ballot, asking voters if they approve of the new boundaries, but even if voters reject them, that won't help Bartlett. In that case, the new boundaries would remain in place until the 2014 election.Copyright 2014 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/. View the discussion thread.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/4806

Lawmakers Express Concern About U.S.-Chinese Pork Deal Share Tweet E-mail Comments Print By John Ydstie Originally published on Wed July 10, 2013 4:58 pm Transcript ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST: You're listening to ALL THINGS CONSIDERED from NPR News. Members of the Senate Agriculture Committee had a lot of questions today about the takeover of Smithfield Foods. That's because a Chinese company has offered to buy America's largest pork processor. Both Democratic and Republican senators have expressed concerns about the $4.7 billion deal and its potential effects on U.S. food safety and security. NPR's John Ydstie has been following the testimony today and joins us now. Hi, John. JOHN YDSTIE, BYLINE: Hi, Robert. SIEGEL: Smithfield's CEO Larry Pope was at the hearing today trying to allay the senators' concern. Was he successful? YDSTIE: Robert, Pope tried to emphasis that Smithfield will continue to produce pork in the U.S. for export to China, so there's a potential for job growth from the deal. He told senators that pork is the number one source of protein in China, and consumption continues to grow as Chinese incomes grow. Here's a little more of what he had to say. LARRY POPE: The combined company expects to help meet the growing demand for pork in China by exporting high-quality pork products from the U.S. This means increased capacity for U.S. producers, more jobs in processing and more exports for the U.S. economy. At the same time, we will continue to supply our same high-quality renowned products to U.S. consumers. SIEGEL: That last phrase from Smithfield CEO sounds like he was trying to reassure senators that China's dismal food safety record won't become a problem for U.S. consumers if this deal goes through. YDSTIE: Exactly. Pope pointed out that all of Smithfield's products will continue to be produced under the laws of the United States and USDA inspection programs, not the laws of China. But senators were also concerned that through its purchase of Smithfield, the Chinese company Shuanghui might have a long-term strategy to move production to China and compete with U.S. producers. Here's the chair of the Senate Ag Committee Debbie Stabenow, a Democrat from Michigan. SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW: Can we expect that after the company has adopted Smithfield's excellent technology and practices, they will increase exports to Japan, our largest export market, in competition with U.S. products? YDSTIE: And Stabenow pointed out that much of Smithfield's technology was developed with the aid of U.S. taxpayers through government grants. SIEGEL: Well, John, how realistic is that concern that China would use the purchase of Smithfield to then compete with U.S. producers? YDSTIE: Well, at this point, China can't even raise enough pork to satisfy its domestic demand. And given its cropland and water shortages, it's unlikely to be able to change that. So the prospect that it might become a major pork exporter seems unlikely. But one witness suggested that the Chinese government is behind this deal because it wants to control the price of pork. That could negatively affect U.S. consumers and producers. Technically, though, Shuanghui International is a private company, and, in fact, the U.S. investment bank Goldman Sachs is a minority shareholder. SIEGEL: So is this deal likely to be allowed by the U.S. government? YDSTIE: Well, we'll see. The Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, which is chaired by the Treasury secretary, is reviewing the deal. Right now, it's hard to see on what grounds the committee would stop the deal, though. SIEGEL: OK. Thank you, John. YDSTIE: You're welcome. SIEGEL: That's NPR's John Ydstie. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/4876

HomeChinaReality in U.S.-China Relations Connect With Us: Expert Brief Reality in U.S.-China Relations Author: Elizabeth C. Economy, C.V. Starr Senior Fellow and Director for Asia Studies January 14, 2011 The events of the past year seem to have led the United States to adopt a harder-eyed approach with China. Advancing cooperation is still the order of the day, but the run-up to Chinese President Hu Jintao's visit to the United States has been characterized by an unusually frank set of speeches and commentaries by senior U.S. officials that highlight the systemic challenges of the relationship. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called pointedly for China to live up to its commitment to universal values. Defense Secretary Robert Gates anticipates "evolutionary growth" in military-to-military relations, not "breakthroughs or headlines." And Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has made clear that only when China makes progress on U.S. priorities--such as the reduction of trade and investment barriers, protection of intellectual property rights, and currency revaluation--will the United States make progress on Chinese priorities, such as the export of high-tech products and market economy status. This new reality comes at a price. The long-held hope that the United States and China would sit down together and sketch out a path to achieve global peace and stability has become a more distant aspiration. Such mutuality of interests, priorities, and values are not yet shared. Instead, clear-eyed framing of the bilateral relationship and the absence of a deferential U.S. diplomatic tone signal hard bargaining and the beginning of difficult work to develop the much-needed "habits of cooperation" Clinton has noted. Why the change? A year can be a long time in the world of foreign policy, and 2010 was especially long for China. A series of almost unimaginably poor decisions by Beijing has raised serious concerns globally about precisely what kind of power China will be. The year got off to a bad start with the cyberhacking and Google debacle in January. China's foreign ministry compounded the problem by bullying the country's neighbors over long-disputed territorial claims in the South China Sea, reflexively defending North Korean aggression against South Korea, and supporting an embargo of rare earths against Japan in the wake of a Chinese fishing boat collision with Japanese patrol boats. The already dismal year concluded with a bang when Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo won the Nobel Peace prize. The foreign ministry's tirade against Liu and the Nobel Committee only underscored to the rest of the world the great distance China has yet to travel to truly meet its potential as a global power. China's missteps and miscalculations also opened the door for a reassertion of U.S. leadership, particularly in Asia. President Barack Obama, Clinton, and Gates crisscrossed Asia to reaffirm ties with traditional allies, broaden relations with newer partners and offer reassurance of a deep and abiding U.S. commitment to the region. The United States must now capitalize on its unexpected lift in Asia. Progress, however, on meeting U.S. economic, political, and security priorities will not derive primarily from the upcoming presidential meeting. While Obama needs to set the tone, the meetings are largely peripheral to the real work at hand. Rather, progress with China depends on three things. First, as Geithner has stated, the United States has to get its economy back on track. This will depend primarily on what happens at home, not only making smart decisions about R&D, education, and infrastructure but also creating incentives for investment in the United States. The United States shouldn't blame China for where its economy is today, nor is China is responsible for where the U.S. economy will be tomorrow. Without rejuvenating its economy, however, the United States cannot remain a global leader. Second, Washington needs to remember that its bilateral leverage is--and always has been--limited. The United States' greatest leverage arises from working with its allies to engage (and sometimes pressure) China. Success, whether on advancing climate change or rolling back unfair Chinese trade and investment policies, has come when the United States finds common cause with others. Finally, progress in the U.S.-China relationship ultimately depends on China as well. Chinese foreign policy elite debate all matter of policy. Already in private conversations, Chinese analysts are suggesting that in the wake of China's 2010 policy travails, they are more interested in seeking common ground with the United States. On the sensitive issue of how to handle North Korea, important voices such as Fudan professor Shen Dingli and Beida professor Zhu Feng are proposing a rethink of China's policy. These domestic voices are the real key to future effective U.S.-China cooperation. The dream of a robust U.S.-China partnership to lead the world through the thicket of ever-proliferating global challenges remains. But for now, dreaming is no substitute for the hard work of negotiating reality. CFR Blog: Renewing America Edward Alden and others explore ideas and initiatives for rebuilding American economic strength. Dumb Government and Smart GovernmentObama�s Immigration Action Shows the Limits of Executive PowerDon�t Get Too Excited About the Budget DealReceive Blog Posts by EmailSubscribe to the Blog Feed Subscribe to This Month in Geoeconomics Receive monthly updates on how economic and political forces are interacting to shape world affairs, from CFR�s Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies. View this month's enewsletter U.S.-China Talks: What to Look for Author: Elizabeth C. Economy In the next round of the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue, underway now, the two sides face difficult diplomatic issues but also a... Op-Ed The Master Plan: How to Avoid a Dangerous U.S.-China Rivalry Author: Mira Rapp-Hooper National Interest Mira Rapp-Hooper reviews James Steinberg and Michael O'Hanlon's new book Strategic Reassurance and Resolve: US-China Relations in the... Foreign Affairs Article How China and America See Each Other Author: Minxin Pei Debating China: The U.S.-China Relationship in Ten Conversations. Edited by Nina Hachigian. Oxford University Press, 2014, 272 pp. $21.95. Op-Ed A New Anti-American Axis? Authors: Leslie H. Gelb and Dimitri Simes "Relations with Russia and China deserve to be given priority," according to Leslie H. Gelb and Dmitri K. Simes. Facebook

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/4886

Hagel, after nomination, lashes out at critics JTA, Tuesday, January 8, 2013 Tags: International Comments Chuck Hagel WASHINGTON — Chuck Hagel lashed out at critics of his Israel record in an article timed for release just after President Obama nominated him to be defense secretary. Hagel told his hometown paper, the Lincoln Journal Star in Nebraska, that his record was one of "unequivocal" support for Israel and that in the weeks leading up to his nomination on Monday it had been subject to "falsehoods and distortions." Hagel, a Republican who represented Nebraska in the U.S. Senate from 1996 to 2008, said he refused to join initiatives backed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee that he deemed unhelpful to Israel, and believed multilateral sanctions on Iran were more useful in isolating the regime than unilateral ones. "I have not supported unilateral sanctions because when it is us alone they don't work and they just isolate the United States," he said. "United Nations sanctions are working. When we just decree something, that doesn't work." Hagel said he would offer differing views as defense secretary, but ultimately would defer to Obama. "I have said many times that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism," he said. "I have also questioned some very cavalier attitudes taken about very complicated issues in the Middle East." Hagel's critics have singled out his proposals to engage with Iran and with terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, his skepticism of Iran sanctions and of the efficacy of a military strike on Iran, and his criticism of Israel in how it deals with the Palestinians. They also have noted his use of the terms "Jewish lobby" and his assertion that when he was a senator, his loyalty was to the United States and not to Israel. Hagel did not address these concerns in the article. A number of prominent Jewish Democrats, including Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Carl Levin, have suggested they would support Hagel, but others such as Sen. Charles Schumer have expressed reservations. Others outright opposed to Hagel include Rep. Eliot Engel, the senior Democrat on the U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee; Susan Turnbull, a former vice chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee who is active in the NJDC; and former New York Mayor Ed Koch and lawyer and writer Alan Dershowitz, both one-time Obama skeptics who enthusiastically endorsed the president just prior to his reelection in November. The National Jewish Democratic Council said it was confident that Hagel would follow what it called Obama's "unprecedented" pro-Israel record. The NJDC statement Monday morning came before Obama's formal announcement nominating Hagel. "While we have expressed concerns in the past, we trust that when confirmed, former Senator Chuck Hagel will follow the President's lead of providing unrivaled support for Israel -- on strategic cooperation, missile defense programs, and leading the world against Iran's nuclear program," said the statement, which was not attached to the name of an NJDC official. In 2007, when Hagel was considering a presidential run, the NJDC distributed an attack sheet on Hagel, noting his equivocation on such issues such as Iran sanctions and his criticism of some Israeli policies. Hagel, after quitting politics in 2008, drew closer to Obama, then a fellow senator, over a shared opposition to intensifying the U.S. presence in Iraq. In 2009, NJDC's then-executive director, Ira Forman, said it would be problematic for the group if newly elected President Obama, as it was then rumored, would nominate Hagel for a top Cabinet post. Forman's successor as NJDC's top official, David Harris, had until Monday refused to weigh in on the matter.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/4940

Reply #27: Abramoff Cited Aid Of Griles - Conflict-of-Interest Probe Is Underway L. Coyote Sat Jun-30-07 04:07 PM 27. Abramoff Cited Aid Of Griles - Conflict-of-Interest Probe Is Underway Abramoff Cited Aid Of Interior OfficialConflict-of-Interest Probe Is UnderwayBy Susan Schmidt - Washington Post Staff WriterSunday, August 28, 2005; A01http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20... Indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff claimed in e-mails sent in 2002 that the deputy secretary of the interior had pledged to block an Indian casino ... Abramoff later told two associates that he was trying to hire the official.A federal task force investigating Abramoff's activities has conducted interviews and obtained documents from Interior Department officials and Abramoff associates to determine whether conflict-of-interest laws were violated, according to people with knowledge of the probe. It can be a federal crime for government officials to negotiate for a job while being involved in decisions affecting the potential employer.The two former Abramoff associates, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are under scrutiny in the investigation, said Abramoff told them in late 2003 that he was trying to arrange for his firm, Greenberg Traurig LLP, to hire J. Steven Griles, then deputy interior secretary. Federal investigators are interested in those discussions and in job negotiations Abramoff may have had with a second department official, according to sources.Abramoff told associates that he believed Griles was "committed" to blocking an effort by the Gun Lake Indian tribe to build a casino near Grand Rapids, Mich., according to the content of e-mail messages reviewed by The Washington Post. .....

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/4941

E-mail & RSSEmail Updates Email the Whip Hoyer Delivers Address on the Way Forward in Iraq Calls on World Community to Embrace Collective Responsibility Share this: Twitter Facebook Email Print For Immediate Release:January 26, 2007Contact:Stacey Farnen Bernards202-225-3130WASHINGTON, DC - Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD) will deliver an address today at the Brookings Institution on the way forward in Iraq. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery: "One week before President Bush launched Operation Iraqi Freedom, I delivered a speech at another Washington think tank explaining why I had supported House Joint Resolution 114 in October 2002. That Resolution, of course, authorized the President to use military force against Iraq to protect our national security. "I recognized then, as did virtually every other Member of Congress, that Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant who terrorized his own citizens, attacked neighboring states, and threatened international security and stability. "My view, which I shared in March 2003 and continue to believe, is that our effort against Hussein was "an action to enforce requirements designed by the United Nations to secure peace and stability, as well as a response to military provocations repeatedly taken by Iraq in contravention of its responsibilities under more than a dozen of the resolutions passed by the Security Council since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait." "Thus, I believed then, as I continue to believe today, that the international community - not only the United States, Britain, Australia and a handful of other nations - had a collective responsibility to ensure that Hussein's regime abided by its international commitments. The Bush Administration's decision to base military action against Hussein on a preemption theory due to his alleged possession of weapons of mass destructio

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/4970

Turkey and Azerbaijan Must Unite as Two States, One Nation Azerbaijani / AzərbaycancaTurkish / Türkçe Other Formats PDF Related Works The Communist Threat Must Not Be Underestimated! The Solution to the Kirkuk Problem is the Turkish-Islamic Union The Turkish-Islamic Union Is the Solution to the Problems of Crimean Turks Only the Turkish-Islamic Union Can Halt the Bloodshed The Turkish-Islamic Union is a must for the cruelty, repression, and violence to come to an end The genocide of the Muslim Turkish Nation in East Tukestan must be stopped Related Links The month of Ramadan, when we will know the happiness imparted by the moral values of the Qur’an Let us give thanks for and not squander the blessings bestowed on us by our lord in the holy month of Ramadan Cleansing one’s lower self in the month of Ramadan The joy of Ramadan in Ottoman times Turkey's influence is growing by the day Harun Yahya's Influences RAMADAN 2008 - THE 19th DAY - The foundation of the Turkish-Islamic Union is being anticipated with great enthusiasm and excitement by the whole Islamic and Turkic world. The first and most important step towards that union is the unification of Turkey and Azerbaijan as two states but a single nation. That union must be based on the maintenance of the unitary structure of both states. There must be an end to passport and visa formalities and trade must be made easier. A more powerful military alliance must be established between Turkey and Azerbaijan with the formation of a Turkish-Azeri military pact. This unification, the first phase of the Turkish-Islamic Union, must be realized as a matter of urgency, with no loss of time and no further delay. - We must ensure that tragedies such as the recent Hocali Massacre are never repeated. And the Lachin Corridor, invaded and closed in 1992, must be opened up for peace and security to return to these lands. The Nagorno-Karabakh region must be freed from occupation. All kinds of diplomatic initiative must be taken to have the Lachin Corridor opened. - Raising tension and constantly inciting feelings of enmity is in no-one’s interest. Our age is one of friendship, love, understanding and co-operation, not of anger and hatred. The days of anger and vengeance are over. Armenia must adopt a brotherly and friendly stance, and emphasize love and peace instead of hostility. It must abandon the concept of “hostility to the Turks.” These feelings of enmity are incompatible with contemporary social norms. Living in this manner has to date been of no economic or cultural advantage to Armenia. If the politics of enmity persist, Armenia’s current economic circumstances will worsen still further, and poverty and want will rise. The way to a bright and prosperous Armenia lies in brotherhood and love. - Armenians are also a people of the Book. Muslims’ attitudes towards the People of the Book are made crystal clear in the Qur’an. Our Prophet (saas) always treated the Peoples of the Book with tolerance and compassion. Throughout the Seljuk and Ottoman empires, the Armenians enjoyed a well-being and security they never found anywhere else. The Ottomans referred to the Armenians as the Millet-i Sidika (The Trustworthy Nation). However, the Armenians must free themselves from feelings of anger and hatred rooted in the past. It is essential they adopt a reconciliatory attitude. That is what their faith also demands of them. Many passages in the Bible emphasize the special importance of loving one’s neighbor and even say that believers must do all they can for the good of their neighbors. The Armenians must adopt love and compassion as the basis of their policies towards their neighbors, as they are told in the Bible. … Jesus replied, "Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 19:18-19) Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (Romans 13:10) Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. (Romans 15:2) - If Armenia behaves in a friendly and brotherly manner, and if it sets aside everything left over from the past, then commercial and cultural relations with Armenia can be established. Armenia will obviously benefit from a climate of friendship resulting from Azerbaijan and Turkey uniting together. Economic, political and commercial union will benefit all parties, and a region enjoying great well-being will emerge under those conditions. Armenians will enjoy greater freedom and security in commerce, and in their religion, language and their life styles. The constant tension in the area will thus be replaced by peace. That peace will obviously be to the advantage of all involved. - What needs to be done today is to forget the past and look to the future. Instead of talking about what happened in the past the whole time, we should talk about what can be done in the future, how economic conditions in the region can be improved, what cultural steps can be taken, how stability can be established and how all disputes can be eliminated. That is what we must concentrate on. There is no point in bringing up the past and raising tensions again. Violence, tension and fanaticism are of no benefit to any society. The most rational and logical way of achieving a solution is to avoid violence of all kinds, to choose moderation over extremism, to behave in a moderate, tolerant and patient manner, and to resolve any problems that may arise through negotiation. Announcements ⇒

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/5015

Haredim to account for 25% of IDF exemptions in decade Israel News | Haaretz Haredim to account for 25% of IDF exemptions in decade By Mazal Mualem and Anshel Pfeffer | Jul. 30, 2009 | 1:07 AM The ultra-Orthodox will make up one-quarter of people who are exempted from the Israel Defense Forces draft within a decade, an army human-resources report released yesterday found. At the start of the 1990s, it said, just 5 percent of military-age youth not inducted to the army went to study at yeshivas. Today that figure is up to 13 percent. The figures were presented at a meeting of a Knesset-appointed panel examining the implementation of the Tal Law, aimed at formulating criteria for receiving an exemption from military service and ultimately encouraging more ultra-Orthodox to join the army or do national service. The law, enacted in 2002, allows yeshiva students over age 22 to take a year off from their studies, during which they can work without being drafted. At the end of that year, the students must choose between returning to full-time studies or shortened national service. The panel is headed by MK Yohanan Plesner (Kadima), and includes MKs Aryeh Eldad (National Union), Israel Hasson (Kadima), Moshe Matalon (Yisrael Beiteinu), Ophir Pines-Paz (Labor), Moshe Gafni (United Torah Judaism) and Nissim Zeev (Shas). Also present at the meeting were representatives of the IDF Human Resources Directorate and officials operating national service programs. "These are worrisome figures," said Plesner. "If this trend continues, within a decade we'll find ourselves in a deep societal crisis, with internal divisions over the value of military service, and the relations between the army and society." Plesner added: "There is a danger to the model of the people's army of the State of Israel as we knew it." Yesterday, the army reported that among the conscripts of August 2009, interest in joining combat units rose significantly since the same month last year. Still, willingness to join field units perceived as less "prestigious" dropped. Army officials attributed the trend to the draftees' exposure to the actions of combat units during the Gaza offensive this year. Infantry units continued to hold the greatest appeal among new recruits with combat-eligible health profiles, with 45 percent of conscripts expressing interest. More than 70 percent of conscripts expressed a desire to join field units, a 4 percent rise over August 2008. Among infantry units, the Golani Brigade remained the most popular. On average, every available space in the brigade had 4.8 conscripts vying for it. Second in popularity was the Givati Brigade, with four draftees seeking every open spot, followed by the Nahal Brigade and the Kfir Brigade (the youngest infantry brigade, formed in 2005 and operating mainly in the West Bank). Higher demand was also registered among the Engineering, Armored and Artillery Corps in August of this year compared with the same month last year, though the Engineering Corps is struggling to fill its ranks with just 0.7 recruits for every available position. Demand to enter Field Intelligence units, anti-aircraft units, Border Police and Home Front Command units dropped this year in comparison with years previous. But due to the relatively small number of troops needed in those units, demand also outstripped their open positions, with the single exception of the Border Police, with 0.9 conscripts for every open position. To get the latest from Haaretz

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/5061

Israel to free Palestinian prisoners as deal to resume peace talks emerges MGN ONLINE News Share Saturday, July 20, 2013 - 12:58pm (CNN) — Israel has agreed to free a limited number of Palestinian prisoners in a goodwill gesture, an Israeli minister said Saturday, a day after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry announced a step toward revived peace talks. An agreement has been reached that "establishes a basis for resuming direct final status negotiations between" Palestinians and Israel, Kerry said Friday in Amman, Jordan. "This is a significant and welcome step forward," Kerry said. The announcement came as Kerry visited the Middle East this week and came up with a formula for reanimating peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian territories, a source close to the talks said. Israel's defense minister said Saturday that his government expressed its intention to begin talks with the Palestinians immediately. "We are getting to the negotiations with clean hands and great desire to get to an arrangement that will end the conflict," Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon said. Kerry has been working intensely with the Palestinian side to get them on board, and he met Friday with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, as well as chief peace negotiator Saeb Erakat. Yuval Steinitz, Israel's Minister of Strategic Affairs, spoke of the prisoner release Saturday morning during a discussion in Ramat Gan, said his spokesman, Yair Cohen. "As the negotiations proceed, Israel agrees to free, as a goodwill gesture, a limited number of prisoners during the period of the negotiations," Steinitz said. It is not yet clear how many prisoners will be released and who they will be. Caught by surprise? A senior Palestinian official, who did not want to be named because of the sensitivity of the situation, told CNN there was much uncertainty over the latest developments. "It looks like all the Palestinian leadership were taken by surprise regarding the decision and announcement by Mr. Kerry and the decision by President Abbas," he said. "There is nothing clear and we need clarifications." The official said all prisoners being held in Israeli jails should be freed, but that no information has been given on who might be released. Mustafa Barghouti, a Palestinian legislator and leader of the Palestinian National Initiative, a political party, told CNN that the negotiations "are bound to fail sooner than later" if there is no commitment to clear terms of reference and a freeze on Israeli settlements in occupied territory. Kerry's declaration "reveals a very fragile situation which could collapse at any moment because of internal differences in the Israeli government, which refuses to commit to internationally accepted 1967 borders, and which is refusing to stop the settlement construction and activities," he said. On prisoners, Barghouti said: "We welcome any release of prisoners, especially who were arrested before 1993." But, he added, "It makes no sense if Israel releases 200 prisoners and arrests 250 in the same month." 'Courageous leadership' Speaking in Amman, Kerry said that if everything goes as expected, representatives for the two sides will join him in Washington "for initial talks within the next week or so, and a further announcement will be made by all of us at that time." Kerry praised the "courageous leadership" of both Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying they had chosen to make difficult decisions. "They have courageously recognized that in order for Israelis and Palestinians to live together side by side in peace and security, they must begin by sitting at the table together in direct talks." Kerry thanked Jordan's King Abdullah and Foreign Minister Nasr Judeh for their help during his visit, as well as the Arab League for its support of the peace initiative. King Abdullah arrived in Cairo on Saturday to brief Egyptian officials about the agreement reached between the Palestinians and Israel on resuming peace talks, Jordan's royal court press office said. His visit is the first to Egypt by a foreign head of state since the July 3 ousting of former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsy. Meanwhile, Israel Defense Forces and the U.S. European Command are scheduled to hold a bilateral aerial exercise Sunday by both of their air forces, Israeli officials said. The regularly scheduled exercises will last about two weeks. 'Right for our future' Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni lauded the prospect of peace. "These past few months were long, filled with doubt and cynicism," Livni said in a statement Friday. "But now, four years of political stagnation are coming to an end. "I know that, despite this being an opportunity, once the negotiations begin they will be complex -- but I am convinced with all my heart that this is the right thing for our future, our security, our economy and Israel's values." She expressed respect for Netanyahu "for making the decisions representing Israel's important interests, as well for American Secretary of State, John Kerry, which led us and the Palestinians into the negotiations room." In the Palestinian territory of Gaza, however, Hamas dismissed the renewed effort for peace talks. "This negotiation will be useless. It is not going to achieve anything for the Palestinian people. It will not help the prisoner issue, the border issue or the land issue," the group said in a statement. Israel imposed an economic blockade on Gaza shortly after Hamas was elected to run its government in 2006. Talks based on land swaps, pre-1967 borders? Kerry urged people to wait for all the elements of the agreement to be formalized, rather than guess at the detail. "Any speculation or reports you may read in the media ... are conjecture ... because the people who know the facts are not talking about them," he said. One of the reports Kerry may have been referencing was a Reuters report quoting an Israeli official who said the Jewish state agreed to a plan for peace talks based on pre-1967 borders and land swaps. It would be in line with a decades-old United Nations resolution calling on Israel to release territories it gained during a war, a demand that Israel has historically fought. But it would help create contiguous borders for a future Palestinian state that would coexist next to a Jewish state. Israel's official reaction to the report has been denial.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/5128

County Republican lawmakers sound off on bed tax renewal October 05, 2012 12:51 AM | 4203 views | 5 | 9 | | Senator Judson Hill (R-Marietta) MARIETTA — The hospital bed tax, a topic that got state Sen. Judson Hill (R-east Cobb) stripped of his chairmanship in 2010 for opposing it, is coming up for renewal next year and will prove to be just as controversial as the first time around, Hill said Thursday. “I opposed it in 2010, and I intend to oppose it again,” Hill said. “I believed it to be a tax increase, and I did my research and not all the hospitals were even in support of it.”Lawmakers adopted the tax in 2010 as state tax collections tanked because of the recession. It uses tax money paid by the hospitals to generate an even larger pot of state and federal health care money, which then flows back to the hospitals.Hill said he was ousted from his role as chairman of the Senate Reapportionment and Redistricting Committee in 2010 for failing to vote in favor of the bill.“I got stripped of my chairmanship by the leadership,” Hill said.The leadership he’s referring to is Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle, Majority Leader Chip Rogers and President Pro Tem Tommie Smith.“Casey delivered the message, but it was a collective decision by those in leadership,” Hill said. “There were three of us. Mitch Seabaugh (R-Sharpsburg), Preston Smith (R-Rome), they all got punished as well.”With the bed tax set to expire next summer, anti-tax personality Grover Norquist, president of Americans For Tax Reform, is calling on Republican lawmakers to oppose its renewal, arguing that it would violate the pledge some of them signed not to raise taxes. Hill said hospitals such as Atlanta’s Grady that receive a large portion of their funding through Medicaid dollars tended to support the bed tax while those that didn’t, such as WellStar, were either neutral or did not support it. “I call it federal crack dollars,” Hill said. “The federal government pimps us with federal dollars — and they’re doing it again with Obamacare — and then along the way they reduce the federal allocation after the state has chosen to participate in the program or expand their program based on receiving federal dollars, and politically it becomes even more challenging to ‘just say no.’ “This hospital bed tax is a perfect example. It was difficult enough to pass it the first time, and now there’s still a hole in the budget, and some hospitals are benefiting from those monies in the short term, I’d suggest, and it’s going to be harder to not take it.”Hill believes it is the patients who suffer in the end. “There’s less access to health care because fewer doctors are taking Medicaid patients because of lower reimbursements,” he said.State Rep. Ed Setzler (R-Acworth) said he voted for the proposal in 2010 because it was part of a larger package of tax-saving measures. “It levied a bed tax, if you will, a fee for health care that was going to fund people with uncompensated care, but it phased in bigger tax cuts in future years, so in essence it was revenue-positive for two years during the need to bridge, but it was a tax cut over time,” Setzler said. Setzler said he opposes the continuation of the bed tax on its own. “The only way I could be persuaded is if there was a tax package with a much bigger permanent tax cut and elimination of a cut to our marginal tax rates. Then I may be open to consider it,” Setzler said. Like Setzler, state Rep. Don Parsons (R-east Cobb) said he voted in favor of the proposal in 2010 because it was part of a larger package. “That was the thing, the catalyst, the straw that broke the camel’s back that kind of started the whole thing over in the Senate,” Parsons said. “I don’t remember all the details, but Casey, he supported it, and you had a significant part of the Senate Republican leadership who were opposed to it, and I think he felt like he was putting them on the spot. There had been things brewing over there between them and Casey for a while, but I think that was the thing that actually got the whole shooting match started where they grabbed a lot of the power away from him.”As for renewing the tax, Parsons said he is inclined to do so. “I know one of the winners on this thing was the Children’s Hospital, and my gosh, you got to think about things like that, so when it comes up again, I think it’s going to be different than what’s currently in place,” Parsons said. “I think there’s going to be changes to it, but my inclination is I’ll do the same thing I did last time, and that is to support it.” State Rep. Rich Golick (R-Smyrna) said, “I’m going to take the next few months to study the issue again in the context of our current fiscal condition, and then arrive at a fact-based position — not one based on press-release hysterics from either side of the issue.”After voting in favor of the legislation in 2010, Golick told the Journal that he supported it because the $170 million it generated would access more than $500 million in federal funds to help fill the state’s Medicare funding gap.“If we leave that money on the table, we’d be forced to further cut vital services to citizens, including the elderly, mentally infirm and children on PeachCare. That’s morally unacceptable to me,” Golick said at the time. “Also, if we didn’t fill that gap, then Medicaid patients from hospitals like Grady would flood other metro hospitals who are unprepared for that overflow. I assume that’s why hospital systems such as WellStar personally lobbied me to support the measure.”WellStar Health System spokeswoman Michelle Robinson said because of worsening budget conditions in 2010, WellStar and other hospitals were asked by elected officials to choose between three options to help balance the state budget. “Options included disastrous cuts in Medicaid reimbursements, the restructuring of the not-for-profit community hospital business model or a Hospital Provider Tax, which has been successful in more than forty states across the U.S.,” Robinson said. “Passage of the Hospital Provider Tax, which will sunset on June 30, 2013, helped the state fill a huge hole in the state budget. WellStar Health System is not a financial beneficiary of the current tax program, but understands that a reauthorization of the program may be the best option to ensure a balanced budget that does not further jeopardize the health of Georgians.” State Rep. Earl Ehrhart (R-Powder Springs) said he’s leaning in favor of Norquist’s position against renewal. “I was there when we said this was temporary. Hard to go back on that now,” Ehrhart said. State Rep. John Carson (R-northeast Cobb) was not in office when the bill was first approved, nor has he signed Norquist’s pledge. “I did not sign the pledge, or any pledges, because I serve my constituents in northeast Cobb and southeast Cherokee, not Grover Norquist,” Carson said. “I am very much a fiscal conservative, but I work for and answer only to my constituents. Having said that, I am becoming familiar with the bed tax, which was more or less a temporary plug in the budget several years ago, and I am eager to look for ways to eliminate it. The problem with temporary taxes is they are not temporary. Governments very rarely give up a revenue stream.”Like Ehrhart, State Rep. Sam Teasley (R-Marietta) said he’s leaning against renewal as well. “My expectation is that I will oppose a renewal of this provision, but I am committed to hearing from both sides of the issue before making a final decision,” Teasley said. State Representative-elect Charles Gregory (R-Kennesaw), who ousted Judy Manning in the Republican primary, said based on what he’s read, it’s likely he will oppose the renewal of the bed tax. “It’s a tax increase,” Gregory said. “And the federal matching programs serve to keep Georgia dependent on the federal government and deprive us of state sovereignty. We send our money to Washington and if the state does what Uncle Sam wants, they might send us a little back — minus administrative costs of course. But this narrow focus on taxes is just another way to distract us from the real problem — spending. In the end, it’s completely about spending. Once the government spends, they are obligated to pay — either by taxing, borrowing, or printing the money. They have us busy arguing over what group pays a few percentage points more or less in taxes; meanwhile, we are all getting robbed blind through the inflation tax as they keep the printing presses rolling in high gear and continue to debase the dollar.”State Rep. Matt Dollar (R-east Cobb), said while he signed Norquist’s no-tax-hike pledge back in 2002, he believes Norquist has changed the terms of the contract. “At the time, I took it at face value to say, ‘hey, if you elect me, I’m not going to raise your taxes,’” Dollar said of Norquist’s pledge. “But I thought that I would be the ultimate decider on whether or not something constituted a tax increase, and what we’ve come to find is that we are not our own authority, someone else is. I hold my own personal pledge to my constituents that I’m not going to raise their taxes to a higher echelon or standard than some guy in D.C. telling me what I can and cannot do.” Dollar said if none of Obamacare is repealed the state could face an estimated $77 million Medicaid hole in the budget this year. “I don’t think you’re going to find anybody that could really commit one way to the other on something like this until we see what the budget looks like,” Dollar said. “It will be big, and big and big, and probably won’t be decided until Day 39 like everything else, that would be my guess. I think it’s shaping up to be quite a battle.” Copyright 2014 The Marietta Daily Journal. All rights reserved. House plans to extend tax breaks through December Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Associated Press 113th Congress ends with more fights than feats Alan Fram, Associated Press Midwestern governors build credentials for 2016 Thomas Beaumont, Associated Press Chatterbox: Couple celebrates 60 years of love and matrimony mk-banana republic | Judson Hill is exactly right- our government is hooked on crack,..the drug is the money WE work for, that THEY want! We are no doubt watching the decline of this once great nation! You people are squeezing us to death!What really breaks my heart, is to go in any emergency room, anywhere USA, and not hear any english being spoken, which means hospitals have laid out the red carpet for the millions of illegal alien invaders,.. while Kathy Inman, whose son, Dustin, was killed BY an illegal alien ,... is STILL suffering 10 YEARS after the accident,... and STILL having to endure PAIN, SURGERY AND MEDICAL BILLS!There are very FEW elected officials looking out for this country any more!SHAMEFUL!Thanks, Hill & Seabaugh! Reply Pat H | The windfall money for the children's hospitals indicates that far too many people are having children that they cannot support. When an illegal alien has a baby, without identification to properly determine income of the parents, this child immediately becomes available for Medicaid.Thank you to the traitor employers who have put our seniors who are most in need of hospital services helping to support your illegal workforce. Reply Cobb Taxpayer | Those who are in support of centrally planned retirement programs like Social Security and Medicare should certainly be in support of immigration of all kinds. Immigrants are the only folks having enough children to support these programs in the future. @Cobb Taxpayer | The children of immigrants are the supply chain for the gangbangers, not taxpayers.Are you responsible for the hiring of subs for Mathews by the way? Just asking. VFP42 | We better not set up too many taxes intended to leach off Obamacare. Romney just might get himself elected! Reply

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/5139

Stay The Berne Initiative: Toward the Development of an International Policy Framework on Migration The Berne Initiative: Toward the Development of an International Policy Framework on Migration By Michele Klein Solomon, Kerstin Bartsch Today, one out of every 35 persons in the world is a migrant. International migration is now an established feature of contemporary social and economic life, with both positive and negative manifestations and opportunities. How can international migration be managed today and for coming generations to maximize the positive contributions of migrants and migration and to minimize potential negative effects? Governments in all regions of the world are acutely aware of the growing importance of international migration and the fact that global population mobility is likely to increase in the near future. Recent reports, including those of the United Nations Population Division on migration statistics and that of the secretary general of the UN in his 2002 report, call attention to the likely growth of migration as a significant policy issue in years to come. While policies regarding international migration remain largely a matter of sovereign prerogative, and there are natural differences in migration interests between countries in developing and industrialized regions, the ever-growing number of migrants and complexity of migratory movements within and across regions highlight the need to develop a cooperative inter-state approach. The authority to determine who may enter and remain in its territory is an important aspect of a state's responsibility to protect its own population. In exercising this sovereign responsibility, most states have pursued a unilateral approach to migration, accompanied by bilateral arrangements or agreements on an ad hoc basis. They have sought to manage migration in the interest of their population and of maintaining friendly relations with other states. As a consequence, different national migration policies and practices have evolved autonomously. However, due to the transnational nature of migration and its relationship to issues such as security, social, political, and economic stability, trade, employment and health, governments increasingly recognize their shared migration interests and the value of strengthened cooperation and coordination to effectively manage migration. They are aware of the fact that migration cannot be managed effectively in the long term through national measures alone and that collective efforts, at the regional and global level, are required to strengthen national capacities. Lack of Harmonized Migration Management System There are many bilateral, regional, and multilateral agreements and conventions aimed at addressing aspects of migration, particularly in the human rights and humanitarian field and most recently in the protocols on smuggling and trafficking to the 2000 UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime. Some of these rules work satisfactorily whereas others are not fully implemented. For example, the UN Convention on the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families will enter into force in the coming months, more than 10 years after its adoption, but is unlikely to have much impact in the near term in view of the fact that only countries of origin have ratified. In certain areas, no rules or guidelines exist to facilitate interstate cooperation on migration-related issues. In contrast to the international regime for the protection of refugees, there is no comprehensive and harmonized system regulating international migration through which the movement of people can be managed in an orderly and cooperative way. Could the development of an international policy framework on migration bridge this gap? The Berne Initiative It is with this in mind that the Swiss Federal Office for Refugees launched the Berne Initiative in 2001 to open a dialogue between governments on the full range of migration issues. The goal of the Berne Initiative is to establish a states-owned consultative process focused on obtaining better management of migration at the regional and global levels through enhanced cooperation between states. The Berne Initiative seeks to engage the active participation of states from every region of the world, representing a wide range of migration perspectives. It enables governments to identify their different policy priorities, and offers the opportunity to develop a common orientation to migration management, based on notions of cooperation, balance, and predictability. Berne I At the International Symposium on Migration ("Berne I") in June 2001, some 80 government officials and experts from international agencies, NGOs and academia reviewed current migration dynamics and trends, including demographic developments, the impact of globalization on migration, foreign labor demand, irregular migration, trafficking in human beings, the gender dimension of migration, and other relevant contemporary aspects of international migration. The participants considered the diverging interests and perspectives of origin, transit, and destination countries, but also identified interests common to all states. It was emphasized that the root causes of migration are related to broader economic, social, and development issues. Regulated migration could contribute, among other things, to fostering economic growth, good neighborly relations, security, the rule of law, and cultural diversity. On the other hand, the participants noted that there is growing dissatisfaction with the way in which irregular migration is occurring at present, in particular regarding the increasing involvement of international criminal organizations in smuggling and trafficking. The undermining of state sovereignty and security by uncontrolled and irregular migration was identified as a major concern for many countries, both in developing and industrialized regions, with important financial, economic, social, and legal implications. It was concluded that there is a need for a balanced approach to facilitate regular migration and prevent irregular migration, and that mutual benefits could derive from enhanced inter-state cooperation. The participants decided to take further the idea of developing a framework of guiding principles for the management of migration, through an ongoing and broadened process of consultations. It was clear that an effort to create new international law in this area, such as through the negotiation of a convention on migration, would not be productive and that the sharing of effective practices from one region or country to others would be a more valuable endeavor. Following the symposium, regional consultations have been carried out in the context of conferences and workshops on the goals of the Berne Initiative in such diverse regions as Southern Africa through the Migration Dialogue for Southern Africa, in Central and North America through the Puebla Process, in Eastern Europe through the Budapest Process, in Western Europe, North America, and Australia through the Inter-Governmental Consultations on Refugee and Migration Policy, in East and West Africa, and in Istanbul through the training seminars organized by the International Migration Policy Program. The input and feedback received at these and other conferences and workshops has been favorable and supportive for both the concept of the Berne Initiative and the bottom-up consultative process it is employing. A majority of government representatives expressed the view that strengthening international cooperation on migration would be of benefit to all states and were in favor of pursuing the development of an international framework of effective practices for the management of migration. Effective Practices for the Management of Migration To be most useful and effective, such a framework should identify common interests and objectives of all countries of migration, taking into account their diverging concerns and needs as well as the interests and perspectives of other stakeholders such as nongovernmental organizations, international organizations, employers, and migrants groups. Of course, they should be based on existing international and regional norms, among other things, on the protection of the human rights of migrants, refugees, and displaced persons. In light of the fact that migration remains largely within the sovereign realm of states, a set of effective practices would need to give due regard to national decision-making and approaches and the need to maintain flexibility in order to adapt to future trends and policies. As a first step, the Swiss authorities, in coordination with IOM, undertook the preparation and publication of an expert stocktaking on existing international law norms relevant to migration. The study International Legal Norms and Migration clarifies the existing legal framework and identifies gaps and grey areas not adequately covered by international law, but where the elaboration of effective practices might be useful. To complement the expert study, IOM's Migration Policy and Research Programme (MPRP) has prepared a Compilation of Significant International Statements on Migration. This compilation focuses on nonbinding common understandings emanating from regional consultative processes on migration and selected international migration-related conferences. It contains significant substantive statements on migration matters from the declarations, plans of action, and other such conclusions adopted at the identified conferences, presented thematically for ease of reference. Taken together, these provide an indication of the migration subjects of concern to the international community and where consensus on the international level could be possible. To this end, it provides a tool for the identification of effective practices in migration management. Further Steps of the Berne Initiative In 2003, the Berne Initiative will continue the bottom-up approach pursued in 2002, as there is still a need for better understanding and identification of common interests in the field of migration. The Swiss Federal Office for Refugees is establishing a "group of interested countries" to help guide the further development of the Berne Initiative and serve as a roundtable for discussions on migration management. Its main role, however, will be the development of a nonbinding international framework on migration, focused on effective practices at the national and international levels. Countries with comprehensive migration policies, such as the traditional immigration countries, will find that their experiences will greatly inform the development of the framework. There is growing international recognition that effective migration policy needs to address such diverse issues as facilitated migration, protection of the rights of migrants, border control, the consequences of forced migration as well as its prevention, and possible linkages between migration and development. Berne II To open the discussion to a wider audience, the Swiss Federal Office for Refugees is planning two or more seminars over the course of 2003 in different regions of the world, preferably in developing countries, to identify effective practices in migration management. A second International Symposium on Migration — "Berne II" — is planned to take place in 2004. Like the first Symposium on Migration in 2001, participation in "Berne II" will be broad-based and representative, with governments, inter-governmental organizations, NGOs and academics from each region of the world and from each migration circumstance. The Berne process demonstrates the broad interest in continued joint efforts and cooperative approaches to enhance understanding of migration and to channel this dynamic and complex phenomenon to the benefit of migrants and countries of migration. At a time when states are recognizing the absolute need for more regular dialogue and co-operation on migration matters, the Berne Initiative constitutes an appropriate platform for cooperation and dialogue among countries of migration. It complements the work of the International Dialogue on Migration currently underway in IOM's governing Council and may eventually feed into the work of that forum. The most important outcome of the Berne Initiative process will be a broad policy framework aimed at facilitating cooperation between states in planning and managing the movement of people in a humane and orderly way. This inter-governmental framework will offer a set of effective policies and practices for a planned and coherent approach to migration management based on existing legal principles, including those related to the protection of the rights of migrants. Without such a comprehensive approach to migration, states are faced with the increasing involvement of international criminal organizations in migrant smuggling and human trafficking, and undermining of the protection of individual migrants and their citizens. Most importantly, a comprehensive international framework on migration can assist states in fully realizing the positive contributions that migrants and migration can make to their societies. Migration and International Legal Norms (Asser Press, forthcoming 2003), edited by T. Alexander Aleinikoff, Senior Associate of the Migration Policy Institute and professor at Georgetown University Law Center; and Vincent Chetail, lecturer at the Graduate Institute for International Studies in Geneva. This book identifies existing legal norms on migration issues. IOM published the analytical overview chapter as a separate volume in IOM's International Dialogue on Migration series in English, French, and Spanish (available in printed format from the Publications Unit, IOM Geneva, or from publications@iom.int. Also available in pdf format from www.iom.int). See also Compilation of Significant Statements available from IOM/MPRP (MPRP2@iom.int) and The Berne Initiative — A Global Consultative Process for Inter-State Co-operation on Migration Management, Information Note I and II providing more general information on the Berne Initiative also available from IOM/MPRP (MPRP2@iom.int). Michele Klein Solomon is Director of the Migration Policy and Research Department at the International Organization for Migration (IOM). Kerstin Bartsch is a Senior Legal Officer at the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH).

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/5160

To: Your Email: Your Name: Subject: July 24, 2013 12:30 PM Obamacare’s Waning Popularity If Obamacare’s such a good policy, why is it bad politics for Democrats? By Reince Priebus Archive HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius (left) with President Obama. Obamacare has a growing number of congressional Democrats, its architects, running scared. The law is now having a real-world impact on people’s lives, and that’s giving these Democrats real concern for their reelection prospects in the 2014 midterms.For a while, Obamacare’s effects could be debated only in theory. Now, they’re making headlines. Some businesses are cutting back workers’ hours because they can no longer afford to employ them full time. Other businesses are laying off workers or nixing plans for expansion. Health care is becoming more expensive — not more affordable — for many, if not most, Americans. For example, according to a report released last week, Indiana expects to see a 72 percent increase in the cost of individual insurance plans under Obamacare. And the Congressional Budget Office expects 7 million Americans to lose their existing employer-based health insurance.In a letter to the administration, Teamsters president James Hoffa and other union leaders — typically Democrat allies — wrote that Obamacare will “destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members,” and “destroy the foundation of the 40-hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.”Even voters who once supported Obamacare are changing their minds as they witness the effects of the law. A recent Washington Post–ABC News poll found that only 46 percent of moderate and conservative Democrats support Obamacare, down from 74 percent in 2010. It can’t be good news for elected Democrats that their signature law has lost so much support in their own party.A National Journal headline from May succinctly summed up congressional Democrats’ problem: “Obama’s Legacy: A Health Care Law That Hurts His Party.”Last week, 35 Democrats in the House of Representatives joined with Republicans to delay the law’s employer mandate, and 22 voted to delay the law’s individual mandate. Obamacare originally was forced through Congress on a party-line vote. But now, Obamacare is bringing people together — in recognition of its disastrous implementation. As Democratic senator Max Baucus put it earlier this year, Obamacare is a “train wreck.”The Hill newspaper reported last week that “vulnerable House Democrats laid low Thursday after voting to delay two key Obamacare mandates over a White House veto threat.” These Democrats are doing their best to hide from the law for one very simple reason: They want to keep their jobs. But if Democrats are hoping for forgiveness, they’re out of luck. Obamacare is the law because of their poor judgment. And voters will be right to judge them for their failed policy. Would it really be fair for these lawmakers to keep their jobs when Americans can’t find jobs because of Obamacare?In the 2014 elections, vulnerable House and Senate Democrats will be caught in a tough spot. They can’t expect to ride Obama’s coattails to reelection; that would require embracing Obamacare. But they also can’t absolve themselves; their party created this law.If Obamacare is as good as President Obama says it is — or if it’s as “wonderful” as Harry Reid insists — then why are Democrats anxious about their reelection prospects? Why are they laying low? If it were a good policy, wouldn’t it be good politics?Regardless of the intentions behind Obamacare, it’s not working. A yearlong delay will postpone some of the side effects. That’s a good thing, but it’s only that: a postponement. What America needs and deserves — what’s fair — is a permanent delay.So the question is: Will Democrats stand with their president or with their constituents as Obamacare derails? If they choose the president over their constituents, their constituents will have a good reason to choose another candidate — one who will work toward health-care reforms that actually improve people’s lives.— Reince Priebus is the chairman of the Republican National Committee.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/5320

Home → News→ State Published: Sunday, 7/24/2005 Amendments would shift authority over Ohio elections BY JIM PROVANCEBLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU COLUMBUS - Banking that Ohio is ripe for rebellion amid scandals reaching as high as the governor's office, groups inside and outside Ohio are pushing the most pervasive constitutional changes to the state's election process in decades. Three proposed amendments aimed at the Nov. 8 ballot would take the remapping of congressional and state legislative districts after each U.S. Census out of the hands of elected officials. The secretary of state would be stripped of his authority to oversee elections, voters could cast ballots as early as 35 days before an election without question, and campaign contribution limits that lawmakers enacted just months ago would be dramatically rolled back. "The atmosphere has changed. The notion of reform of any kind, whether it's campaign finance reform or election reform, is much more salient today," said Herb Asher, political science professor emeritus at Ohio State University and a member of the nonprofit Reform Ohio Now petition effort. The proposed constitutional amendments are an outgrowth of a dinner conversation over the plight of the Democratic Party in Ohio soon after the re-election of President Bush in November. At the table were Paul Tipps, powerful Columbus lobbyist and a former chairman of the state Democratic Party; Ron Alexander, president of the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association; and Andrew Douglas, former Republica

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/5343

Charles M. Arlinghaus: Trading horses behind closed doors CHARLES M. ARLINGHAUS THE MOST annoying and disheartening time of the legislative year is upon us. It is the time when transparency and honest debate are sacrificed on the altar of hidden agendas in pursuit of that elusive legislative pot of gold, “a deal.” Committees of conference are legislative mini-summits where the romanticized version of a smoke-filled room creates comparisons to sausage making that do a distinct dishonor the noble smoked meats.In a Legislature of two chambers, disagreements are common. This year, with opposite parties controlling each body, disagreements are plentiful. When one body merely rejects the bill that passed the other, nothing happens. Yet, quite often, each body will pass a different version of the same bill. In such cases, negotiators are appointed and a committee of conference meets to find common ground.Finding areas of agreement seems straightforward enough, but the all-too-human machinations in pursuit of “a deal” are what gave rise to the legislative sausage-making metaphor.That metaphor’s history is a bit like the process itself. In 1869, John Godfrey Saxe found legislative machinations as convoluted then as now and wrote “Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how they are made.”The quote was memorable, but Mr. Saxe was not, so one textbook writer in the 1930s started his description of legislative shenanigans with, “I think it was Bismarck who said….” For decades no one bothered to check the writer’s uncertainty and so we incorrectly attribute the thought to Germany’s Iron Chancellor Otto von Bismarck.Much of the legislative process is transparent and merely involves two sides disagreeing. The slightly distasteful committee of conference process has rules, but so many of them aren’t what they seem. In theory, the two sides negotiate and all must agree. This helps prevent a small clique from seizing power from a majority. In practice, the Senate president or House speaker can and does remove and replace anyone not toeing the line.In theory, everything agreed to should have been part of one bill or the other; after all we are supposedly just ironing out details of difference between similar bills. But the rules are slightly different. They allow anything in the final product that is simply the subject of either version. If the subject is interpreted broadly — and it is when that is useful — this allows pretty near anything to come back to life.There are roughly 80 conference committees hashing out agreements. That doesn’t mean there are 80 disagreements. Sometimes, the building blocks of deals are tacked on to other bills at the end of the regular session to preserve negotiating power.For example, an innocuous bill to create a voluntary fund for robotics education had a liquor sample bill tacked on the end of it. The message is “we don’t disagree, but if you want this passed, you have to give us something in return.”Small potatoes horse trading, to mix a few metaphors, isn’t of much concern to anyone. But on large, complex bills, new ideas can be introduced that no one has had a chance to consider and that have had no public hearing. And yet they need to be voted on almost immediately.At the end of the Great War, Woodrow Wilson called for “Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.” The same frustration might be expressed about legislators.Too often, the open public meeting is a sham. Very brief, uninformative, and highly choreographed meetings are a theatrical production. The meetings are rare and short while the recesses are long and hidden. In fact, agreements are arrived at behind closed doors during what is ostensibly a recess. Diplomacy occurs out of the public view, and we’re never quite sure what happened.In Wilson’s time, professional diplomats relished the intrigue and gamesmanship of old fashioned secret diplomacy. Today, a subset of legislators and staff romanticize the “sausage-making.” Playing the game and the art of the deal create a sense of separation from the rest of us who aren’t “in the know.”Wilson may have been naïve about international diplomacy but we all have cause to be a little wary of backroom deals. I like knowing what’s in my sausage.Charles M. Arlinghaus is president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank in Concord.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/5361

NEWS | LOCAL | POLITICS | SPORTS | OPINIONS | BUSINESS | ARTS & LIVING | GOING OUT GUIDE | JOBS | CARS | REAL ESTATE |SHOPPING Plugged-In Volunteers Blaze New Campaign Trail By Amy Gardner Almost as soon as Sen. Barack Obama declared that he was running for president, Chrisi West signed up to volunteer. The Fairfax County resident was dissatisfied with the status quo on income inequality, domestic violence and the Iraq war. What she heard from Obama during his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and what she read in his book "Dreams From My Father" convinced her that he -- with her help -- could turn dissatisfaction into action. So West, 29, took her first step into politics. She went to Obama's Web site, set up an account and began an almost two-year journey through a new kind of grass-roots campaign, centered largely in her electronic world. She met like-minded supporters, began organizing and helped build a network of volunteers with a reach so vast that, in a Washington Post poll released this week, more than half of voters surveyed in Virginia said they had been contacted by the Obama campaign about supporting the Democrat in his bid for the White House. If Obama becomes the first Democrat in 44 years to win the state, it will be in large part because of the Chrisi Wests of the world. They have sent e-mails, made phone calls and knocked on doors. They have texted and Twittered. And the Obama campaign has helped make it happen by speaking the language of cellphones, text messages and e-mail accounts -- and by giving thousands of young Americans who communicate this way the power to participate. That participation has reached a crescendo in recent days, with Obama volunteers taking to the phones in such volume that more Virginians who are likely to vote have heard from them than not. More than 10,000 volunteers are working for Obama in Virginia, according to the campaign. They appear to be making a difference: According to the Post poll, Obama had a 75 to 22 percent advantage among likely voters who had heard from his campaign in person, on the phone or via e-mail or text message but had not been reached by Sen. John McCain's campaign. "We have so many amazingly dedicated, just generous volunteers," West said. "It's just crazy how this whole thing grew, honestly." Grass-roots activity in Virginia for McCain appears to be less energized. A recent two-day swing through every Northern Virginia campaign office for both candidates found crowds of volunteers for Obama on the phones, being trained to canvass and passing out signs, stickers and other material. McCain's offices were universally quiet, in some cases with just one or two field workers sitting at a counter or table and little foot traffic. This week, just days before the election, Obama's Web site advertised more than 300 events in Northern Virginia; McCain's advertised seven. For West, it all began on St. Patrick's Day 2007, shortly after she signed up for the campaign. She attended a meeting of Obama supporters in the home of Todd Ruopp, and she helped compile lists of locations to set up Obama tables: grocery stores, farmers markets and the like. She went to some herself. She helped set up e-mail distribution lists. She was not following orders from local party officials. She was brainstorming her own ideas on how to get out the word about Obama, and she and others in the room quickly understood the power they had. "Early on, we were it," said Ruopp, a longtime Alexandria Democrat who helped start Alexandria 4 Obama and had never met West before his meeting. "We made up our own rules. We knew enough to organize ourselves. I had these total strangers coming into my home, none of whom had any political experience. I was like, 'Wow.' That was amazing." Since then, West, a bundle of energy who rarely ventures into public without a chai latte in one hand, has "met" -- electronically, at least -- thousands of Obama supporters through the campaign's Web site, where she has her own home page and blog and has advertised dozens of events, including registration drives, neighborhood canvasses and out-of-state trips during the primaries. West also has registered voters at Metro stations, stuffed walk packets for canvassers and driven to New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and South Carolina to go door-to-door. Through it all, her laptop has never been far away, and she has used it to draw more helpers, collect more data and share more information with the Obama campaign than volunteers of past generations ever could. "Hey Zach!" West wrote in June to Zach Fairbanks, 27, a business administration major from San Ramone, Calif., who e-mailed West after reading that Virginia was likely to be a battleground. He found her name by searching online for Fairfax County and Obama. "You can bother me anytime you want!!! And we'd love to have your help in the Fairfax South County/Richmond Highway office when you get to town!" "It's a lot of young people who have access to e-mail, and they're not quite as localized I think as, say, my parents' generation," said Dan Malessa, 26, an Obama volunteer who works out of the campaign office in southern Fairfax where West has spent much of her time. "It's easier for us to communicate across spaces. We move more, but we communicate more. It's simpler now, and it's quicker." Malessa's path to Obama's Sacramento Drive storefront near Mount Vernon is a case in point: Through a series of e-mails, the graduate student at George Washington University meandered electronically from an old friend from Colgate University (now living in Colorado) to that friend's high school buddy's cousin (from Chicago), who is a field organizer for Obama (in Virginia). West spends long nights working on the campaign. She sits on her black living room couch, laptop open, with her husband, Jeff, usually in retreat in their townhouse basement in the Kingstowne area of southern Fairfax. In February, during primary season, she sent out a call for volunteers willing to travel out of state. She asked for names, the number of spaces available in cars, departure and arrival cities, travel dates and plans for overnight accommodations. She posted the request on her Facebook account and on her personal blog at My.BarackObama.com. She also posted it on seven electronic Obama bulletin boards. And she sent it to 15 Obama e-mail lists in Virginia, some of them with hundreds of subscribers. West accomplished two things: She compiled a valuable list that she shipped directly to the campaign, which used it and hundreds like it to deploy volunteers across battleground states. She also made contact with hundreds of supporters, infusing them with the idea that their efforts made a difference. "Chrisi. I was the guy who stood out in front of the King Street Metro passing out literature the day before the election in Virginia," a supporter posted to one of West's call-to-action blog entries. Wrote another: "And I'm the person in Alexandria walking the cat on leash wearing Obama buttons!" Early on, Obama's online team, led by Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, established the goal of making the most of connectivity by setting up a computer network that would attract volunteers, make it easy for them to contribute time and money, and help them find each other. The foundation of that network is the site My.BarackObama.com, where activists can set up home pages, post blog items and sign up for or post events such as canvassing, phone-banking and debate-watching parties. Known as "MyBO" within the campaign and among the activists who use it, the network boasts 1.5 million users and has advertised 100,000 distinct events. West has hosted 61 events advertised through MyBO, she has attended 93 and she has joined 32 of MyBO's groups. Hughes credited MyBO at least in part for Obama's big win in the Virginia primary -- not to mention the all-volunteer effort to collect twice as many signatures as were necessary to place him on the ballot. Although the Obama campaign had opened a Virginia office only a few days before, the staff walked into the arms of a large family of volunteers who had been organizing through MyBO for nearly a year, he said. West and the comrades she began meeting in 2007 encountered resistance from some of the older, more established Democratic activists in Alexandria and Fairfax, who had been doing things differently for years and weren't quite ready to hand over the reins. "They would say things like, 'You really should be coordinating this with the city committee,' when we set up a table at the farmers market or scheduled an Obama meeting at one of our houses," Ruopp said. Obama's campaign structure encouraged Ruopp and West to ignore such admonishments, he added -- and they did. Sen. John McCain's organization also has recognized the value of social networking. But virtually all polls give Obama an overwhelming lead among the young voters who do it the most. And the Republican's Internet operation, McCain Nation, came far later than MyBO. It now features the same ability to print out canvassing or phone-banking lists so volunteers can get right to work from their homes. But it wasn't until August, for example, that McCain Nation added a function to search for or host events, one of the key tools of MyBO that has been in place for 17 months. The disadvantage is evident in a recent search for events within 10 miles of West's Fairfax County Zip code: MyBO listed 131 debate-watching parties, phone banks, canvasses and more, and McCain Nation listed five. The advantage can't be explained away by Fairfax County's lean toward Democrats, either. In Republican strongholds Harrisonburg and Roanoke, McCain Nation listed zero events; MyBO listed six. West doesn't spend much time thinking about McCain. She's too busy typing or texting or jumping up to answer her cellphone. "Sometimes Monday comes too quickly," she Twittered after a long weekend of volunteering. And in another post: "I'll sleep in November."

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/5423

20th Commemoration of the Genocide in Rwanda Posted by DipNote Bloggers April 7, 2014 Rwandans Light Candles of Remembrance in Kigali President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Ambassador Samantha Power joined the international community today in marking the 20th commemoration of the genocide in Rwanda. President Obama said, "We honor the memory of the more than 800,000 men, women and children who were senselessly slaughtered simply because of who they were or what they believed. We stand in awe of their families, who have summoned the courage to carry on, and the survivors, who have worked through their wounds to rebuild their lives. And we salute the determination of the Rwandans who have made important progress toward healing old wounds, unleashing the economic growth that lifts people from poverty, and contributing to peacekeeping missions around the world to spare others the pain they have known." .@JohnKerry: We stand with the people of #Rwanda, renew our commitment to bring an end to genocide once and for all. http://t.co/MLfOd4BZMQ — Department of State (@StateDept) April 7, 2014 On behalf of President Obama and the people of the United States, Ambassador Power led the U.S. delegation to the commemoration ceremony in Kigali, Rwanda. Ambassador Power said, "On this solemn day of sorrow and remembrance, we come together to honor those who survived, mourn those who perished, and move forward with the unfinished tasks of accountability, healing, and reconciliation. In so doing, we are encouraged by the remarkable progress Rwandans have made in rebuilding their society, particularly in the areas of education, agriculture, women’s empowerment, and health. Deeply conscious of the human costs of mass violence, Rwanda has also been a prominent and effective contributor to international peacekeeping operations, including the African Union mission now underway in the Central African Republic." Ambassador Power continued, "As individuals and nations, we lack the power to rewind history; we cannot restore life to the hundreds of thousands of men, women and children who were so ruthlessly deprived of life twenty years ago. But we do have the power to honor the memory of those who were lost; to strive to prevent future genocides; and to join forces across every boundary of geography, culture, ethnicity, and creed to foster a climate of mutual understanding, shared respect, and lasting peace." Kigali Genocide Memorial Centre displays family photographs of individuals who died in the Rwandan genocide, Kigali, Rwanda, April 5, 2014. [AP Photo] Statement by President Barack Obama on the 20th Commemoration of the Genocide in Rwanda Statement by Secretary of State John Kerry on the 20th Commemoration of the Rwandan Genocide Statement by Ambassador Samantha Power on the 20th Anniversary of the Start of the Rwanda Genocide Marlene P. | United States April 9, 2014 And yet, Susan Rice still has a job working for the U.S. government. Shameful. Previous: Social Media Summit 2014: 'Social Media for Social Change' »« Next: Five Years After Prague: Nuclear Security and the Road Ahead . 2014: A Year of Food Assistance Refugee and Displaced Children: Back to School -- or Not? Crises on Four Fronts: Rising to the Call Latest Stories

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/5521

The Evian Group at IMD The Evian Group@IMD is an international coalition of corporate, government and opinion leaders, committed to fostering an open, inclusive, equitable and sustainable global market economy in a rules-based multilateral framework. Agenda & Events BRICS Conference - Brazil: What Next? - October 7, 2014 - IMD, Lausanne 1 History and mission 2.1 1) Forum for dialogue 2.2 2) Think tank 2.3 3) Education 3 The Open World Initiative History and mission[edit] The Evian Group was founded at an international meeting of trade policy makers and policy thinkers convened at the Hotel Royal in Evian-les-Bains (on the French side of Lake Geneva) – hence the name of the Group – in April 1995. 1995 was the year the WTO was founded and corresponded to the early phases of the current era of globalisation. The participants of the meeting recognised that globalisation is not an irreversible force, that nationalism, populism and protectionism require constant vigilance, and that trade is the most fundamental driving force and barometer of globalisation. In 1997 the founder of The Evian Group, Jean-Pierre Lehmann, joined the Faculty of IMD as professor of International Political Economy. Though The Evian Group remains a separate legal entity, its close integration with IMD resulted in it adopting the name The Evian Group at IMD. The Evian Group at IMD has been described as a “birthplace of ideas” and in its diverse activities draws on the collective wisdom and experience of its members, its Brains Trust, and associates to provide greater knowledge, vision and direction in meeting the economic and social challenges of the 21st century. The Evian Group at IMD has also been described as a “bridge between North and South”; in its diverse activities it seeks to reduce the “trust deficit” that has been an increasingly prominent feature of the early 21st century between “developed” and “developing” countries. Greater transparency in trade can foster better understanding and more dynamic relations. In light of its many activities and its extensive network in South and East Asia, The Evian Group at IMD has also been described as a “bridge between East and West”. The Evian Group at IMD has also become deeply committed to the Arab Region and has in recent years developed more work, networks and institutional alliances in Sub-Saharan Africa. In the next few years The Evian Group a

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/5564

Post-Election Americans Perceive Less Class Conflict and Tension Over Immigration Share Tweet E-mail Comments Print By editor Originally published on Fri January 11, 2013 3:19 pm You might think that after a pretty rancorous election season there would be lingering acrimony between people who belong to groups embroiled in some of the campaign's most heated debates. But if there is, a new study by Pew found that many Americans don't feel that way. About 6 in 10 Americans find that there are either "strong" or "very strong" conflicts between the rich and the poor — which is down about 9 percentage points from a survey taken in December 2011. And that was before the presidential campaign, the intense focus on Mitt Romney's wealth and the infamous "47 percent" video. Similarly, fewer Americans felt that there are strong conflicts between immigrants and people who were born in the U.S., as well. And the number of people who see serious conflict between blacks and whites stayed about flat, ticking up from 38 percent to 39 percent over the past year, although the number of blacks who felt that way was significantly higher than whites who did (54 percent to 34 percent). But despite those declines, Americans aren't exactly seeing a flowering of bonhomie. Sixty percent of people with families earning less than $30,000 a year and 60 percent of those making more than $75,000 felt like there was strong disagreement between the classes. (Blacks, self-identified liberals, and Democrats were significantly more likely than whites, conservatives and Republicans to see serious conflict between the rich and the poor.) Latinos were also more likely than whites to feel that there were serious divisions between immigrants and the native-born, a number that was more pronounced among second-generation Americans — people with at least one foreign-born parent. Young people between the ages of 18 and 29 also were more likely to feel strong conflict between immigrants and the native-born. Perhaps not surprisingly, there was overwhelming post-election agreement of strong conflict in one area — that between Republicans and Democrats. In the poll taken in late November and early December, 81 percent agreed with that sentiment. That question wasn't asked in the 2011 survey.Copyright 2013 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/. View the discussion thread.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/5615

Steve King Calls Benghazi 10 Times Bigger Than Watergate Now that Susan Rice has dropped out in the race to be the next Secretary of State (she whines about making the right call), perhaps we can finally get to the inquiry regarding the real issues surrounding Benghazi (Washington Times) Rep. Steve King, Iowa Republican, said Wednesday that the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, is 10 times bigger than the Watergate and Iran-Contra scandals put together. “I believe that it’s a lot bigger than Watergate, and if you link Watergate and Iran-Contra together and multiply it times maybe 10 or so, you’re going to get in the zone where Benghazi is,” Mr. King said. “I don’t think the public has any idea, and I tell you, I don’t either, of the chronology of the events – what took place, and who was where doing what and why. And all the way down through – we still haven’t seen an autopsy report on the ambassador yet. Simple questions that you would ask in the first 24 hours have not been asked yet.” He, and others, are calling for a massive Watergate style committee investigation. And it would be about time. The question is, what will they investigate? So far, the Republicans involved, such as John McCain, Lindsay Graham, and Kelly Ayote, have been investigating the 3rd most important issue, namely, what’s up with the stupid talking points that came out post-attack. The issues of why security was so lax at the consulate, even though they knew the area was increasing dangerous and those in Libya were screaming for more security, and what was actually done during the attack, leaving Americans to die, are much more important. Some have suggested that the talking points were cover for the Obama administration since they might have been running guns, or something else. Bad, yes. Leaving Americans to die on the ground while drones circled overhead and broadcasting the attack in real time? Much, much worse. That’s what needs investigation. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is heading to Capital Hill Amid ongoing questions about the September violence in Benghazi that left four Americans dead, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton heads to Capitol Hill next week to testify on the matter, appearing before both House and Senate committees to answer questions about the sequence of events that led up to the attacks, and how the State Department hopes to prevent similar incidents in the future. “We ask our diplomats and development personnel to operate in some of the most dangerous places on the planet,” said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where she’ll appear next Thursday morning. “We owe it to them, and we owe it to the memory of Ambassador Chris Stevens and his three fellow Americans who lost their lives in Benghazi to get past the politics and focus on the substance of what happened and what it tells us about diplomatic security going forward.” Who wants to place a bet that the Senate FRC whitewashes what happens and shuts down Republicans who ask tough questions? I’m hoping that the GOP asks important questions on what was going on before and during the attack, not on the talking points about it being a spontaneous film review with heavy weapons and RPGs. Two Examples Showing Liberals Don’t Know ANYTHING About U.S. History This week we have two prominent examples proving that liberals are ignoramuses about the Constitution and U.S. history. One incident Man Shot, Killed Near Occupy Oakland Just like during the Tea Party rallies….no? Funny, the media tended to call the Tea Party violent because people were POLICE STATE: Feds Still Buying Tons of Ammunition “Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty.”–John Basil Barnhill,

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/5619

With An Eye Toward 2016, Rick Perry Reboots Share Tweet E-mail Print By Liz Halloran Texas Gov. Rick Perry announces he will not seek re-election as governor, Monday in San Antonio. Picture the next 18 months of Republican Texas Gov. Rick Perry's road to national relevance. Appearances on the late-night comedy shows, where he'll banter with Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Jay Leno, maybe even Jimmy Fallon. A rolling, cross-country road show during which he'll tout the Texas economy and charm grassroots voters and deep-pocketed donors. Mixing it up back home in Austin with intensifying battles to limit legal abortion and push back against "Washington policies." It would — it could — be the equivalent of a reputation recovery tour, says Evan Smith, CEO of The Texas Tribune. Smith imagines the tour as an opportunity for the governor to erase the big asterisk that appeared next to his name after a disastrous, oops-a-daisy-a-minute 2012 presidential campaign. "He puts himself in circulation, he extols conservative principles, he laughs about the fact that he had a bad go of it the last time — but he loves America, he loves Texas," Smith says. "That's got to be the strategy." Onward To 2016 Because Perry, who surprised few with his decision not to run for an unprecedented fifth term leading the Lone Star State, clearly wants another shot at his party's nomination. Just listen to how he threaded his speech Monday, announcing he'd step down when his term ends next year, with everything conservative Republican presidential primary voters want to hear: Aggressive tort reform. Business-friendly policies. Jobs. The fight for "traditional values" of heterosexual marriage and severe limits on abortion. "He's holding the door open to a presidential run," Smith said. "[The speech] had all the components of a potential presidential campaign, no question." But then there's the unavoidable issue of his last presidential bid, when his highly anticipated campaign dissolved into shambles, undone by missteps and misstatements that began almost from the moment it launched. Could even the most masterfully planned recovery tour change his national persona in time for him to make a credible foray into presidential politics in 2016? "It would be tough," says Cindy Rugeley, a political scientist at Texas Tech University. "Even if you look at who Texans would support — more people would like to see Sen. Ted Cruz run, and I think even New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was higher in the polls." But Suzanne Bellsnyder, a Republican strategist in Texas, says the longest serving governor in state history should never be underestimated: "Gov. Perry and his team have been winning long-shot races since the early '90s and have beat some of Texas' giant political figures. If his team is focused — and I believe this decision today not to seek election signals his desire to focus — Team Perry can make it happen." "After two lackluster presidential races, the GOP is looking for an inspiring leader, someone who can make us feel the fire in our bellies again," she said. Downside/Upside Texas Democratic strategist Matt Angle argues that Perry will leave a "pretty sad legacy" as governor, with the nation's highest percentage of residents without health insurance and high school dropout rates that compete with the worst. "Rick Perry has exploited the natural resources of Texas to advance himself," Angle said Monday, scoffing at the notion that Perry may be able to position himself as a viable national candidate in the months to come. "He not only embarrassed himself the last campaign, but he embarrassed Texas," Angle said. "The treads are off the tires and he's running bald now." Perry's advocates, and even many skeptics, however, say that the governor has a powerful jobs story to tell out of Texas, which in the last three years has seen 8 percent of the nation's population growth and 40 percent of its jobs growth. "Oh, I think he does have a path to the nomination," says Rusty Kelley, an Austin lobbyist who has known the governor since they were both still living in West Texas, back when Perry was a Democrat and running for a seat in the state Legislature. "He'll be known for job creation, for his economic development team that has done a superb job," Kelley says. Says Rugeley, the Texas Tech professor: "He can't argue that he and God stood hand-in-hand and put oil in the ground. But jobs and the economy were good. He created an environment that enabled jobs to develop." "There's the argument that education and health care suffered under him," she says, "but, at the same time, maybe that wasn't a priority in Texas." Big State, Big Personality, Steep Climb The online world is chockablock with Rick Perry blooper lists and videos. Some are unsettling, in that they suggest a lack of knowledge of basic historic facts (he once placed the Revolutionary War in the 16th century); some are simply awkward and uncomfortable (the "oops" debate moment when he couldn't recall the third federal agency he'd like to eliminate); and some are funny, maybe even endearing (like when he encouraged people at a new media convention to follow him "on Tweeter"). Smith, the Texas Tribune CEO, says that on paper Perry has always had the makings of a successful GOP presidential candidate. If people are willing to forgive his fumbles and if he can differentiate himself from the looming pack of Republican presidential hopefuls — from Florida Sen. Marco Rubio to Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul — he has the potential to be formidable, Smith argues. The performance of the Texas economy under Perry's dozen-plus years as governor and his principled stands on issues near and dear to conservative GOP primary voters is the foundation, Smith says, for a strong presidential bid. As long as he can make people forget that he's the guy who couldn't remember three things.Copyright 2013 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/. Iowa Public Radio

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/5656

Wasserman Schultz Statement on Working Families Flexibility Act By: Debbie Wasserman Schultz Date: May 7, 2013 Location: Washington, DC On Monday, more than 150 leading women's, worker, and civil rights organizations from across the country sent a letter to the U.S. House of Representatives stating their opposition to the Working Families Flexibility Act (also known as the "comp time' bill) -- which is slated to be voted on in the House this Wednesday. U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23) released the following statement: "Contrary to its name, this bill does not protect working families. Many hourly workers in South Florida depend on the opportunity to collect their hard-earned overtime pay to support their families and make ends meet. This anti-family, anti-worker bill would make it harder for employees to provide for their families and easier for employers to pay less for overtime work with hazy promises of time off later. "This legislation provides no guarantee that employees would get to use their time off when they need it, or if an employer goes out of business, workers may never get compensated at all. Employees who depend on overtime pay to put food on the table may be forced to compete with fellow employees who are willing to trade their overtime wages for cheaper comp time. "Women, particularly Hispanic women, are more likely to be hourly wage workers, more likely to be in jobs with higher power differentials between employee and employer, and still represent two-thirds of family caregivers. A worker with a sick child at home gets no benefit from earning comp time if she can't take it when she needs it. Instead, she deserves pay for the overtime hours she's worked, paid sick leave, and a fair and living wage. "I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill that would empower employers to exploit their employees. We need to come together to discuss policies that make meaningful progress for working families." Source: http://wassermanschultz.house.gov/2013/05/wasserman-schultz-statement-on-working-families-flexibility-act.shtml

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/5695

Immigration bill critics focus on health law delay By ERICA WERNER Associated Press Aug 5 2013 10:39 pm WASHINGTON, D.C. — For many House conservatives, President Barack Obama’s decision to delay a central provision of his health care law has emerged as a major arguing point – not against that law but in opposition to immigration legislation In the weeks since the announcement that employers won’t have to provide health insurance for another year, complaints have increased among House Republicans that they can’t trust the Obama administration to implement any law they pass. That includes strict requirements for immigrants, tighter border security and genuine workplace hiring enforcement. That refrain is heard often from GOP lawmakers, most of whom now are home for a five-week summer recess. It’s one more daunting obstacle to House action after Senate passage in June of a sweeping bill to increase border security, remake rules for legal immigration and offer eventual citizenship to the estimated 11 million immigrants already in the U.S. illegally. “We all take an oath to uphold the laws of this country and our Constitution, and that doesn’t mean you pick the laws you like and you ignore the laws you don’t,” said Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., who heads the conservative Republican Study Committee in the House. “And yet the president has shown a willingness to be selective in how he enforces laws.” House Republicans also are skeptical of the comprehensive approach taken by the Senate, preferring to confront the immigration issue in bits and pieces. Many oppose legalization or citizenship for people who crossed the border illegally or overstayed their visas to be in this country. For some, whether an immigration law would be properly implemented has emerged as a key point, particularly because of the government’s unimpressive record on enforcing past laws on immigration. Past Congresses called for completing hundreds of miles of border fencing and a biometric entry-exit system at U.S. ports. Neither happened. But the most oft-cited example is the 1986 immigration law signed by President Ronald Reagan, which gave citizenship to some 3 million people here illegally, installed the first requirements for employers to check workers’ legal status and boosted border security. The legalization happened, but the workplace and border provisions proved ineffectual, and the law came nowhere close to its goal of stopping illegal immigration. “They don’t trust government. You go back to the ‘86 legalization where certain things were promised that weren’t delivered,” said Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., who supports a comprehensive immigration overhaul bill and is part of a bipartisan House group that’s been working behind the scenes for months to write one. “It has been clearly amplified tenfold by the Obama administration. The most recent example of that was on Obamacare,” Diaz-Balart said. “So our challenge is can we then demonstrate that we can enforce that enforcement.” Some proponents of an immigration overhaul dismiss the implementation argument as an excuse from House Republicans looking for reasons not to act on a politically explosive issue that some still characterize as amnesty for lawbreakers. “If that’s the logic, that Obama won’t enforce the law if we pass it, then pass no laws. It’s ludicrous to say that. If the president doesn’t enforce laws, we have ways to go to court and force him, or her, to enforce laws,” said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., an author of the immigration bill in the Senate. “Of all the reasons I’ve heard in opposition to immigration, that’s the one that has no validity whatsoever.” House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has rejected the Senate’s immigration bill and says the House will proceed with narrowly tailored bills, beginning with border security. Timing is uncertain, especially because the House has only nine legislative days scheduled in September and faces pressing fiscal and budgetary deadlines. House Homeland Security Chairman Mike McCaul, R-Texas, says he’s spoken with Boehner about action in September or early October on a border security bill approved by his panel in May. That bill, which has found support among conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats, would require the secretary of homeland security to develop a strategy to gain operational control of the border within five years and a plan to implement the strategy. It calls on the Government Accountability Office to oversee the steps being taken. The bill doesn’t call for new spending, and stands in contrast to the approach taken in the Senate, where a last-minute compromise designed to attract more GOP votes would provide for a “border surge” with $46 billion in new spending on drones, helicopters and other technology, a doubling of agents patrolling the border with Mexico and hundreds of miles of new fencing. Even some supporters called the Senate deal overkill, and McCain acknowledged recently that 20,000 additional border patrol agents really weren’t necessary. And although the deal was designed to win over Republicans concerned about border security, it hasn’t convinced many in the House. They describe the Senate approach as throwing money at the problem and complain that it still gives too much discretion to the Obama administration. McCaul said that his bill, in contrast, would take politics out of the equation by giving oversight to the Government Accountability Office. Now he’s trying to convince skeptical colleagues. “That’s what I tell my members,” McCaul said, “is that, ‘Yeah, I know you don’t think he’s going to follow anything, but he’s got to report to the Congress and to my committee, and if they’re not following the law, they have to follow the law.”’

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/5725

Will Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood return to political violence? By Dr Omar Ashour University of Exeter Continue reading the main story Egypt transition Revolution map Mubarak cases Sisi's first 100 days Mystery man Like most social movements that survived adverse conditions for decades, there are a few constants about the Muslim Brotherhood. One of them is change. Between 1928 and 2014, the organisation has transformed multiple times -updating its world view, recalculating its objectives, modifying its behaviour, and altering its organisational structures. Another constant: ideological beliefs are usually marginalised in times of crises and inconveniences. Supporting a foreign invasion, for instance, is an ideological red line for the Brotherhood. But it was compromised in 2003 by the Iraqi Brotherhood affiliate which backed the US-led invasion, to the disappointment of the Egyptian Brotherhood. A third constant is that the Brotherhood has had a transnational dimension since the mid-1930s, in a similar way to leftist movements. But an international hierarchy has not really existed, except for a short period in the late 1930s. In other words, local affiliates of the Brotherhood do not take orders from one another, and in many cases end up with conflicting policies on major regional crises. A fourth constant is that in times of democratisation and relative political freedoms, the Brotherhood usually plays by the institutional democratic rules of the game. They participate in party politics, constitutional crafting and electoral processes. In some cases like in Egypt (2011-2012), they consistently win the largest percentages of votes/seats (but almost never an absolute majority). In other cases, like in Libya (2012) and Algeria (1991), they lose to political rivals. Between ballots and bullets But what about the behaviour of the Brotherhood in more common Middle Eastern contexts: authoritarian repression, military coups, civil wars and other forms of political violence and social instability? In these cases, the behaviour is majorly dependent on the domestic environment. Arms and religion in most of the modern and post-modern Middle East are the most effective means to gain and remain in political power, almost like they were in pre-modern times. The Islamist Hamas movement in Gaza is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood Votes, constitutions, good governance and socio-economic achievements are secondary means and, in many Middle Eastern countries, relegated to cosmetic matters. In such a context, members, former members and affiliates of the Brotherhood were involved in various types of armed activities in specific timeframes and selected countries. In Yemen, the Brotherhood and its affiliates took up arms on the side of the former Yemeni President, Ali Abdullah Saleh, during the civil war of 1994. In Syria, the Brotherhood and some of its offshoots fought against the regime of Hafez al-Assad between 1976 and 1982, with direct logistical support from Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq and some training and financing from the Saudi regime and Anwar al-Sadat in Egypt. In Gaza, Hamas, an ideological affiliate of the Brotherhood, is currently in its third war in six years with Israel. In Egypt, the Brotherhood went through a phase of para-militarisation between 1940 and 1965, in which some of its members were involved in various forms of military operations, including assassinations. But by the late 1960s, the leadership made a final decision to abandon any form of local armed activism. Status quo politics After Gamal Abdel Nasser was in power, the Brotherhood in Egypt engaged in status quo politics within the rules laid out by successive authoritarianism regimes. This brought them the ire of radical Islamists, perhaps best outlined in Ayman al-Zawahiri's 1993 book, The Bitter Harvest of the Muslim Brothers. In that period, the Brotherhood in Egypt condemned armed attacks against the ruling regimes of Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak. In 1981, it declared that President Sadat was killed like Uthman ibn Affan, the third Caliph in Islam widely perceived in Sunni Islamic tradition as a martyr. This was the behavioural pattern in the 1990s and the 2000s. Under Anwar Sadat's regime the Brotherhood officially renounced violence In Algeria, throughout the 1990s, the local Brotherhood affiliate, the Movement for the Society of Peace (MSP) Party, sided with the military junta of 1992 and was strongly critical of the Armed Islamic Group's (GIA) violent tactics and Islamic Salvation Front's (FIS) radical rhetoric. As a result, the MSP became a partner in several Algerian coalition governments and held several ministerial portfolios in post-coup Algeria. In Iraq and Afghanistan, local Brotherhood affiliated parties and figures were critical of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein's regime. Two Brotherhood affiliates became members of the Iraqi Governing Council appointed by the Coalition Provisional Authorities. In the West, Brotherhood offshoots and once-affiliated organisations were consistently critical of terrorist activists and radical preachers, especially after the 9/11 attacks on the US. This was welcomed by many Western policy-makers at the time and turned into a form of limited, timid, intermittent and security-focused cooperation in several crises. Perhaps one of the most notable coordinated counter-extremism efforts was the takeover of the North London Central Mosque (better known as Finsbury Park Mosque) in February 2005 from the supporters of the notorious preacher Abu Hamza al-Masri, by the members of the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) in coordination with Scotland Yard, the Charity Commission and Islington Council. The takeover was perceived to be an accomplishment by the British authorities at that time, as it turned a base for supporting violence, extremism and criminal activities into a thriving community centre. Non-violence sustainable? After July 2013, when the military overthrew Islamist President Mohammed Morsi, the Brotherhood in Egypt and their relationship with armed activism emerged as a valid question. Generally, military takeovers that target democratically elected governments are usually associated with high levels of bloodshed, and given the repression which followed Mohammed Morsi's ousting, the situation in Egypt is violence-engendering. The logistics, however, are not. The leadership of the Brotherhood in Egypt understands that it can win in electoral processes and in street-mobilisation capacities. Violence, however, is the domain of the army. And based on earlier experiences with political violence in Egypt, the organisation lost both the power-struggle and the legitimacy, even with paramilitary capabilities and with part of the army on their side in the early 1950s. The Brotherhood leadership so far stress that non-violent civil resistance tactics are their means for toppling the military-dominated government. But organisational fractures under heavy repression, offshoots, disaffected members, and mutiny against the leadership have happened in earlier crises and have happened in a limited way during the current one, the worst in modern Egyptian history. And in a regional context - where bullets keep proving that they are much more effective than ballots and where eradication is more legitimate than compromise - the prospects of sustaining non-violence become gloomier. Dr Omar Ashour is a senior lecturer in Security Studies at the University of Exeter and a Non-Resident Fellow at the Brookings Doha Center. He is the author of The De-Radicalisation of Jihadists: Transforming Armed Islamist Movements (2009) and Salute and Slaughter: Islamist-Military Relations in Egypt (forthcoming). More on This Story Egypt transition Map, timeline and summary of main flashpoints around Egypt. Mubarak profile One year on Power cut Old guard's new face Q&A: Morsi trial Abdul Fattah al-Sisi Mohammed Morsi Muslim Brotherhood Who is who in the Brotherhood Key players in crisis Tamarod movement National Salvation Front Tour pro-Morsi protest camp Protest timeline Protests map Country by country protests

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/5854

Steelman Battles for Edge in Primary for U.S. Senator - The Missourian: Election2012 Steelman Battles for Edge in Primary for U.S. Senator StoryComments Image (1) Sarah Steelman Posted: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 6:32 pm Updated: 12:22 pm, Fri Jul 18, 2014. Steelman Battles for Edge in Primary for U.S. Senator Sarah Steelman has an independent streak. The former Republican state treasurer and state senator isn’t afraid to speak her mind or ruffle a few feathers for a cause she believes in — even if it means offending her own party. According to Steelman, that is what voters are looking for right now. It is also what distinguishes her from her rivals in the GOP primary race for U.S. senator. “Why should you vote for me? Because I am going to do what I say I am going to do and I have a record that supports that. I am willing to stand up and fight for what I believe in despite the political consequences,” she said during a recent campaign stop in Washington. Casually dressed in blue jeans and cowboy boots, Steelman, 54, has spent the past few weeks campaigning in rural Missouri on what she billed a “flatbed forum” campaign tour. After stopping off in Washington, she toured a hog farm in southern Warren County and discussed farming issues with the owners. Steelman, Rolla, said she shares the same values of rural Missourians who appreciate her political independence. “I am a fiscal conservative,” she explained. “I’ve taken stands that haven’t always been popular with my party. I filibustered the Cardinal stadium tax deal where they wanted to spend $600 million of public money to help out the owners who had a net worth of $4 billion. That was Peter Kinder’s bill and I wasn’t afraid to stand up and filibuster him and I got it killed eventually. “As state treasurer I stopped legislators from lining their own pockets with state money that they wanted to use for an ethanol plant because I didn’t think it was right that a sitting state legislator should receive benefits from a program that went through my office. It is a conflict of interest. And they threw it out in the middle of night. They got so mad at me they passed legislation that undid it.” Steelman said she even had to battle to pass an initiative for “terror-free” investing. She said her office was the first public agency in the United States to adopt a policy of not investing in companies that did business with countries like Iran and Syria whose governments were linked to terrorism. “Believe it or not, back in 2005 and 2006, when I was cutting off money — taxpayer money — that was being invested in companies that did business with Iran and other terrorist nations, it was a battle. And now 23 other states have followed my lead on that. We really see the importance of it because it helps the sanctions that are so important right now against Iran,” she added. Steelman found herself in another political battle in 2008 when she took on Kenny Hulshof for the GOP nomination for governor after Matt Blunt declined to run for a second term. State party officials had hoped to avoid a primary contest. Steelman lost in a close and very divisive race. Four years later Steelman is locked in another nasty Republican primary fight with top rivals U.S. Rep. Todd Akin and St. Louis businessman John Brunner for the right to take on incumbent Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill. National pundits say McCaskill, a moderate, is vulnerable in a state that is increasingly voting Republican. Steelman says the people she meets on the campaign trail are sick of big government and wasteful spending and McCaskill is part of the problem . “She (McCaskill) says she is against earmarks but she has voted for lots of bills with earmarks in them. She just hasn’t asked for any for Missouri,” Steelman said. “I came out against earmarks in 2008 and everybody in the Republican congressional delegation signed a letter condemning me for my position including Todd Akin. But here is the thing, the earmark process is one that is corrupt. It (earmarks) doesn’t have public support, public discussion. It doesn’t go through the normal budgeting process like we have here in Missouri where everything is transparent. A congressman can just file a letter and put it into a bill without anyone knowing about it.” Steelman acknowledged McCaskill’s effort to force accountability and trim waste in the military but said there is more work to be done throughout government. “My beef with her would be that there is a lot of wasteful spending, not just in the military. There is waste in a lot of social programs as well. She always tends to pick on the Feds and not on other departments but I think there is waste everywhere. I think government is too big. I want to shrink the size of government,” she added. That position has helped Steelman win some recent high-profile endorsements including from the Tea Party Express and Sarah Palin. They could prove helpful in a race where the top three candidates relentlessly argue their conservative credentials. “I am conservative and I think Todd Akin is fairly conservative, although I do disagree with his position on earmarks. I don’t know what John Brunner is, he calls himself a conservative but he contributed to (Democrat) Charlie Dooley, the St. Louis County executive, in the last election in 2010 when a conservative Republican had a chance to take that over,” Steelman said. Steelman said that she supports the Paul Ryan budget plan, is pro-life and opposes any government mandate on health care that violates someone’s faith as “absolutely wrong.” She also said she is pretty sure she will be outspent in a race that has already featured an onslaught of negative television campaign ads. “Brunner has got an unlimited checkbook so he is spending all of his own money,” she explained. “Akin is part of the establishment. He is a sitting congressman; He can get money through those channels. I have always been outspent in every race I’ve ever had. The ones that I’ve won, I’ve been outspent usually two to one. “But my sense in campaigning is that people are so frustrated with Washington and the fact that they don’t care about the debt or reining in spending. They want to see something done that gets our country headed back on a sound, financial footing. That is what I’m hearing,” she added. The primary election is Aug. 7. Election2012 Wednesday, July 25, 2012 6:32 pm.

时政

2014-41/1934/en_head.json.gz/20332

» Follow The World Desk On: In letter to Senate, Obama promises that New START treaty won't limit missile defense By Mary Beth Sheridan Sunday, December 19, 2010; 12:12 AM President Obama issued a letter to the Senate on Sunday pledging to fully develop a U.S. missile defense system in Europe, as part of a final offensive to relieve concerns about the nuclear arms pact with Russia as it moves toward a final vote. The letter reiterated administration policy but was an especially extensive and detailed statement on missile defense by the president. Parts of it were read aloud by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) shortly before a vote on an amendment that could have killed the treaty. That amendment was defeated, 59 to 37. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who has been leaning toward supporting the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), took to the floor to welcome the president's letter. "A number of people on our side of the aisle have asked for it," he said. Missile defense has emerged as the greatest point of contention over the treaty. Although the pact is focused on arms reductions and verification, its preamble briefly mentions an "interrelationship" between nuclear weapons and missile defense. Russia has said it could withdraw from the pact if the U.S. missile defense system becomes ambitious enough to fend off its arsenal. U.S. officials say their intentions are more modest - a system aimed at countries such as Iran and North Korea. Some Republicans worry that the missile defense language, although not legally binding, could give the Russians a pretext to pressure the U.S. government. "In today's world, there are so many new and constantly evolving threats. The United States can't be limited" in deploying missile defenses, said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). He was one of the sponsors of the amendment to remove the language. Trimming that, however, would send the treaty back to the negotiating table. Obama said in the letter that New START "places no limitations on the development or deployment of our missile defense programs." The president said that he "will take every action available to me to support the deployment of all four phases" of a missile defense system in Europe. Senators had questioned whether the White House might hold off on developing the last phase of the program, which would be aimed at stopping U.S.-bound Iranian missiles, for fear of antagonizing Russia. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who has led opposition to the treaty, dismissed the letter as a "last-ditch effort there to win votes, or preclude an amendment from passing." Obama devoted his weekly radio address to the treaty, saying that it "isn't about winning a victory for an administration . . . it's about the safety and security of the United States of America."

时政

2014-41/1934/en_head.json.gz/20788

Foreign Policy In Focus New IDF Chief Makes No Bones About His Intention to Over-react to Palestinian Demonstrations The new Israel Defense Force chief promises “full force” response to future Palestinian demonstrations. By Paul Mutter, June 5, 2011. Print In response to Palestinian demonstrations on Israel’s borders last month, and the upcoming 2nd Gaza Freedom Flotilla later this month, the IDF’s new Chief of Staff Benny Gantz outlined the actions the IDF will take against such demonstrations from here on out: The spectrum of the threats, in light of the changes in the Middle East, has broadened significantly – from daggers to nuclear weapons. There is a focal player in the Middle East – the street – and it is clear to us that in the coming months we can find ourselves in broad popular demonstrations, which gain public resonance. The IDF is preparing for these demonstrations. Gantz discussed the implications of the fall of Mubarak in Egypt as well, and addressed security concerns regarding Lebanon and Syria. For this reason, we will act with great fire power and full force at the very beginning of the confrontation. Anything the camera can stand or could stand in the first three days of fighting – it will not be prepared to put up with thereafter. Gantz’s statements were collaborated by reporting from Ynet News and Electronic Intifada. The full text of the IDF Chief of Staff’s statement on the response to mass demonstrations is available in Hebrew and in English. “Israel, it would seem, like other regimes in the region, knows of no other way to respond to people demonstrating for their legitimate rights than to shoot at them,” commented Electronic Intifada. Ynet News reported Gantz as saying that “the next conflict will be brief but intense. Further Nabka demonstrations are currently being planned in Israel’s Arab neighbors. Paul Mutter is a graduate student at the Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute at NYU and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus. Issues: Human Rights, War & PeaceRegions: Israel, Middle East & North Africa, Palestinian TerritoriesTags: Israel, nabka, Palestine

时政

2014-41/1934/en_head.json.gz/20888

Home > Iran-Argentina Pact: No Justice for Bombing Victims Iran-Argentina Pact: No Justice for Bombing Victims On July 18, the victims of the AMIA bombing are being killed again. Their families will feel the chilly winter and the cold reality of the chain of agreements between Iran and Argentina that has erased the remote illusion of a true and honest effort to prosecute the perpetrators. The July 18, 1994, terror attack on the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association building — the heart of the Argentinian Jewish community — killed 85 and wounded 300. No one has been brought to justice, though Iran’s ties to the attack are well known. In a 2006 report, Argentinian prosecutor Alberto Nisman detailed how top Iranian leaders — including Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iran’s president at the time, and Ahmad Vahidi, who later became minister of defense — ordered Hezbollah to kill Jews in Buenos Aires. Interpol has requested that Iran turn over the officials responsible for the worst terrorist attack ever in Latin America. The latest assault on the victims started last year on Yom Kippur, the most sacred day for the Jewish people, when the foreign ministers of Iran and Argentina announced in New York that the two countries had agreed “to investigate together” the AMIA bombing. To deepen the affront, on Jan. 27 — the United Nations’ Holocaust Remembrance Day — Iran and Argentina signed the “agreement” publicly. On July 18, when survivors of the attack and the victims’ families listen to the siren marking the bombing, anguish and frustration will grow — if there is any more space for so much pain. Many observers have expressed skepticism about the pact between Argentina and Iran to form a “truth commission,” wondering about its true motives. What is clear is that the pact is a sham with no hope of ever bringing to justice the perpetrators. Here are points to consider: • Iran has yet to send the Argentinian Foreign Ministry the note of ratification of the agreement signed on Jan. 27; • The Argentinian media have reported — and nobody has denied it — that the Argentinian government has accepted the newly elected president of Iran, Hasan Rohani, as a “moderate.” What is “moderation” in a theocratic regime that has been accused of violating human rights and where the last word in every decision is not of the “president” but rather the “Supreme leader of the revolution”?; and • La Nacion columnist Martin Dinatale, writing in the July 3 edition of the daily Argentinian paper, pointed out that a spokes­man for Iran’s Foreign Ministry said that “foreign and Zionist agents are behind the AMIA bomb­ing.” Nisman has issued a report accusing Iran of creating an intelligence network to prepare attacks in Latin America. Dinatale also wrote that on July 1, there were clear signs undermining Nisman, including the Argentinian government denying him permission to travel to Washington to explain before the U.S. Congress the results of his investigation. According to Dinatale, since the signing of the pact, commerce between Argentina and Iran has skyrocketed. In all of 2012, exports from Argentina to Iran were $52.1 million. In only the first three months of 2013, they exploded to $76.4 million. Dinatale noted, too, that the prestigious International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance has asked Argentina to distance itself from the organization in light of the pact with Iran. Though half the country opposed the pact, Argentina’s lawmakers still pushed through the deal. The lawmakers will have to respond to the people for their decision. Nineteen years after the bombing, the survivors and the families of those who perished only know about promises made by the Argentinian government to catch and convict those responsible and the seemingly endless impunity of those responsible. So on July 18, just before 10 a.m. — when the siren marking the AMIA blast sounds — we will remember the victims and realize that their memory continues to be insulted by a pact whose purpose is to keep the existing obstacles to justice in place. lEduardo Kohn is the director of Latin America affairs for B’nai B’rith International. Source URL: http://jewishexponent.com/iran-argentina-pact-no-justice-for-bombing-victims

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/5910

Home > API UK revokes export licenses for Egypt's military By CASSANDRA VINOGRADAssociated Press July 19, 2013 01:05 PM Egyptian soldiers stand guard near the Republican Guard headquarters, in Cairo, Egypt, Friday, July 19, 2013. Thousands of protesters are holding rallies across Egypt to demand the reinstatement of ousted President Mohammed Morsi. The Muslim Brotherhood, from which Morsi hails, is mobilizing followers to march in Cairo and elsewhere Friday for a protest they�re dubbing "Breaking the Coup.� (AP Photo/Hussein Malla)ERIE TIMES-NEWS July 19, 2013 01:05 PM Britain has revoked five export licenses for equipment destined for Egypt's military and police, the government announced Friday, an implicit criticism of the Arab nation's military crackdown on a wave of unrest that has left dozens dead.Egypt has been gripped by rallies and street skirmishes since President Mohammed Morsi was driven from power in a coup. In one particularly bloody incident, 51 protesters and three security personnel were killed on July 8 in clashes outside Cairo's Republic Guard Club, where Morsi supporters believed their deposed leader was being held."We are deeply concerned about the situation in Egypt and the events which have led to the deaths of protesters," British Business Secretary Vince Cable said in a statement. "The longstanding U.K. position is clear: We will not grant export licenses where we judge there is a clear risk the goods might be used for internal repression."The five licenses covered components for armored personnel carriers, machine guns, and armored fighting infantry vehicles, along with communications equipment for tanks and licenses for vehicle antennae and radio equipment.Cable's department said the restrictions did not relate to one specific incident, but rather to a buildup of events and Egyptian authorities' recent actions with regard to crowd control. Cable said Britain had not seen any evidence that British equipment had been used in Egypt's unrest, but that the decision to revoke the licenses was taken on the advice of diplomats.Morsi's ouster - which followed massive demonstrations against his rule - has heightened international concern over the human rights situation in Egypt. The country's military and police both have a history of using deadly force against protests, particularly since 2011, when massive rallies against the government became a regular feature of the nation's politics.Under Morsi's rule, the worst violence was meted out to protesters in the city of Port Said, when a large protest against a court ruling led to the deaths of more than 40 residents. At the time, Morsi praised the police, described the protesters as "thugs," and declared a state of emergency.During the transitional period of military rule in 2011, a large rally organized mostly by Egyptian Coptic Christians outside the state TV building turned violent, leaving 27 dead. Many of those killed were crushed by military armored vehicles speeding through the crowd.It was unclear exactly why British officials have only now begun to start restricting Egyptian military exports, but the move comes just days after a report from British lawmakers urged the government to exercise more caution in approving applications for the export of arms to countries with authoritarian regimes.The U.S. has thus far declined to term Morsi's ouster a coup, a designation that would require a suspension in the $1.5 billion in American aid to the country, including $1.3 billion in direct military support. The U.K. has also treaded cautiously, with Foreign Secretary William Hague saying the military's move set a dangerous precedent but stopping short of calling it a coup.Ben Barry, a senior fellow at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, said he was wary of reading too much into Britain's decision to restrict military exports."I don't believe the U.K. has much leverage over the Egyptian military, but it is bound by its arm control regulations to do this sort of thing," he said. "If this was being done by the United States this would have great significance. But is the United Kingdom a major player in events in Egypt? I don't think so."---Sarah El Deeb in Cairo and Raphael Satter in London contributed to this report.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/5989

Search Obama strongly considers withdrawing all troops from Afghanistan in 2014 CNN CNN Tuesday, July 9, 2013 - 9:01am President Barack Obama is seriously considering withdrawing all U.S. troops from Afghanistan in 2014, a senior administration official told CNN. The official's comments came after The New York Times reported the administration was looking at speeding up the troop withdrawal to the "zero option," leaving no troops in Afghanistan. Until now, U.S. and Afghan officials had been discussing plans to keep a small force behind to fight insurgents and to train Afghan security personnel. But Obama has, in recent months, grown increasingly frustrated in dealing with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Their relationship soured further last month after the United States and the Taliban planned peace talks. In response, Karzai cut off negotiations with the United States on the residual troop presence post-2014. A "zero option" has always been among the scenarios the United States envisioned. But the new revelation means that it could be a very possible one now. If the United States pulls out all its troops, it will be a situation similar to that in Iraq. The refusal by the Iraqi government to extend legal protections for U.S. troops after the end of the war in Iraq was a major reason the United States left the country with no residual military training force. Karzai has said he would like for U.S. troops to remain after the end of the NATO mission. But he also has been highly critical of the troops over the years, following incidents in which U.S. forces have killed civilians.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/6080

Patrick J. Buchanan: Egypt's army crosses the Rubicon "SIRE, CLEAR THE square with gunfire or abdicate."That was the message one of his generals gave the young czar Nicholas I in December of 1825, as thousands of civilians and soldiers massed in Senate Square to challenge his claim to the throne.Nicholas gave the order, the cannon fired, and he and his heirs ruled Russia for another century, until Nicholas II was overthrown, and murdered by Bolsheviks.Such was the moment Egypt's army faced on Wednesday, with thousands of backers of the Muslim Brotherhood encamped in Cairo, challenging its rule. The slaughter that ensued, 500 dead the first day and thousands wounded, means there is no going back.Egypt's generals cannot now hold elections that a coalition of the Brotherhood and Salafis might win. While we Americans are babbling about a new politics of "inclusiveness," even some of the Twitter-Facebook liberals of Tahrir Square are coming to see Egypt as it is. Us or them. And the one issue on which Egypt's Muslim militants and Egypt's militarists seem to agree is that the Americans cannot be trusted.When half of Egypt voted for the Brotherhood and a fourth for the more militant Salafis, we accepted the results and pledged to work with President Mohammed Morsi. But Morsi failed as badly as Hosni Mubarak. So, when millions massed in Cairo's streets to demand Morsi's overthrow, we signaled our approval for a military coup. Then, when Gen. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi seized power, imprisoned Morsi, jailed Brotherhood leaders and installed a puppet government, we refused to call it a coup.Secretary of State John Kerry provided the comic relief by assuring us that the Egyptian army was "restoring democracy."For two years, America has been loyal to no one, and consistent in nothing. Thus, Egypt's soldiers decided to do what they had to do to save their country. And if new elections are likely to produce a regime that threatens their Egypt, they will dump the democratic procedures rather than lose Egypt to the Brotherhood.They will comply with our wishes to the extent that they do not imperil what the Egyptian army regards as vital. Gen. Sisi either did not believe we would cut off his military aid, or was willing to take that risk when he gave the order to fire on the protesters.He read the Americans right. What do we do now?As our interests dictate maintaining the peace between Egypt and Israel, keeping Egypt as an ally against Islamic terrorism, and protecting Christians, we cannot sever ties to the army that runs the country. But if we were to retain any credibility as the champion of peaceful protest, we had to signal that what was done by Egypt's security forces was done without our approval. President Obama did that by canceling the military exercises with the Egyptian army in Sinai.Without constant infusions of aid, Egypt, a country whence the tourists and investors alike have fled, cannot create a robust economy until radicalism and extremism are in the past. Egypt today cannot sustain itself.But America's role as primary foreign aid provider is coming to an end. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the Gulf states are today sending many times the aid we are sending to Cairo. Let them take the lead. While we do not know what will succeed in the Middle East, we do know what has failed. Nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq has left us bleeding and near bankrupt. Our flipping and flopping in Egypt's turmoil has alienated all sides. Our wars have accomplished what?A phrase from the America of a century ago, when Mexico was in turmoil, comes to mind. Why not a period of watchful waiting?Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?"

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/6081

Obama and aides confront skeptical Congress on Syria strike By Matt Spetalnick and Patricia Zengerle A Free Syrian Army fighter runs for cover during clashes with forces loyal to Syria's President Bashar Al-Assad beside the Canadian Hospital in Aleppo, August 31, 2013. (Reuters) As Obama pushes to punish Syria, lawmakers fear deep U.S. involvement WASHINGTON, Sept 2 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama and his aides pressed U.S. lawmakers on Monday to approve military force against Syria but many members of Congress were worried that an attack would only drag America into another Middle Eastern conflict with no end in sight. Obama's abrupt decision to halt plans for a strike against the government of President Bashar al-Assad and instead wait for congressional approval has generated a raging debate just as the president prepares to go to Sweden and Russia this week. Armed with evidence they say proves Syria's government killed over 1,400 people with nerve agent sarin, Obama's top national security aides made their case to Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives in a 70-minute conference call, urging them to back Obama's request. The White House argument is that Syria must be punished for the Aug. 21 chemical weapons onslaught and that at stake is the integrity of an international ban on such weapons and the need to safeguard U.S. national security interests and allies Israel, Jordan and Turkey. As with most everything else that the divided Congress involves itself in, there was a deep disagreement on how to proceed, with some lawmakers worried the United States might be drawn into yet another Middle Eastern conflict in spite of Obama's pledges for a limited strike. Overshadowing the debate are the ghosts of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, conflicts that lasted far longer and were far more expensive than first predicted. Congressional hesitancy reflects the overall weariness of war among Americans who oppose getting involved in Syria. Representative Chris Van Hollen, a senior Democrat, said the wording of the White House's request to Congress for the authorization of the use of force was too open-ended and could lead to deep U.S. involvement in Syria, where more than 100,000 people have died in more than two years of conflict. "There is no limitation on putting American soldiers on the ground. There is no end point" on the resolution, he said. "The draft resolution presented by the administration is overly broad, it provides too much of a blank check to the executive," he said. Van Hollen was among Democratic lawmakers briefed by conference call by Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, national security adviser Susan Rice, intelligence director James Clapper and General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. SKEPTICAL Representative James McGovern, a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts who was also on the call, said he is skeptical that the plan to move forward with military strikes can help end the war in Syria. If the vote were taken today, he would vote no. "People are horrified by the pictures of people suffering and they genuinely want to help. But people have become, it's more than just war-weary, they've become skeptical of the effectiveness of these military involvements," he said. With Navy ships in place and ready to launch cruise missiles on Obama's order, no decision was likely until days after Congress returns from its summer recess on Sept. 9. In the interim, Obama is using the time to build his case. At the White House, Obama was sitting down on Monday with two influential Republican senators, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who are among a group who want Obama to go beyond limited strikes and instead launch a broad strategy aimed at toppling Assad. Washington's hesitancy has prompted mocking comments from Syrian leaders and a push from Assad's chief backer, Russia, to send members of the Russian parliament to the U.S. capital to argue against a strike. Obama's gamble to seek congressional backing carries many risks, chief among them is that Congress will once again thwart him and make him look weak around the world. The Democratic-led Senate is expected to approve U.S. military action, but it is unclear if the Republican-led House of Representatives, which routinely opposes Obama on just about everything, will provide its needed concurrence. It may depend on building a majority House vote based on Obama's fellow Democrats joining those Republicans who support action, a senior House Republican aide told Reuters on Sunday. "It's too early to speculate" what the House will do, the aide said, "but (House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi) is going to have to post a big number" among her members in support of it. The aide declined to predict how big. Republicans hold the House, 233-200 with two vacancies. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Representative Buck McKeon, a Republican, told CNN he is "still open" on whether the United States should take military action against Syria. In a sign that Obama might get dragged into horse-trading on other issues in order to win support for his Syria plan, McKeon urged the administration to halt cuts in military spending. "Our military has had over $1 trillion cut out of their budget in the last couple years and going forward," McKeon told CNN. "This surge, this sequestration, the president needs to fix. This would be a great time to fix that," he said. Related Stories Syria's Assad says French strikes would lead to 'repercussions'French intelligence: Syria's Assad behind chemical attackSyria asks the United Nations to stop U.S. strikeCongress to get say on Syria strike WASHINGTON, Sept 1 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama and his top aides launched a full-scale political offensive on Sunday to persuade a skeptical Congress to approve a military strike against Syria, but faced an uphill struggle to win over many lawmakers and a war-weary American public.Obama made a series of calls to members of the House of Representatives and Senate, with more scheduled for Monday, underscoring the task confronting the administration before it can go ahead with using force in response to a deadly chemical attack blamed on the Syrian government.Dozens of lawmakers, some in tennis shirts or shirtsleeves, cut short their vacations and streamed into the corridors of the Capitol building for a Sunday afternoon intelligence briefing on Syria with Obama's national security team.When they emerged nearly three hours later, there was no immediate sign that the many skeptics in Congress had changed their minds."I am very concerned about taking America into another war against a country that hasn't attacked us," said Representative Janice Hahn, a California Democrat. On the way out of the briefing, she said the participants appeared "evenly divided" on whether to give Obama approval.None expressed doubts that Syria had engaged in chemical warfare. "The searing image of babies lined up dead, that's what I can't get out of my mind right now," Democratic Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz said after the closed-door briefing.But the credibility of the administration's intelligence is turning out to be a less important issue than the nature and usefulness of the response.Earlier in the day, Secretary of State John Kerry invoked the crimes of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein and warned of a potential threat to Israel a day after Obama's decision to delay an imminent attack on Syrian targets and allow Congress to vote on it first.Even as Kerry took to the airwaves touting new evidence that deadly sarin gas was used in the Aug. 21 chemical attack near Damascus, the scope of the challenge confronting the administration became apparent.Lawmakers raised a broad array of concerns, including the potential effectiveness of limited strikes, the possible unintended consequence of dragging the United States into another open-ended Middle East conflict, the wisdom of acting without broader international backing to share the burden and the war fatigue of the American public.Many in Congress have been able to avoid taking a position on the merits of a military strike, focusing instead on demands that Obama consult them and seek their approval.While Kerry predicted Obama would win the endorsement he wants, a growing cacophony of congressional critics - ranging from liberal Democratic doves to Republican Tea Party conservatives - illustrated just how hard that will be.At the same time, Kerry, the administration's most impassioned voice for intervention in Syria's 2-1/2-year civil war, was left to publicly defend Obama's stunning reversal, a decision that puts any strike on hold for at least nine days."This is squarely now in the hands of Congress," Kerry told CNN, saying he had confidence "they will do what is right because they understand the stakes."In a round of television appearances, Kerry declined to say whether Obama would go ahead with military action if Congress rejects the president's request, as Britain's parliament did last week to derail London's role in any Syria military operation.But, echoing Obama's comments in the White House Rose Garden on Saturday, he insisted the president had the right to act on his own if he chooses that course.Obama is taking a gamble by putting the brakes on the military assault that he considers essential to maintain U.S. credibility after Assad crossed the "red line" set against the use of chemical weapons.MORE EVIDENCEThe consensus on Capitol Hill is that Obama has a good chance of winning approval in the Democratic-led Senate, but the vote appears too close to call in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, where the president's opponents rarely miss an opportunity to block him.Acknowledging that the administration has its work cut out for it to persuade some lawmakers, Kerry insisted they could not "have it both ways" by demanding a voice in the matter and then abdicating responsibility to uphold the international bans on chemical weapons use.Kerry used the television appearances to provide further evidence backing accusations against the Syrian government."I can share with you today that blood and hair samples that have come to us through an appropriate chain of custody, from east Damascus, from first responders, it has tested positive for signatures of sarin," Kerry told CNN's "State of the Union."It was the first time the administration had pinpointed what kind of chemical was used in the attack on a rebel-held area, which U.S. intelligence agencies said killed more than 1,400 people, many of them children."So this case is building and this case will build," Kerry told CBS's "Face the Nation."

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/6104

Freeze This President Obama has had a difficult time with the midterm election results. I don't much blame him for having difficulty. The Sister Sarah Cult voters and the Fox-crack addicted voters all marched to the polls clueless, disinformed and brainwashed....but in perfect timing with King Rushbo's racist and hate-filled drumbeating. The outcome, for reality-based Americans, has definitely been hard to accept.But accept, we must. Business Uncertainties Lead To Record Profits Barack Obama has spent his first two years as president being very mean towards the business class. He's anti-business, I'm told. Bad for business. Bad for the economy. Obama's policies, I'm told over and over again, are bad, bad, bad...I'm talking seriously bad for those who make our economy go.....the business class.Do you even realize how bad for business Barack Obama has been?.... Pinko-Pilgrims Rendition of our nation's first socialist convention.They're everywhere. Socialists, that is. They are behind every tree and shrub. They're under our beds....no, wait,..that's the Islamics. Anyway, those socialists are everywhere....and wouldn't ya' know it?....those socialists tried to destroy the fabric of America before there was any American fabric to destroy. To read more or comment... The Reverend Gives Thanks From my Thanksgiving 2008 blog post.... God Is Back In The News Ever notice how news about God often comes in a series? Kind of like HBO. You know, you won't hear anything about God for awhile, and then all of a sudden, he makes his presence known in several rapid fire earthly stories. Seems odd...but then we're talkin' about God here, not your regular Joe. His ways are not our ways and our ways are not.......Let's start with the video TPM has up of House Representative, John Shimkus, (R-IL). Shimkus is seeking the chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which deals with climate policy, global warming....among other issues. Simpson: Can't Wait For The "Bloodbath" No, not O.J.....Alan.The Catfood Commission has been a farce from the very beginning. Officially put together under a President Obama order because Congress couldn't agree on forming a Commission, the so-called Deficit Commission is jam-packed with deficit hawks and supply siders. Neo-Con Fringers Struggle With Insanity The jury decision to convict one of the accomplices of the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombing in Africa, Ahmed Ghailani, on one count of conspiracy to blow up U.S. government buildings has created another round of insanity to break out amongst the usual-suspect conservative fringers.The trial was held in New York federal court because America is not run by some military junta, but rather by a rule of law. A fact that even the sorry-ass Bush-Cheney administration occasionally recognized as seen in the 20th hijacker and Richard Reid's (shoebomber) trials being held in federal civilain courts. Tepublican Disconnect Gallup poll from March, 2010.... Ground Control to Major Barack Coming to grips with reality is sometimes a challenge. For the past couple of years, I have been coming to grips with the reality of my own personal aging.....and I don't like it. But in facing the challenge of aging, I don't blame myself for the actual aging process. I have nothing to do with the aging process.....the aging process existed long before I was born....and the aging process will exist long after I'm gone.In a manner of speaking, the same is true for political partisanship. Political partisanship has always existed....and it will always continue to exist....no matter who is elected president, no matter who controls Congress. Anyone who has been paying attention for the past 20 years knows that partisanship, mostly bitter, is the new normal....and will continue to be so. Uncle Al It was just so great to hear from the fallen Oracle, Alan Greenspan, yesterday. Uncle Al. It's always a pleasure to hear the latest wisdom from the greatest economic psycho-babble specialist in modern times.Memory Lane 2001 is always pleasant in the autumn..... The Midterm Election & Lies A lot of ones and zeroes have given up their virtual lives in the myriad commentaries seeking to explain the Republican landslide in the midterm elections. We've been told that the election was a rejection of Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Democrats, the stimulus, health care reform, imagined socialism, cap and trade, too much debt, too much spending, anger, taxes.....or any cafeteria combo-platter taken from that list.I don't question that Republican voters actually believe in one or more of those "reasons" from that list. Human beings "believe" a lot of things. For example, there's a short piece in today's Akron Beacon Journal entitled, "Catholic Bishops say more exorcists needed." Obviously, some 21st century humans still believe that invisible demons and/or devils actually exist....and every once in awhile....these invisible beings take over a person's brain activity. Commission: Rich Need More Tax Cuts I warned in August that Obama's deficit commission would come back with a proposal to raise the retirement age for Social Security. To read more or comment... The Coming Hostage Situation The timetable..... 2010 War Criminal Book Tour Lauer: It took two wars, it took thousands of lives, American lives, billions of dollars,...you could say it took Guantanomo, and Abu Ghraib, and government eavesdropping and waterboarding. Did it take too much? Craziness Works Bill Maher commenting on the Stewart/Colbert restore-something rally....via Digby MSNBC President Kneels Before Fox MSNBC has a history of firing their liberal stars. Phil Donohue told Sean Hannity what happened to him in February, 2003....and why it happened.... Travesty Of Justice In Nebraska? There is a significant injustice going on out in Nebraska. One that needs everyone's attention. That's how egregious the injustice is. If injustices like the one currently being carried out in Lincoln, Nebraska are allowed to continue, then no American male will ever be safe....ever again.A 22 year old man from Lincoln was suspicious that his girlfriend was spending time with someone else behind his back. The 22 year old, Trevor Case, acted on those suspicions this past Saturday. Here's what the girlfriend told police..... Bipartisan Irresponsibility I would venture to say that if President Obama is convicted in an impeachment trial before a majority GOP senate in 2015, convicted of being president while being a Democrat,....he will offer an olive branch of bipartisanship to his Republican convictors as he's being led away by the bailiffs.Obama is one bipartisanship-loving president. Conservatives insist that they are the Americans who have "common sense." Many times during this year's midterm election campaigns, I've heard a former 1/2 term governor tell her adoring fans how they could help send "common sense conservatives" to Congress. Common sense conservatives who would bring their "common sense solutions" with them to D.C.Yesterday, those common sense conservatives turned out in big numbers at the polls and turned a 256-179 Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, where all national laws begin, into a Republican majority of 239-183. Quite a reversal......but that's how common sense works....I guess. What To Listen For Tonight Just as the rotted, stinking corpse of corporate media disinformed and propagandized Americans into supporting the international crime of Iraq, stenographically repeating the Dick's lies....so too, the disgusting corpse of corporate media has disinformed and propagandized Americans about the old-but-new extremist right, who identify themselves today as the never-before-seen, "grassroots" Tea Party.When this repellant media "reports" tonight on the midterm results, listen for how often the Tea Party is lifted up as the new way forward....or some such drivel. Watch and listen carefully to Veteran Media Assh*les....the Fluffster and Wolfie come to mind.....who will undoubtedly attempt to mainstream the extreme. To read more or comment... "This Is Going To Be Terrible" Yes, it is.It's going to be terrible....just as Paul Krugman states.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/6172

Boehner: Obamacare to Face Vigorous Scrutiny In House Jonathan Strong Roll Call Staff Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call File Photo Boehner said House Republicans will conduct committee investigations of the health care overhaul. Following his surprising admission in the days after the Nov. 6 election that President Barack Obama�s health care overhaul is the �law of the land,� Speaker John Boehner appears to be fleshing out the shift in his approach to the law in a Tuesday Cincinnati Enquirer op-ed. �The tactics of our repeal efforts will have to change,� the Ohio Republican wrote, saying that House Republicans would likely conduct zealous committee investigations of the law and that state-level opposition will be key. Opposition to Obamacare has fallen short in federal courts and at the presidential ballot box, Boehner said, meaning that congressional investigations are one of the only routes left for Republicans to register their objections. �Over the past couple of years, I have noted there are essentially three major routes to repeal of the president�s law: the courts, the presidential election process and the congressional oversight process. With two of those three routes having come up short, the third and final one becomes more important than ever,� he wrote. Boehner noted that the House Oversight and Government Reform and Ways and Means Committees have subpoened Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for documents relating to the law�s implementation and promotion. Boehner also said the law should be �on the table� in negotiations over �ways to solve our nation�s massive debt challenge,� but he suggested any changes secured by those negotiations would likely modify, rather than repeal, the law. �We can�t afford to leave it intact,� he wrote. Boehner also touted efforts by Ohio Gov. John Kasich to �not implement one of the government-run exchanges mandated under the president�s health care law.� Boehner said that decision �will preserve our state�s ability to regulate health insurance on its own.� On Nov. 8, Boehner was asked by ABC News whether he planned any more votes on repealing the law in the House. �The election changes that,� he responded, adding that �Obamacare is the law of the land.� Shortly after the interview was published, a spokesman for Boehner said that he still supports full repeal of the law. The House has voted more than 30 times in the 112th Congress to repeal the health care law in parts or entirely. JonathanStrong@cqrollcall.com | @j_strong

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/6243

Ever since Nikita Khrushchev famously banged his shoe during the 1960 General Assembly to drown out criticism of the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe, the forum has—to the ongoing dismay of U.N. organizers—oft-times been co-opted by rogue rulers with controversial agendas. Recent years have witnessed the now-deceased Libyan tyrant Muammar Gaddafi trying to pitch a Bedouin tent in Central Park to house his entourage of nubile nursemaids; Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisting the U.S. coordinated the 9/11 attacks; and Zimbabwean strongman Robert Mugabe denouncing NATO for supporting the Libyan rebellion and making “unfounded allegations of destruction of civilian lives by Gaddafi.” Despite the inevitable wackiness—and the near-guarantee of a delegate walk-out during Ahmadinejad’s diatribes—the General Assembly also shines a strong spotlight on the most pressing international issues of the day. Last year, the Assembly welcomed South Sudan as its newest member, cheered Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff as the first-ever woman to open the summit’s debate, and discussed the ongoing revolutions of the Arab Spring. It’s also a bellwether for the fortunes of individual leaders. Just three years ago, Gaddafi was holding the Assembly captive with a protracted and eccentric jeremiad—culminating in his destruction of the U.N. charter—that touched on swine flu and the death of JFK. By the 2011 Assembly, Gaddafi was a hunted, haunted man on the lam, and rebel leaders were receiving invites to take his seat in New York. So what kind of spectacle does the U.N. promise this year for its 67th Session? Here’s a quick rundown of the topics and personalities sure to dominate the discussion: The Carnage in Syria As Syrian president Bashar al-Assad continues the violent crackdown on his own people, the global community remains deeply riven over the bloody conflict, with the U.S. and Europe calling for sanctions against the Assad regime and Russia and China resisting intervention. Last month—a day after Kofi Annan quit his post as special envoy to Syria in frustration—the General Assembly voted 133 to 12 to condemn its own Security Council for failing to stem the crisis, and Secretary General Ban Ki-moon slammed the great powers for turning the conflict into a “proxy war.” Expect a heated debate over Syria, with Saudi Arabia and Turkey lining up behind the Western powers to denounce the regime, and Russia and China bolstering their pro-Assad stance with support from Venezuela, North Korea, and Iran. The Coming Showdown of Israel vs. Iran Iran's President Ahmadinejad is always a loose cannon at the Assembly, usually using his appearances to float bombastic conspiracy theories about Sept. 11 and to peddle Holocaust denials. This year, his speech could be more outlandish than ever, due to a host of political pressures mounting at home and abroad. Back in Iran, he’s been locked in a covert power struggle with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and faces an uncertain future after the 2013 elections. Meanwhile, Syria—which Iran counted as a critical regional ally—is crumbling toward civil war, and Israel is loudly sounding off about bombing Tehran’s nuclear program before November, despite U.S. President Barack Obama’s calls for restraint. Ahmadinejad has long positioned Israel as the ultimate enemy, once calling it a “stinking corpse ... on its way to annihilation” and demanding that it be “wiped off the map.” What will he say now that its fighter jets are aimed squarely at Iran? Chavez Craziness While he can’t quite top Ahmadinejad’s invective, longtime Iran pal Hugo Chavez has had more than a few bizarre U.N. rants of his own—most memorably, in 2006, when he called then-president George W. Bush “the devil.” Since then, Chavez has claimed the U.S. has been using cancer as a weapon of mass destruction in South America (he underwent his own radiation therapy for an undisclosed form of the disease in Cuba this year, during which time he effectively ruled Venezuela by Twitter) and has strongly denounced the revolutions of the Arab Spring. This year, he’ll arrive in New York on the eve of a heated presidential election, desperate to show that he’s strong enough to continue his rule. Meanwhile, Wall Street analysts are predicting that a Chavez victory could tip Venezuela into default. In other words, all the elements are in place for vintage Chavez weirdness at the Assembly. The Queen of the Prom Last year, Brazilian President Rousseff was the undisputed belle of the Assembly with her history-making speech declaring a “century of women.” Which female leader will command the spotlight this year? Strong bets include Germany’s Angela Merkel, who continues to steer Europe through its worst financial crisis in a generation; Argentine “Teflon Lady” Cristina de Kirchner; or the ever-dynamic Nobel Peace laureate Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf of Liberia. Expect a heated debate over Syria, with Saudi Arabia and Turkey lining up behind the Western powers to denounce the regime, and Russia and China bolstering their pro-Assad stance.Obama On the one hand, Obama will go into the Assembly with good news on the domestic front, as rival Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign continues to make spectacular gaffes barely a month before the November elections. But the White House faces a dire international situation in the wake of the death of ambassador Christopher Stevens in Libya, and ongoing violent protests across the Muslim world in response to an obscure film denigrating the Prophet Mohammed. Obama is slated to meet with Egypt’s newly-elected president, Mohamed Morsi, at the General Assembly, and the meeting could be tense: Morsi has struggled to stop protesters from storming the U.S. embassy in Cairo, and his administration is walking a thin tightrope between pacifying the U.S.—a critical source of aid for the country—and heeding the will of his Muslim Brotherhood voters. Beijing is sure to be central to the Syria debate—and will likely continue to stymie the U.S.’s calls for condemnation of the Assad regime—but the real interest in China this year will center on the Communist Party’s big leadership transition, which just keeps getting odder and odder, spiraling from murky murder plots to vanished Veeps. Even though heir apparent Xi Jinping has just reappeared after weeks off the radar, it’s unclear whether he’ll be heading to New York to represent China’s interests. And if not him, then whom? It’s been a year of tremendous changes for the isolated Southeast Asian nation in the throes of a historical political thaw, and September brings two monumental visits from Burmese leaders to the United States. First, Nobel Peace laureate and newly-elected opposition Parliamentarian Aung San Suu Kyi visits Washington today to receive a Congressional Medal from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It’s been barely two years since Suu Kyi was released from her decade-and-a-half of house arrest under the Burmese junta, and the Lady’s appearance in the States marks just how swift and sweeping the changes inside Burma have been. Then, on Sept. 25 and 26, Suu Kyi will travel to New York, overlapping with the arrival of Burmese President Thein Sein, who will attend the U.N. Assembly. Ahead of his visit, Thein Sein released more than 500 political prisoners in Burma as a sign of the government’s ongoing commitment to reform. While challenges remain ahead for Burma, Thein Sein’s appearance at the U.N. marks a big step forward for the government in its attempts to engage with the outside world.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/6255

House Speaker Boehner: Obama, Democrats refuse to negotiate House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, walks out to speaks to members of the media after meeting with President Barack Obama at the White House in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 2, 2013. Obama and congressional leaders met at the White House on the second day of a partial government shutdown. WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama conferred with congressional leaders at the White House on Wednesday for the first time since a partial government shutdown began, but there were no signs of progress toward ending an impasse that has idled hundreds of thousands of federal workers and curbed federal services around the country.Obama "refuses to negotiate," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio., told reporters after private talks that lasted more than an hour. "All we're asking for here is a discussion and fairness for the American people under Obamacare."But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said, "We're locked in tight on Obamacare" and neither the president nor Democrats in Congress will accept changes in that health care law as the price for spending legislation needed to reopen the government.With the nation's ability to borrow money soon to lapse, Republicans and Democrats alike said the shutdown that has furloughed an estimated 800,000 federal workers could last for two weeks or more, obliging a divided government to grapple with both issues at the same time.The Republican-controlled House approved legislation to reopen the nation's parks and the National Institutes of Health, even though many Democrats criticized them as part of a piecemeal approach that fell far short of what was needed. The bills face dim prospects in the Senate, and the White House threatened to veto both in the unlikely event they make it to Obama's desk."What we're trying to do is to get the government open as quickly as possible," said the House majority leader, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia. "And all that it would take is us realizing we have a lot in agreement."An attempt by Democrats to force shutdown-ending legislation to the House floor failed on a 227-197 vote, with all Republicans in opposition. That left intact the tea party-driven strategy of demanding changes to the nation's health care overhaul as the price for essential federal financing, Despite grumbling from Republican moderates.Democrats were scathing in their criticism."The American people would get better government out of Monkey Island at the local zoo than we're giving them today," said Rep. John Dingell of Michigan.The stock market ended lower as Wall Street CEOs, Europe's central banker and traders pressed for a solution before serious damage is done to the economy. Chief executives from the nation's biggest financial firms met Obama for more than an hour Wednesday, some of them plainly frustrated with the tactics at play in Congress and with the potential showdown coming over the debt limit."You can re-litigate these policy issues in a political forum, but we shouldn't use threats of causing the U.S. to fail on its obligations to repay its debt as a cudgel," Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, said after the meeting.The Republican National Committee announced it would pay for personnel needed to reopen the World War II Memorial, a draw for aging veterans from around the country that is among the sites shuttered. In a statement, party chairman Reince Priebus challenged Democrats "to join with us in keeping this memorial open."Democrats labeled that a stunt. "We've already been working on a plan to open the Memorial — and the entire government — after the GOP caused them to close," said party spokesman Mo Elleithee. "It's called a clean" spending bill.As it turned out, more than 125 World War II veterans from Mississippi and Iowa who were initially kept out of the memorial Tuesday were escorted to the site with the help of members of Congress. Officials made further arrangements to allow veterans groups into the memorial during the shutdown.A sampling of federal agencies showed how unevenly the shutdown was felt across the government.The Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Housing and Urban Development listed only six percent of their employees as essential, and therefore permitted to work during the impasse. James R. Clapper, director of national intelligence, said about 70 percent of civilian employees in agencies under his control had been sent home.By contrast, about 86 percent of employees of the Department of Homeland Security remained on the job, and 95 percent at the Veterans Affairs Department. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., left, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., right, speaks to members of the media after meeting with President Barack Obama at the White House in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 2, 2013. Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP Photo House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio walks to his office on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 2, 2013. The Republican-run House has rejected an effort by Democrats to force a quick end to the partial government shutdown. By a 227-197 vote Wednesday, the House rejected a move by Democrats aimed at forcing the House to vote on immediately reopening the government without clamping any restrictions on President Barack Obama's health care law. Evan Vucci/AP Photo

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/6264

Goodbye Mayor Finizio It wasn't too long ago, when we were still in the tight grip of winter, that I heard Daryl Finizio talk about his aptitude for being mayor and his plans for running again, while dismissing the notion he might ever run for any other office.So I can report, like most everyone else, I was surprised to hear him say last week he will not run again for mayor. And, really, how odd, to declare yourself a lame duck not much more than halfway through a four-year term.He said it will make him more effective. It seems to me the opposite would be true.Some critics of the mayor are suggesting they don't believe him, that the day will come when he will announce he's changed his mind, that there is more work to be done to help the city he loves.But I choose to take the mayor at his word.In fact, it wouldn't surprise me now if he outright quit before his term is up. I know it hasn't been easy.So now that we have the city's first full-time mayor in generations declaring himself out of the next race, it seems we can start on the political obituary, at the same time we can look at how the rest of the field may be shaping up.I would suggest the mayor's first term has been, in many respects, good for the city.He has indeed seized all the levers of power and pulled on them, sometimes in the wrong direction, but usually decisively.The city wanted a strong mayor and got one. Gone are the paper-pushing city managers of old. Here is someone you can choose to love or hate. Best of all, it's someone you can blame when things go wrong. And, until last week, you might have relished the idea of voting for or against him when the time comes.He has had a positive influence in other ways, things he probably wouldn't get credit for anyway, if he were to run again.Most important, he shook things up, ran as an outsider and won. He proved that the city wasn't bound up in the politics of old, that voters could choose the prospect of new and improved.I honestly believe he has also widened political participation in the city and brought more diversity and new faces to the table. For that, everyone should thank him.On the other hand, he has proven to be a terrible manager.Instead of hiring professionals to help him manage, while running the political side of the administration, as the new charter envisioned, he made some terrible appointments that have created consequences he can't outrun.Indeed, some of these obvious mistakes are things that may have convinced the mayor he couldn't possibly win again, no matter how much he wanted to try.Not only has his public works director with no experience proven incapable of the most basic aspects of the job, like clearing streets and sidewalks, picking up the trash or fixing a steam leak, but he has created serious problems that will haunt the mayor until the day he leaves office.An investigation into alleged bid irregularities for a public works project is ongoing.And a lawsuit that has helped ruin the city's liability insurance coverage is under way because, in part, the public works department ignored a state safety violation for the transfer station where a city resident subsequently died.You can see why the mayor has refused to talk about that one.I will miss the mayor for his theatrics and the entertainment value in that.Who can forget his staged press conference at Riverside Park, when he made a grand entrance by walking down from the woods, before announcing he was killing the deal to sell the park on a technicality, never mind what voters wanted.More recently there was the forum at City Hall where he donned a goofy boxing-themed hat and refused to even entertain suggestions from downtown merchants complaining about parking and snow removal.His demeanor at that forum was so strange you have to wonder now if he didn't know then he wasn't planning to run again.Some things and people will last beyond the end of the mayor's administration.The attorneys Londregan will no doubt work for the next mayor. They have proven themselves survivors, and they know where all the bones are buried.Sadly, the New London Development Corp., which the mayor promised to abolish, survives and still controls many of the deeds to Fort Trumbull. When I asked the mayor recently why the former president, the dark prince of eminent domain, is still listed as a member of the board, he said he didn't know anything about it.I expect the mayor's police chief, who doesn't seem to report to work anymore, at least in any public way, will also probably survive.Oddly enough, the chief who played such a prominent role in the last election, will likely outlast the two principal candidates who campaigned for and against her.This is the opinion of David Collinsd.collins@theday.com

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/6266

Right call to deal for American POW President Obama confronted two conflicting ideals in addressing the case of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.On the one hand, the United States has a stated policy of not negotiating with terrorists groups, a policy based on the premise that rewarding their illegal acts via some form of negotiated compensation will only encourage more bad acts.On the other hand, the U.S. military has a policy of not leaving its soldiers behind. With President Obama having just recently announced a winding down of combat operations in Afghanistan, the administration confronted the prospect of violating this fundamental article of faith if it left Sgt. Bergdahl to die in the hands of the Taliban.Given the circumstances, the president picked the right ideal to pursue.The United States has been at war in Afghanistan for a dozen years and the enemy during that time has been primarily the Taliban. After 9/11, the United States invaded Afghanistan to wrest the Taliban from power there. Our military did so because the Taliban regime had provided sanctuary to the al-Qaida training camps from which the attacks on the U.S. were born.So while the Taliban uses the terrorist tools of attacking civilian targets to generate fear and intimidation in furtherance of its goal of forced compliance with its radical and intolerant religious dogma, it is also the enemy the United States came to fight, the enemy with which the country had to negotiate to recover a captured soldier.There is a long tradition of prisoner swaps in times of war. The only thing different this time is the nature of the war. In releasing five high-level Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, the administration paid a high price, agreeing to an unequal trade. Did anyone expect a fair trade? The Taliban knew of this nation's fierce loyalty to its soldiers and exploited it. We suspect the trade terms were far more egregious when the talks began.Then there is the argument that the swap will encourage terror groups to capture U.S. soldiers. Realistically, with the withdrawal from Afghanistan, our military is not likely to confront terrorists again on a traditional battlefield anytime soon. If such a scenario does arise, is it necessarily bad that the enemy might be motivated to capture, rather than kill, our military personnel?What of the president's failure to comply with a law requiring a 30-day notice to Congress in advance of a prisoner release from Gitmo? Constitutionally, this law is unenforceable. The president is Commander in Chief, the U.S. Constitution is clear on that. As commander he has the authority to pursue and execute a prisoner exchange without inviting congressional meddling that could undo a fragile arrangement.Adding to the complexity of this situation is the unusual circumstances surrounding Sgt. Bergdahl's capture. Soldiers who served with him have come forward to say they are convinced he deserted his post in 2009, prior to his capture. Vital resources were used and, some contend, lives lost searching for Sgt. Bergdahl. While the allegations are troubling, they are irrelevant as to whether the nation should have pursued the sergeant's release.President Obama said it well on Tuesday: "Regardless of circumstances, whatever the circumstances may turn out to be, we still get an American prisoner back. Period." Until an investigation and military judicial proceeding provide evidence of misconduct, Sgt. Bergdahl remains a soldier in good standing, entitled to make his case. The Army promoted him to his current rank while held as a prisoner.The circumstances of his capture deserve investigation. The administration should resist any urge to make Sgt. Bergdahl a hero for purposes of political optics, if he is not. We are encouraged by the comments of Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stating that there will be a review to determine whether Sgt. Bergdahl left his post in 2009. The president's decision would have been easy and roundly applauded if Sgt. Bergdahl had been snatched from a battlefield in a traditional war. Instead President Obama faced a tough decision in murky circumstances. He made the right one. Soldier's hometown awaits his return Obama defends swap of Taliban detainees for Army Sgt. Bergdahl Bergdahl seen as a deserter by many soldiers Debate stirs over U.S.-Taliban captive swap US soldier freed from captivity in Afghanistan

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/6333

< > THE NEW WORLD DISORDER The utopian evil of free trade Exclusive: Vox Day proves how ideology in its true form would mean end of America Vox Day Vox Day is a Christian libertarian and author of "The Return of the Great Depression" and "The Irrational Atheist." He is a member of the SFWA, Mensa and IGDA, and has been down with Madden since 1992. Visit his blog, Vox Popoli. Follow Receive Vox Day's alerts in your email BONUS: By signing up for Vox Day’s alerts, you will also be signed up for news and special offers from WND via email. In my previous column on the flaws of free trade theory, I concentrated primarily on the theoretical aspects and the errors in the historical arguments that have been made for it. In this column, I will focus on the practical side and show how free trade, if implemented in a genuine manner, will necessarily result in the complete destruction of the United States of America as we know it. It is difficult to have a substantive discussion of the practical results of free trade with one of its advocates because they can so readily, with some justification, fall back on the argument that free trade agreements like NAFTA and the Agreement on the European Economic Area are not equivalent to truly free trade. While that is partially true, the argument nevertheless amounts to a massive evasion, as NAFTA without question brought much freer trade to the North American continent than it had previously known. When it was implemented in 1994, NAFTA immediately eliminated the tariffs on more than one-half of Mexican exports and more than one-third of U.S. exports. By 2009, all tariffs between the U.S. and Mexico were eliminated. How, one wonders, can the complete elimination of all tariffs between two countries be considered anything but free trade? And yet, as anyone who was paying attention to the news in 2009 will recall, that free trade did not bring great economic prosperity to Americans. It would be erroneous to claim free trade with Mexico was the source of the current economic crisis that began in 2008, but it is well worth pointing out that the free trade proved to be no panacea, and that the millions of Mexican immigrants who were part of the freer movement of goods, capital and labor inspired by NAFTA contributed greatly to the housing bubble that was the chief driver of the six-year financial boom that ran from 2002 to 2008. And indeed, while most of the historical concerns about free trade have revolved around the societal costs of the free movement of goods, it is the free movement of labor that most thoroughly damns free-trade ideology and reveals it to be a utopian evil every bit as dangerous as communism, feminism and globalism. Free-trade advocates often point to the free movement of goods, capital and labor in the domestic economy and ask why the same system cannot work internationally since it works so well within the national borders. The reason is simple: The nation cannot continue to exist if the same degree of labor movement takes place across the borders as it presently does within them. In a paper entitled “Comparing labour mobility in Europe and the U.S.: facts and pitfalls,” it was shown that in the years between 2000 and 2005, the annual interstate mobility rate in the U.S. ranged between 2.8 and 3.4 percent. To put this into terms most people will understand, just under half of all Americans between the ages of 25 and 44, 50.5 percent, still reside in the state in which they were born. This isn’t a big deal to most Americans. After all, the move from Michigan to Florida or from Minnesota to California is generally regarded as a step up in quality of life. But that’s not likely to be true on an international level. Because the labor cost difference between the U.S. and China is much greater than between Massachusetts and Texas, the pressure on Americans to move abroad in search of jobs would be even greater than presently exists in the domestic market. Enacting the same sort of free-trade regime on an international level as presently exists on the domestic level would require both a) a reduction in the American standard of living to one that is much closer global average, and b) the expatriation of more than 50 percent of young Americans under the age of 35. This statistically predictable destruction of the population and dissolution of the American people in the name of increased global prosperity through free trade is not a rhetorical exaggeration. Nor is it a concept that is unknown to the champions of free trade. Consider the words of Mr. Peter Sutherland, the former director-general of the World Trade Organization: Mr Sutherland, who is non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International and a former chairman of oil giant BP, heads the Global Forum on Migration and Development, which brings together representatives of 160 nations to share policy ideas. He told the House of Lords committee migration was a “crucial dynamic for economic growth” in some EU nations “however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states.” What this means is that if, despite understanding its true costs, you still favor free trade as a desirable means to increase the wealth of nations, then you should at least admit to yourself and others that you favor the total destruction of national sovereignty, the elimination of the U.S. Constitution and the end of America and other historical nations. You favor the ideology of ein Welt, ein Recht, eine Wirtschaft.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/6339

Obama clarified what liberalism is CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- As president, Barack Obama has shown liberalism's true colors. I thank him for that. Let us begin with campaign finance reform. Oh, this happened before he was president, or to be more exact, while he was running for president. Obama accepted a whopping $750 million in campaign contributions - a half billion of the money coming from large donors, including the two richest men in America. That was double the money Republican John McCain collected. If liberals had any qualms about big money influencing the election, they remained silent. The dogs that did not bark were all those self-appointed campaign reformers. Forgotten were their complaints when George Walker Bush raised $100 million to self-finance his primary races. Once Obama was safe and president, the campaign finance complainers were back in action. Oh, how they hate the fact that corporations can now criticize politicians outright in TV ads. It is particularly entertaining to read those New York Times editorials that decry corporations being involved in politics. Isn't the New York Times part of a corporation? Then there is fiscal responsibility. On the campaign trail, then-Sen. Obama complained about profligate spending. "The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents - No. 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back - $30,000 for every man, woman and child," Obama said. "That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic." On Obama's watch, the national debt will have increased by another "unpatriotic" $4 trillion in just three years. Throughout the Bush presidency, liberals loved to quote socialist Howard Zinn's line, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism," often misattributed to Thomas Jefferson. However, when people protested against Obamacare in the summer of 2009, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called their protests "un-American" in a column in USA Today. Two years later, Pelosi is back to backing protest in the Occupy Wall Street movement. I guess dissent is patriotic only when the target is a Republican administration or a private company. Then there is war. President Bush got congressional approval and a resolution from the United Nations before sending troops to Iraq. Liberals later described this as illegal and unconstitutional. Likewise, in 1986, liberals opposed President Reagan's decision to bomb Libya in retaliation for terrorist acts that were sanction by Muammar Gadhafi. Innocents would die, was the fear. Lo and behold, 25 years later, President Obama shelled Libya without congressional approval or even a U.N. resolution. While certainly I agree that getting rid of Gadhafi was worth the billion or so it cost, the Libyan mission clarified liberal views on war once and for all. Indeed, like neo-cons, liberals now want to remove any and all dictators. Suddenly, it is cool to be the world's policeman. All right! What is particularly amusing to me is how all these previously held political positions were couched in morality. It was immoral to collect money from large donors until Obama did it. It was immoral to borrow $4 trillion until Obama did it. It was immoral to bomb the hell out of a tiny country just to remove a dictator until Obama did it. Thank you, President Obama, for clarifying just how principled liberals are these days. Surber may be reached at donsurber@dailymail.com. His blog is at http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/6519

Sun March 9, 2014 China's Crackdown On Corruption Opens Door To Abuse Share Tweet E-mail Comments Print By NPR Staff Originally published on Sun March 9, 2014 7:00 pm Zhou Wangyan says his leg was broken by interrogators in China's secretive detention center in fall 2012. In January 2014, he still uses crutches to stand. Chinese President Xi Jinping has made it a priority to eliminate corruption within the Chinese Communist Party. "The [Communist Party] desperately wants the appearance of cracking down hard on corruption because they understand that rampant corruption is threatening the party's legitimacy," says Associated Press reporter Gillian Wong. In a story published Sunday, Wong uncovers how that crackdown on corruption has led to another problem: abuse and torture of party officials. "The way [the party] goes about investigating corruption tends to be so opaque — within the party, controlled entirely by the party — that it allows for these types of abuse to occur," she says. The investigations are carried out under the government's secretive detention and disciplinary system called shuanggui. Shuanggui is an "extra-legal form of detention, in that it operates entirely outside the scrutiny or oversight of police or courts," Wong explains. According to her AP report, "Experts estimate at least several thousand people are secretly detained every year for weeks or months under an internal system that is separate from state justice." Wong broke the story of a local official named Zhou Wangyen, who says he was tortured by the Communist Party. She first read his account on a Chinese lawyer's blog, and later convinced him to tell her what happened. Zhou was a director of the land resources bureau, parceling out land for developers. In China, that position is a hotbed of corruption. Wong says it's very common for developers to bribe officials like Zhou — that's what first led authorities to him. But Zhou says he was innocent. One morning in July 2012, he was rounded up by three men from the local party's discipline inspection commission. "If he were arrested formally, that would have almost been a better fate for him," Wong says. The investigators took him to a hotel where he was accused of accepting 100,000 yuan ($16,000) in bribes. They wanted him to admit it. "They made him stand, and they surrounded him with men on four sides and just kept pushing him back and forth between them, letting him rest for only an hour a night," Wong says. "And this went on for a whole week." Wong reports that this was just the beginning. Zhou was moved to another hotel and deprived of sleep. Eventually he was moved to the party's detention center. That's where he encountered the worst abuse. "He found himself beaten. He was only allowed one bowl of rice a day," Wong says. "They pressed his face into water in the sink until he thought he was drowning." The torment lasted for months. Wong says. At one point, his femur was broken in three places. "It's one of the strongest bones in your body, and he was 47 at the time and relatively fit. He's not a frail man," she says. The AP obtained medical records that verified his injuries. Zhou eventually caved. Though he still maintains his innocence, Zhou signed a confession saying he'd accepted $6,600 in bribes and resigned. When he was finally released in January 2013, he found that his options for recourse were limited. "Police were unable to investigate this case because, basically, party matters fall outside the purview of police," Wong says. His complaints to higher-ups in the party have so far gone unanswered. The officials that the AP reached "denied that any form of torture had taken place," Wong says. "But, after we made those calls, officials called Zhou warning him against talking to the foreign media about what happened." Wong says it's hard to know whether Zhou's in danger now.Copyright 2014 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/. Related ProgramAll Things Considered

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/6568

Home | Opinion | Op-Ed Reinvesting in America Is strong and growing By Penny Pritzker, U.S. Secretary of Commerce - 06/19/14 08:00 AM EDT For years, companies have engaged in “labor arbitrage,” seeking lower wages outside of the United States. But many firms are looking to reshore or expand U.S. operations because the global economic landscape is changing. Managers are learning that there are often hidden costs to operating abroad. Low-cost energy and highly productive workers are changing the equation, as the competitive advantages offered by the United States grow increasingly important. We have a real opportunity to create additional jobs as more companies are choosing to establish operations in this country. Earlier this month, A.T. Kearney’s annual Foreign Direct Investment Confidence Index ranked the United States as the top investment destination for the second year in a row, with the most positive net position of any country in the 16-year history of the index. A few months earlier, the Boston Consulting Group found that the share of U.S. executives actively considering relocating manufacturing back from China to the United States rose to 54 percent in 2013, compared with 37 percent only 18 months ago. ADVERTISEMENTCompanies are investing in the United States for many reasons. First, there are often unexpected costs to operating abroad. The cost of manufacturing goes far beyond wages – there’s travel and management time; the cost, time, and administrative burden of logistics; trade financing expenses; product quality issues; threats to intellectual property; the cost of regulatory compliance; political or security risks; and uncertainty of forecast demand. The costs of other inputs – like real estate and energy – can make or break a company’s bottom line.Next, successful manufacturing is more than just managing the costs – it’s also about finding the right competitive advantages, and that’s where the United States really shines. We have one of the most skilled and productive workforces, and we’re making it a priority to build the skills that are in high demand.The United States also remains the most innovative place in the world, home to more than a third of total global research and development investment, as well as 15 of the top 25 leading research universities. The United States produces nearly 30 percent of all patents worldwide, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office works hard to protect intellectual property rights. Advanced technology, including robotics and 3-D printing, are enabling U.S. manufacturers to drastically cut time to market and make better – and more customized – products. Richelieu Legwear International, Inc., a legwear company that makes brands like Peds and Growing Socks, has decided to take advantage of all the United States has to offer. The company just announced an investment in North Carolina that will bring production and more than 200 jobs. The Commerce Department’s SelectUSA team played a role in finding Richelieu Legwear the information it needed to move its U.S. investment forward.Richelieu Legwear is not alone. Companies of all sizes and industries are investing – or re-investing – in the United States. The Whirlpool Corporation recently moved the production of a line of front-load commercial washers from abroad to Clyde, Ohio, home to the largest washing machine factory in the world. Eighty percent of Whirlpool products on the market here are made in the United States.If you or your children have played with Tinkertoys, Lincoln Logs, or other construction toys made by K’NEX Brands, you’ve supported American manufacturing. This family-owned company in Hatfield, Pennsylvania, has been moving production back from Asia. Roughly 95 percent of its parts and 80 percent of its finished products are now made domestically.Finally, a manufacturing base in the United States not only allows companies, like those we just mentioned, to rapidly reach more than 317 million consumers in the world’s most attractive market; it also provides convenient access to approximately 425 million additional consumers through free trade agreements and the most rapid export clearances of all countries surveyed by the World Bank. The decision of where to locate operations may be the most important decision a company ever makes. Congress and the Obama Administration have been working together to attract investment to, or back to, America’s shores. Progress has been made in part due to the funding Congress provided to SelectUSA for the first time in 2014. With additional funding being sought in the FY15 budget, we fully anticipate seeing more and more companies opening and expanding their operations in the United States, supporting and creating thousands of good-paying jobs.The U.S. government stands ready to help businesses choose the United States, because, as President Obama has said, “When you bet on America, that bet pays off.”Pritzker, founder of PSP Capital Partners and Pritzker Realty Group, has served as the nation's 38th Secretary of Commerce since 2013. Share on Twitter More in Op-Ed Rogers stood up for those in the shadows who defend America

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/6654

Israel's ex-PM Ehud Olmert faces new corruption charges The former Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, denies any wrongdoing Ehud Olmert: Corruption cases Police want ex-Israeli PM charged Police question former Israel PM The former Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, has been charged with taking bribes in a property scandal. The allegations relate to Mr Olmert's time as Jerusalem mayor in the 1990s. Mr Olmert, who resigned as prime minister in 2009, has already been charged in three unrelated corruption cases. He denies any wrongdoing. The latest charges concern the construction of a luxury residential complex in Jerusalem called Holyland which is built on a prominent hilltop. Prosecutors claim that millions of dollars changed hands illegally to facilitate a series of property deals. Jerusalem's planning laws were altered to enable the complex to be built. The project's developers have also been charged in the case. Haaretz newspaper describes the case as one of the largest corruption scandals in Israel's history. The former prime minister denies any wrongdoing and has called the investigation a "witch hunt". Mr Olmert was mayor of Jerusalem from 1993 - 2003, then became a minister in the Israeli cabinet. He took over as prime minister in 2006 after Ariel Sharon suffered a stroke. His three-year premiership was dogged by corruption allegations, and he eventually agreed to stand down. Mr Olmert has pleaded not guilty in the separate proceedings against him, in which he is accused of taking cash for favours and double-billing for overseas trips. 31 MARCH 2014, MIDDLE EAST Police question former Israel PM 25 MAY 2010, MIDDLE EAST Profile: Ehud Olmert

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/6683

Volume XIV Number 1 (October-November 2003) MYTHS & REALITY: THE RUSSIAN LEADERSHIP & CHECHNYA By LEV PONOMAREV Two opposing points of view portray the events taking place on the territory of the Chechen Republic. The first may be described as a myth and emanates from the Russian leadership; its voice is President Putin and the state-owned mass media. The second point of view may be heard from non-governmental organizations, which closely monitor the situation and record numerous instances of human rights abuses. Myth #1. In Chechnya Russian federal forces are fighting international terrorism. Evidence shows that foreign mercenaries play only a minor role among the Chechen separatists. The majority of the fighting force is comprised of armed citizens of the Chechen Republic, who often are the relatives of civilians who were killed as a result of the numerous bombardments and "clean-up operations"(zachistka) conducted by the federal troops. Their main political goal is the independence of the Chechen Republic. Myth # 2. The phase of open military confrontation on Chechen territory is over. Local police actions are underway, aimed at liquidating the remaining terrorist bases. In reality, neither the intensity of the military confrontations nor the number of victims among civilians and combatants has abated. Every month, dozens of civilians in Chechnya die or disappear without a trace as a result of actions by the federal forces. Casualties among military servicemen are just as high. Moreover, quite recently the conflict has been "Palestinized" by suicide bombers. Their operations include: an explosion in Grozny’s Government House (72 persons killed); the terrorist act in the Nadrechniy region (60 persons killed); an attempt to "blow up" [pro-Moscow leader Akhmat] Kadyrov in Islikhan-Yurta; an explosion during the rock festival in Moscow caused by Chechen female suicide bombers (17 persons killed); and an explosion on Tverskaya Street. Myth # 3. Having completed the military confrontation phase of the campaign, the federal government has proceeded to settle the Chechen conflict by political means; for this purpose, a referendum on a new Chechen constitution was held in March 2003 and elections for a new President of the Chechen Republic were held in October 2003. In reality, both the referendum and the elections were held while an active military campaign was continuing. Ordinary people are intimidated. Elections conducted under these conditions cannot be considered legitimate, in accordance with international norms. The only way to a political settlement is to stop military actions, open negotiations between the opposing sides, exchange prisoners of war, demilitarize the area and only then hold elections for new governmental institutions. Myth #4. President Putin has called Chechen President Aslan Maskhadov one of the leaders of international terrorism. In accordance with his thesis that "there can be no negotiations with terrorists," Putin therefore refused to conduct peace talks with Maskhadov, despite the fact that the latter has expressed his readiness to do so several times. The fact is that Maskhadov became President through nationwide elections in Chechnya, which were acknowledged at the time by the Russian government and the international community. He has not been involved in terrorist activities against civilians. Putin’s position is further compromised by his simultaneous active support for the concept of negotiations between the leaders of Israel and Yassir Arafat (formerly an active terrorist), putative negotiations, into which key terrorist groups such as "Islamic Jihad," "Hamas," "Fatah" and others in effect are already being drawn. Thus, two conflicting points of view regarding the Chechen conflict exist. President Putin, presenting a distorted version of events, is counting, first and foremost, on the support of leaders of key world powers and, unfortunately, is obtaining it. The "International Community" thus, in effect, is complicit in the actions of the federal forces in Chechnya, and closing its eyes to gross human rights abuses. The only hope Russian NGOs have is for their voice to be heard by the Western public and to have the latter, in turn, find ways to influence their leaders. The only means of stopping the Chechen conflict is for the opposing sides to negotiate directly. Aslan Mashadov, as President of the Chechen Republic, has to be a direct participant in such talks. Lev Ponomarev All—Russian Social Movement for Human Rights _________________________________ Copyright ISCIP 2003 Unless otherwise indicated, all articles appearing in this journal have been commissioned especially for Perspective.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/6710

Palestinian unity attempt flounders yet again Saturday, February 9, 2013 Tags: Columnists Comments It’s beginning to sound like a broken record. For the past few years, Fatah and Hamas, the two rival factions in the Palestinian national movement, have tried in vain to create a single Palestinian government in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Since the collapse in 2007 of the short-lived Palestinian national unity government, formed as a result of the Mecca Agreement, Fatah, a secular organization, and Hamas, an Islamic fundamentalist group, have signed three reconciliation accords. All of them have imploded, dashing hopes that the Palestinians can settle their differences. Recently, Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi intervened in an attempt to broker a unity deal, inviting Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, and Khaled Meshal, a Hamas leader, to Cairo for talks. They arrived in Egypt in the wake of significant developments in the Palestinian arena last November, December and January. First, the United Nations granted the Palestinian Authority non-member observer status. Second, Hamas and Israel fought an eight-day border war during which Israel bombarded targets in Gaza and Hamas fired rockets deep into Israel’s heartland. Third, Fatah and Hamas exchanged two goodwill gestures. Fatah allowed Hamas to stage a rally in the West Bank town of Nablus to mark the 25th anniversary of its founding. Hamas reciprocated by permitting Fatah to hold a rally in Gaza for the first time since the summer of 2007, when Hamas violently seized Gaza from Fatah in a mini civil war. Following the Gaza rally, billed as a show of unity by both Fatah and Hamas, Fatah leader Nabil Shaath declared, “The climate is excellent for reconciliation.” Responding to these overlapping events, Morsi invited the antagonists to send representatives to Cairo. On the eve of their meeting, Marwan Barghouti, a leading Fatah figure serving five life sentences in an Israeli prison for his role in terrorist attacks against Israelis during the second intifadah, issued a statement from his cell imploring both sides to end their dispute. As he put it, “We need reconciliation now and without delay.” The discussions in Cairo focused on ways to implement a reconciliation accord signed in April 2011. No progress was reported, and Abbas and Meshal left Cairo empty-handed, leaving two separate and feuding Palestinian entities in place in the West Bank and Gaza. The divisions that keep Fatah and Hamas constantly at odds are substantive. Israel, of course, is a key sticking point. Fatah, a major component of the Palestinian Authority, has accepted Israel’s existence within the pre-1967 armistice lines. Hamas rejects a two state solution and continues to call for armed struggle in a bid to create a single Palestinian state in place of Israel. Toward the close of 2012, Ahmed Halabiyeh, head of Hamas’ Jerusalem department, called upon Palestinians to launch a third uprising and resume suicide bombings against Israel. At around the same time, Meshal, following a visit to Gaza, vowed that Hamas would never recognize Israel and try to “free the land of Palestine inch by inch.” Abbas, a moderate, has urged the Hamas leadership to recognize Israel, disavow terrorism and respect previous agreements signed by the Palestinian Authority and Israel. Hamas has balked, but has been amenable to observing a long-term truce with Israel. Another area of contention turns on Hamas’ armed wing, the Izz Al-Din Al-Qassem Brigades. Fatah has demanded its dismantlement, but Hamas has stoutly rejected this condition. One of the thorniest issues yet to be resolved concerns the Palestinian Authority’s security co-operation with Israel, sanctioned by the 1993 Oslo accords. Hamas staunchly opposes this partnership, which has been instrumental in quashing terrorist plots. Fatah and Hamas are also at loggerheads over the issue of political arrests. Since their momentous falling out in June 2007, just months after the Mecca Agreement was signed and sealed, their respective security forces have been arresting each other’s operatives in the West Bank and Gaza, contributing to an atmosphere of mutual bitterness. Fatah and Hamas have also clashed over four internal issues, beginning with the question of who will lead a national unity government. Would it be Abbas, Yasser Arafat’s designated successor? Or would it be Ismail Haniyeh, the prime minister of the Hamas regime in Gaza? Remarkably enough, Fatah and Hamas cannot even agree when presidential and parliamentary elections should be held. Nor have they been able to reach a consensus as to how the Palestine Liberation Organization – established in 1964 and universally recognized as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinians and currently led by Abbas – would be reconstituted. Finally, Fatah and Hamas have yet to decide whether Hamas would be admitted into the PLO, and if so, what role it would then play in that umbrella organization. These differences are not likely to be resolved within the foreseeable future, if indeed at all. But as Fatah and Hamas struggle for primacy, Hamas appears to have gained the upper hand in the battle for hearts and minds in the West Bank and Gaza. The reasons seem clear. Although the Israeli Air Force battered Hamas in the last round of fighting, Hamas fought Israel to a virtual draw, thereby gaining street credit in Gaza and the West Bank. Under the terms of the ceasefire negotiated by Egypt and the United States, Israel eased its blockade of Gaza, a clear tactical victory for Hamas. On a strategic level, Hamas has become stronger now that the new Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt has lined up firmly behind it. Morsi’s predecessor, Hosni Mubarak, was hostile to Hamas and worked with Israel to keep Islamic fundamentalism in check. Fatah, notwithstanding its success in upgrading its status at the United Nations, has grown correspondingly weaker. Although Abbas has renounced violence and clearly accepted Israel’s existence, he has not made any real headway toward achieving Palestinian statehood. And due to a lack of funding from foreign donors, the Palestinian Authority government in the West Bank faces a dire financial crisis. Israel’s position on Palestinian unity seems contradictory. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned that a Palestinian unity agreement would put an end to a two-state solution. By the same token, Israel has observed that the split within Palestinian ranks jeopardizes the chances of peace. As Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s former foreign minister, noted, “We are ready to move forward, but we do not know who represents the Palestinians – Hamas or Fatah.” At present, this remains an unanswered question.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/6714

Post-revolutionary Egypt torn by deep fissures Wednesday, February 20, 2013 Tags: Columnists Comments Egypt, long a beacon of stability in the Arab world, has been thrown into disarray since the downfall of its authoritarian president, Hosni Mubarak, two years ago this month. Mubarak, a pro-western secular leader who presided over a dictatorial regime and preserved Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel, was toppled during the Arab Spring, the internal rebellions that have boldly challenged the stultified political order in the Middle East. Mubarak, who held office for nearly three decades, resigned after 18 days of increasingly violent street protests, transferring his authority to the armed forces, which would imprison him and his two sons on charges of corruption and abuse of power. During this interim period, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, the body that inherited Mubarak’s mantle, was headed by Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, the longtime defence minister. Tantawi, self-servingly, usurped yet more power while blandly professing to be in favour of democracy. Last June, the candidate of the banned Muslim Brotherhood, Mohamed Morsi, an American-educated engineer, won post-revolutionary Egypt’s first free presidential election with only 51 per cent of the popular vote. He defeated Ahmed Shafik, Mubarak’s last prime minister, and a coterie of progressive and nationalist candidates who had initiated the revolution. In effect, the Muslim Brotherhood hijacked the 2011 revolution. Morsi, who had vowed to be “a president for all Egyptians,” was swiftly undermined by the army, the strongest institution in Egypt since the 1952 revolution. Tantawi and his fellow generals staged a soft coup, dissolving parliament – controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood – placing strict limits on Morsi’s powers, seizing control of the process of drafting a new constitution and re-establishing martial law, which Mubarak had imposed after the assassination of his predecessor, Anwar Sadat, in 1981. With these draconian measures, Tantawi threw Egypt back into the muck of authoritarianism, making a mockery of the democratic rhetoric that had defined the 2011 revolution. But in an astonishing counter-coup last August, Morsi struck back, using an incident in the Sinai Peninsula, in which 16 Egyptian soldiers were killed by a band of Islamic fundamentalists, to reassert his authority. Morsi forced Tantawi into retirement, dismissed army chief of staff Sami Hafez Anan, regarded as Tantawi’s successor, sacked a number of other generals and fired the governor of northern Sinai as well as the chief of military intelligence. He also appointed a new defence minister, Abdul Fattah el-Sisi. Pundits generally agree that Morsi’s moves were inspired by Turkey’s campaign of recent years to reduce the outsize influence of the armed forces. Having assertively propped up his Islamist regime, Morsi may have assumed he had carte blanche to do whatever he pleased. He was dead wrong. Last November, under the pretext of speeding up Egypt’s bumpy and convoluted transition from autocracy to democracy, he issued a sweeping decree granting himself immunity from judicial oversight. The measure touched off a wave of unrest. Claiming the decree was required to ratify a new constitution and block a conspiracy by pro-Mubarak forces to unseat the president, Mori’s spokesman said he would relinquish these powers within a few months. The explanation did not wash in secular and liberal circles, raising widespread fears that he sought to become Egypt’s new strongman by stealth. More political violence erupted in December following Morsi’s announcement that a referendum would be held to approve a new constitution. Morsi claimed it would enshrine human rights. Critics, particularly those in the Coptic Christian community, which forms about 10 per cent of Egypt’s population, complained that the proposed constitution would pay far too much deference to Islamic law, offer little protection to minorities and women and, worst of all, lay the foundation for a retrogressive Islamic state. Morsi won the referendum by a comfortable two-thirds margin, and the new constitution took immediate effect. But Mori’s opponents, led by Mohamed El Baradei – a presidential candidate and the former director of the International Atomic Energy Agency – described the constitution as a “very polarizing” document that denies Egyptians freedom of religion and expression and suppresses the independence of the judiciary. Despite Morsi’s unilateralism, observers wonder whether he and his allies can, in fact, implement their programs and policies. The bureaucracy, largely composed of secularists appointed during the Mubarak era, may well put up fierce resistance to his vision of a new Islamic Egypt. In the meantime, tensions continue to fester. Throughout January, as lawlessness engulfed the country and open rebellion broke out in three cities along the Suez Canal, Morsi called out the army to deal with demonstrators. In the ensuing clashes, more than 50 Egyptians were killed, reminding observers of the pre-2011 days when dissent was barely tolerated. Of late, protestors have demonstrated in front of Morsi’s presidential palace in Cairo. Such has been the turmoil that the defence minister recently issued a stark warning that political differences “on running the affairs of the country may lead to the collapse of the state and threatens the future of the coming generations.” With critics already charging that Morsi has not lived up to his pledge to represent all Egyptians, the situation is likely to grow still worse when he imposes austerity measures to cope with an economy in a tailspin. Tourism, one of the principal sources of foreign currency, has fallen by one-third. The unemployment rate among Egyptians between the ages of 25 to 29 has risen to a catastrophic 25 per cent. Calling this figure “a socio-economic time bomb,” a former Egyptian finance minister recently observed it is especially worrisome because the popular uprising that deposed Mubarak and paved the way for Morsi was spearheaded by Egyptians in this age range. Beyond the daunting problem of youth unemployment, which has been exacerbated by a decline in foreign investment, Morsi faces another challenge that speaks directly to Egypt’s current economic woes. Egypt has requested a loan of $4.8 billion from the International Monetary Fund, but will not get it unless food and fuel subsidies to the poor, the core of Morsi’s constituency, are reduced. But with half of all Egyptians living on less than $2 per day, Morsi will be hard-pressed to comply with the IMF demand. Morsi thus finds himself between a rock and a hard place as he attempts to govern an ancient nation torn by deep political, social and economic fissures and manifestly uncertain of its future.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/6719

Gov. Richardson endorses ObamaStory Highlights New Mexico governor: Obama "will make a great and historic president" Obama says he's "extraordinarily grateful" to have Richardson's support Sen. Clinton shrugs off Richardson's endorsement Richardson's endorsement may help Obama draw superdelegate support Next Article in Politics » Read VIDEO (CNN) -- Declaring that Sen. Barack Obama is an "extraordinary American," Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico endorsed Obama for the Democratic nominee for president on Friday. Richardson -- who sought this year's Democratic nomination for president himself -- joined Obama at a rally in Portland, Oregon, where the senator from Illinois is campaigning. "Barack Obama will make a great and historic president," Richardson said, Obama standing at his side. "[It] is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for our nation and you are a once-in-a-lifetime leader." Obama said, "I am extraordinarily grateful to have the support of one of the great public servants of these United States." Watch more of the endorsement » "He's done the kind of work that you want from your public servants, somebody who's driven not just by raw ambition, not just by an interest in personal aggrandizement," Obama added. "He's been somebody who's been motivated by the desire to make the lives of his constituents and working people a little bit better." Richardson praised Obama for his speech this week on race in America, saying "he appealed to the best in us." Watch Obama's speech on race » Don't Miss Richardson drops out of '08 race "As a Hispanic-American, I was particularly touched by his words," Richardson said, putting his arm around Obama and declaring in Spanish that he is "a man who understands us." Richardson is the nation's only Hispanic governor. Hispanics have tended to support Sen. Hillary Clinton in her quest for the Democratic nomination. Obama and Clinton both lobbied Richardson for his endorsement after he dropped out of the race January 10. Richardson called Clinton Thursday to tell her of his decision, Clinton's campaign said. The campaign shrugged off Richardson's endorsement of her rival. "Both candidates have many great endorsers, but the voters, not endorsers, will decide this election, and there are still millions of voters in upcoming contests who want to have their voices heard," Clinton spokesman Jay Carson said. Richardson was secretary of energy and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President Bill Clinton. He said he remains friends with the Clintons, and watched the Super Bowl with Bill Clinton this year. Richardson's endorsement may be more important for its influence on superdelegates, the nearly 800 Democratic party officials whose backing will be essential for either candidate to win the party's nomination, according to CNN's senior political correspondent, Candy Crowley. As a governor, Richardson is a superdelegate. "It is time ... for Democrats to stop fighting amongst ourselves and to prepare for the tough fight we will face against John McCain in the fall," Richardson said, referring to the probable Republican nominee. The Clinton and Obama campaigns have been waging an intense battle for the backing of superdelegates, roughly half of whom have yet to declare their support. "This is a larger message to superdelegates, those elected officials and party officials who, in the end, may well decide who the nominee will be," Crowley said. Richardson pointed out in his speech that Obama is "after all, well ahead in the delegate race for our party's nomination," drawing a roar of approval from the crowd of Obama supporters. Obama leads Clinton by 137 delegates, according to the latest CNN count. Richardson said his "affection for Hillary Clinton and President Bill Clinton will never waver" but that "it is now time for a new generation of leadership." Obama "can bring us the change we so desperately need by bringing us together as a nation here at home and with our allies abroad," he said. He drew laughs with a story about how Obama had bailed him out when a moderator called on him unexpectedly during a Democratic debate. "I was about to ask the moderator to repeat the question when Barack whispered to me 'Katrina, Katrina.' And I gave my Katrina answer. He could have thrown me under the bus, but he stood behind me." Obama had earlier praised Richardson. "Whether it's fighting to end the Iraq war or stop the genocide in Darfur or prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists, Gov. Richardson has been a powerful voice on issues of global security, peace and justice," Obama said in a statement released before the endorsement. Richardson is the second former Democratic presidential contender to endorse Obama, after Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut. Two other former candidates, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, have remained neutral. None of the dropouts has endorsed Clinton. E-mail to a friend All About Bill Richardson • Hillary Clinton • Barack Obama

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/6724

Missouri Senate OKs shrinking number of House members Monday, April 4, 2011 | 10:16 p.m. CDT CHRIS BLANK/The Associated Press JEFFERSON CITY — Missouri senators endorsed a plan Monday to downsize the Missouri General Assembly by cutting 60 members of the state House of Representatives. The proposed constitutional amendment would shrink the 163-member House, leaving 103 seats to represent the state's nearly 6 million people. The plan avoids the sensitive issue of squeezing out current lawmakers by setting the effective date after the 2020 census, by which time all serving lawmakers would have left the House because of term limits. Sen. Jim Lembke, who sponsored the measure, said it would make state government more efficient. Officials estimate eliminating 60 state lawmakers could save Missouri about $4.7 million per year. Senators gave the proposed constitutional amendment first-round approval, and it needs another vote before moving to the House. Ultimately, the change in the state constitution would require a statewide vote, which could be held in November 2012 if lawmakers approve the measure. Missouri lawmakers have considered proposals in recent years to cut the legislature, but the idea has picked up steam this year. A Missouri House committee has considered a similar proposal. However, some lawmakers have raised concerns about whether fewer legislators would adequately represent their constituents and warned that rural areas could lose clout if the size of the chamber is reduced. Lawmakers in about a half-dozen states have proposed shrinking the number of elected legislators. Some proponents are seeking to make their chambers more effective, and others are looking to save money by cutting down on the office, state and travel expenses that each lawmaker incurs. For example, in Pennsylvania — home to the nation's second largest legislature — the House speaker contends that a smaller chamber could be more effective and has introduced a plan to cut its 203-member House by 50 lawmakers after redistricting a decade from now. The nation's largest legislature is in New Hampshire, which has 424 lawmakers — of which 400 serve in the House. The fewest lawmakers are in Nebraska, which has 49 members in its unicameral legislature.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/7018

Modeling Failure "I'm not afraid to say European socialism works." - comedian Bill MaherI apologize for quoting someone as trivial as Bill Maher, but his view that European socialism works is one I hear all the time from those on the political left. They seem to actually believe it. They point to things like Great Brittain's nationalized healthcare system as proof. They cite reports from other left-wing outfits that say the Scandinavian countries are the best places to live. Obama Administration Chews Off Own Foot With the chances of the Democrats looking rather bleak come november, the Obama administration went on the attack. They attacked Republicans, Fox News, the Tea Party movement, the ignorant voters, etc...all to no avail. The chances of the Democrats still look bleak. What's an administration to do ? Back To The Circus I took a break from the internet, newspapers, teevee shows, etc., for several days. Sometimes I just have to get away from all the political noise, especially when that noise gets cranked up to it's highest decibel levels just before election time. That's when my bs detector starts going off so often that I simply must take the batteries out for awhile. For instance, I know Ohio's Democratic Governor Strickland wants me to be outraged that his competitor, Republican John Kasich, worked for Lehman Brothers, but I don't find that particularly outrageous. I'm more inclined to think, "good for Kasich, he found a job." Conversely, I'm not so outraged that Ohio lost 400,000 jobs on Strickland's watch, as Kasich's political ads inform us. I'm more inclined to think "yes, there's been a recession. It caused job losses all over the country. Why would Ohio be immune ?" I don't think it says all that much about Strickland's abilities, or the lack thereof. If Ohio hadn't lost any jobs under Strickland during the recession, now THAT would have been worth looking into.Yesterday, I started reading up on the political events of the past week, and I must say, the circus was definitely in town while I was away. A Democratic Congresswoman, Zoe Lofgren, actually thought it would be a GOOD idea to have Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert testify before Congress in character as his comedic tv persona, a liberal's caricature of an ignorant GOP bigot. At least one Democrat, John Conyers, knew what a clusterfark it would be, and asked Colbert to leave. Good for Conyers. Congress may indeed be a joke these days (it certainly is after Colbert's testimony), but it's business is serious. Colbert testified about migrant workers, after becoming an "expert" by spending ONE DAY with migrant workers filming a segment for his comedy show (I only wish I was kidding about this). Colbert's testimony was actually painful to watch. It was embarrassing and made a mockery of Congress. Maybe next we can have the guy who plays Harry Potter in the movies testify before Congress about our educational system. After all, Potter went to an illustrious school, Hogwarts. Sure, the school is fictitious, but so is Colbert's expertise on migrant workers, and that didn't deter him. I'm fairly certain that Congresswoman Lofgren thought Colbert's comedic caricature of a mean old Republican would elevate the status of the hearing and make Republicans look silly at the same time, but boy did her plan backfire. It blew up in her face. The people who looked the silliest, besides Colbert of course, were Lofgren and her fellow Democrats. Swing and a miss, Dems. To read more or comment... Bubba Backs Tea Parties....And Then Doesn't With Democrats knowing the presence of President Obama on the campaign trail is a negative for them, they've trotted out a Democrat who has some economic bonafides, former President Bill Clinton. Under Clinton's leadership, along with his Republican-led Congress, this country made some strides towards balancing the federal budget. Since Clinton's presidency, the country has pursued fiscal irresponsiblity like a shopaholic with a dozen no-limit platinum cards. The worst President of all in this regard has been Obama, who has run up unprecedented levels of debt.Bubba is the first Democrat I've heard who recognizes the value of the Tea Party movement. From Politico: Will The Government Nationalize Your Retirement Funds ? It's no secret that Obama Hood and his band of merry liberals want to redistribute wealth and centralize power in this country (but don't call them socalists !). They don't trust the American people to handle their own money properly. They view the American people as too ignorant to be trusted with much of anything, and besides, in Liberal La La Land, your wages really belong to the government in the first place. That's why liberals refer to things like tax cuts as "government spending." Liberals say things like "why should the government spend $700 billion on tax cuts for the wealthy ?," as if a person's wages belong to Obama and company instead of to the person who earned those wages. And never mind that the wealthy already pay the highest taxes in the country by far. If you point that out to liberals, they will start reminiscing fondly about the "good old days," when the highest marginal tax rate was over 90% here in the land of the free-up-to-a-point-to-be-determined-by-liberal-wealth-confiscaters. In true Orwellian fashion, liberals call such discriminatory theft "fairness."But stealing more money from the wealthy will only take liberals so far. After all, reversing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy is only expected to bring in about $70 billion per year in additional government revenue, hardly enough to close the $1.3 trillion annual deficit. It's a drop in the bucket. Liberals need to find a really huge pile of money to steal in order to continue To read more or comment... Desperate Tax Measures Democrats are desperate to find issues to run on in the midterm elections. They know these elections will be all about the economy. They know America believes the Democrats have made the economy decidedly worse, and America thinks Obama's economic policies are sheer lunacy. Democrats can't run on ObamaCare, because America overwhelmingly rejects that as well. Democrats don't even talk about ObamaCare on the campaign trail, even though they hailed it as their crowing achievement a few short months ago, which the Dems termed a victory a hundred years in the making. You'd think they'd have the strength of their own convictions, but instead they run from ObamaCare like the plague. The usual liberal tactics, which consist of calling people who disagree with them bigots, is not working this time. Liberals have trotted out this firewall argument repeatedly, accusing their opponents of being homophobic, Islamophobic, Latinophobic, and racist against blacks. The electorate remains unimpressed. To read more or comment... Battle Of The Religious Nutballs - Part Two Pictured above are a "handful" of Muslims in Pakistan calling for the murder of a Danish cartoonist who drew a cartoon containing Mohammed's picture. That is punishable by death in IslamoCrazyTown. Westegard was the one who drew the cartoon with the picture of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban. In response, IslamoCrazyTown thugs went on a rampage of violence (thus reinforcing Westegard's point). ===We have learned that FBI officials visited the wannabe Koran-burner, Pastor Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center. The FBI warned Jones, according to NPR: The Standup Comedy Of Barack Obama Good evening, ladies and germs. Welcome to the Parma Laugh Factory. Our first comedian tonight will be none other then the President Of the United States, Barack "Shecky" Obama, live right here in Cleveland, Ohio. Without further ado, heeeeer'es Barry !!!:Obama: "I ran for President because for much of the last decade, a very specific governing philosophy had reigned about how America should work: Cut taxes, especially for millionaires and billionaires." Battle Of The Religious Nutballs Pastor Terry Jones runs a church in Florida called the Dove World Outreach Center. That's a nice-sounding name. A dove stands for peace, and we're all for world outreach. It's groovy, man. Let's join hands and sing "We Are The World."Unfortunately, Pastor Jones idea of peaceful world outreach takes the form of a good, old-fashioned book-burnin'. He got lots of publicitiy over his collosally stupid plans to burn a stack of Korans in a kind of unholy bonfire against Islam (attendees must bring their own weenies and marshmallows). To read more or comment... Hillary On The National Debt Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton gave a speech to the Council On Foreign Relations wednesday. The entire speech is worth reading/watching, but after the speech, during Q&A, she was asked about our national debt. Following is her response: "They Talk About Me Like A Dog" Everday in the week I'm in a different cityIf I stay too long people try to pull me downThey talk about me like a dogTalkin' About the clothes I wearBut they don't realize They're the ones who's square.--- Lyrics to Stone Free by Jimi Hendrix With the latest Washington Post/ABC poll of likely voters showing the GOP leading by 13 points on the generic Congressional ballot, expect a veritable blizzard of bullspit to come from Obama, the Democrats, and the mainstream media over the next two months leading up to the election.It should be interesting. It will also be mostly...insane. Here's some sample insanity: The Man Behind The Curtain Certain of my readers might think I'm a right-wing zealot, or maybe they think I'm just a mean old greedy white guy. They don't understand why I'm against so many liberal ideas. After all, liberals are the benevolent ones who only want to help people, right ? I mean, who could be against benevolent beliefs such as.....these ?: What Al Gore Has Wrought A left-wing enviro-nut armed with a gun and metal canisters looking like bombs strapped to his chest entered the Discovery Channel headquarters outside Washington D.C. yesterday. The gunman, James J. Lee, took three hostages, and was eventually killed by the police. Fortunately, nobody else was hurt. Lee was mad at the Discovery Channel because he felt Discovery wasn't featuring enough left-wing enviro-nut programming. He was a regular protester of Discovery, and following a 2008 arrest for disorderly conduct, Lee said he was "awakened" to his true enviro-nut calling after watching Al Gore's global warming scare film "An Inconvenient Truth," (which is filled with inaccuracies, btw). To read more or comment... I Don't Believe In Atheists By Da King "I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God." - Albert Einstein---Joke: One day, a zookeeper noticed the orangutan was reading two books, the Bible and On the Origin of Species. Surprised, he asked the orangutan why it was reading both books. "Well," said the orangutan (it was one of those fancy talking orangutans), "I just wanted to know if I was my brother's keeper or my keeper's brother".---Just as atheists don't believe in God, I don't believe in atheists. Atheism is the denial of God. There is no human on earth with the requisite knowledge to make such a sweeping declarative assesment, not even Obama (another joke). An atheist is like Einstein's child in the library saying he knows the books arrived there by some unexplainable and natural cosmic coincidence, as if the books, to use a loaded term, just evolved into existence. Even Darwin's book On The Origin Of Species doesn't actually tell us the, you know, origin of the species. Darwin couldn't explain how life began, because he didn't know. So we got speculation about primordial ooze instead. Btw, I heard primordial ooze was on sale this week at Walmart for $3.99 lb. You can pick some up and attempt to create life from it in your basement. Good luck. I could understand atheists a lot better if they called themselves agnostics (people who aren't sure), but no, atheists are pretty darned certain about their arrogance. The same could be said about Christians, but at least Christians have a book, a historical record. There was a Jesus, whether you want to believe in him or not. What do atheists have, other than their own feeling of superiority ?

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/7075

InterAction Statement on Final Legislation for Fiscal Year 2012 WASHINGTON, Dec. 16, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today, Congress is passing and sending to the President the final conference agreement on the nine remaining spending measures for fiscal 2012. U.S. NGOs are pleased to see the bi-partisan agreement reached by congressional appropriators protected vital funding for global health, development assistance, disaster assistance, and international organizations and programs such as UNICEF. "InterAction's 198 member organizations commend House and Senate negotiators for maintaining strong funding levels for global health and child survival programs, agriculture and food security, basic education, clean water, and international disaster and refugee assistance," said Samuel A. Worthington, president and CEO of InterAction. "Continued investments by Congress in these vital accounts meets not only the moral obligation to do the right thing in reducing global poverty, but also enhances the economic and national security interests of the United States," he added. See an analysis comparing final FY2012 funding levels with House and Senate-proposed levels and previous fiscal years on InterAction's website, www.interaction.org. InterAction is the largest alliance of U.S.-based nongovernmental international organizations, with more than 190 members. Our members operate in every developing country, working with local communities to overcome poverty and suffering by helping to improve their quality of life. Visit www.interaction.org SOURCE InterAction RELATED LINKS http://www.interaction.org More by this Source InterAction Applauds Passage of Water for the World Act View all news by InterAction See more news releases in Publishing & Information Services Advocacy Group Opinion Foreign Policy & International Affairs 2014

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/7120

Your browser does not support iframes. Read a digital copy of the latest edition of The Sentinel News online. SOUDER: Putting politics into the proper perspective -A A +A Truth be told, it's only God who truly matters. By Chuck Souder Friday, November 2, 2012 at 2:00 am (Updated: November 2, 2:02 am) more Young candidates see lost races as plans for future Voting process goes smoothly ELECTION 2014: U.S. House of Representatives Candidates state their cases By this time next week the elections will be over, and as a nation we will again have chosen those who will govern us for the next 2 or 4 years. One side will claim a hard-fought victory; the other will be left trying to figure out what went wrong. But regardless of whether the candidates you vote for win or lose, it is important to keep a proper perspective and realize that no matter who is elected, problems will still exist. This is true for at least a couple of reasons. One is that, particularly at the federal level, the problems we face are so large, and the national will to fight them so weak, that it would be difficult for anyone, even if they really wanted to, to totally turn things around. For example, perhaps the best we can hope for is that a new administration will at least slow down our current rush toward financial doom. To some extent, simply going the wrong way more slowly could be called progress. The second – and most important – reason that problems will still exist regardless of who is elected is that most of our problems as a nation are spiritual, not political, in nature. Therefore, they require solutions that are, to quote the current occupant of the White House, “above the pay grade” of the president or other elected officials. During the presidential election cycle in the summer of 2008, this joke made the rounds in conservative circles: John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were several miles out in the ocean in a small boat. There were no life preservers on board, so when the boat sank, who was saved? The answer, which made me chuckle the first time I heard it, was “the country!” Of course, the idea behind the joke was that if those three were the best candidates we could muster, then we would be better off without any of them. Naturally, those on the left weren’t as amused, since they thought they had two good candidates from which to choose. Indeed, when then-Senator Obama won his party’s nomination and then the presidency, many on the left described him in near messianic terms. In fact, after he had secured the nomination, Obama even spoke of himself in this way. “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal,” he said. “This was the moment when we ended a war, and secured our nation, and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.” However, now that he has been in office for four years, my guess is that all but the most left-leaning partisans would admit that the President hasn’t quite lived up to the “savior of the world” hype. And, of course, that was 100 percent predictable. As Cal Thomas has said, “The Messiah will not arrive on Air Force One.” The harsh reality is that whenever we put our hope in men (or women) or in governments we will inevitably be disappointed – and usually sooner rather than later. Psalm 118:8 says it this way: “It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man.” Psalm 146 elaborates, “Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save. When their spirit departs, they return to the ground; on that very day their plans come to nothing. Blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the Lord his God, the Maker of heaven and earth, the sea, and everything in them—the Lord, who remains faithful forever.” Jeremiah 17:5-8 makes the point even more strongly. “This is what the Lord says: ‘Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who depends on flesh for his strength and whose heart turns away from the Lord… But blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord, whose confidence is in Him.’” Yet many of us, Christians included, continue to fall into the trap of looking to the government to “save” us. As Eric Metaxes recently pointed out on the Breakpoint radio program, many of us have fallen for what Chuck Colson called “the political illusion.” What is the political illusion? Colson put it this way: “The political illusion is the notion that human nature can be perfected by government; that a New Jerusalem, so to speak, can be built using the tools of politics; and that politics is all that matters.” He went on to say that “the enormous destruction wrought by the Utopian ‘isms’ of the 20th century – like socialism, communism, fascism and Nazism – should have disabused us of this political illusion. But today people are turning once again to government to solve our problems.” Unfortunately, Colson was absolutely right. But over and over and over again the government proves to be a lousy messiah. If you aren’t already convinced that the government isn’t the best source of hope to fix our problems, consider just one example: poverty. Poverty is certainly an issue that is of concern to good-hearted people of every political persuasion. However, most people would be shocked to learn that for every family in the United States that is below the poverty level, our local, state and federal governments spend over $61,000 on anti-poverty programs – each year! Let that sink in for a moment and then try to keep your head from exploding. Metaxes conclude his commentary this way: “And we Christians are not immune to Utopian political thinking either. How many of us are thinking, ‘Well, if we get rid of this candidate, or vote our guy in, things will be okay. If we overturn Obamacare or hold back the rising tide of so-called gay ‘marriage,’ the country will be saved.’” For sure, the Messiah will not arrive on Air Force One. Our salvation will not come from any politician, political party or government program. As pastor and author Tony Evans said, “God doesn’t ride on the backs of donkeys or elephants!” However, that isn’t to say that elections don’t matter; they absolutely do. Ideas have consequences. So, although it’s true that politicians will never solve all our problems, it’s also true they can certainly make them worse! This is why my last several columns have encouraged Christians to make choices that honor God (and are most beneficial to our country). Nevertheless, as a Christian, I believe that Jesus is ultimately the only hope for us as individuals, for our country and for our world. The reality is that – unlike the joke at the beginning of today’s column – we are all in that sinking boat. And regardless of who wins the election, my prayer is that we would turn to the only One who can save us. Chuck Souder is on staff at Shelby Christian Church. He can be reached at csouder@shelbychristian.org. Find other columns by Souder at www.SentinelNews.com/columns.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/7159

The Post notes that Hagel "repeatedly voted against sanctions" against Iran. This much is true, but Hagel has also voted repeatedly for sanctions and taken action in the Senate to forestall a nuclear-armed Iran. Hagel, for example, co-sponsored of a 2006 resolution condemning Iran's nuclear program and urging that the U.N.'s atomic agency refer the Islamic Republic to the Security Council. This is consistent with Hagel's internationalist ethos and, moreover, the Security Council's sanctions on Iran are the only ones that have been shown to actually retard Iran's progress. Hagel noted rightly in a 2007 talk to the Center For Strategic and International Studies that he has fulsomely supported efforts towards "maintaining a cohesive, concentrated and united international front" which "remains an effective and responsible element of a strategic policy towards Iran."There's more: Post columnist Dana Milbank today points to two other examples in Hagel's support for the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act and the later version, the Iran Nonproliferation Act, that was signed into law. The bill, to this day, is used to impose targeted sanctions against individuals and entities that are seen to be furthering Iranian weapons of mass destruction programs. Hagel also acceded to the 2006 codification of an executive order imposing sanctions on others tied to Iran's nuclear program.Lastly, there's the Post's notion that Hagel's policies on Iran "fall well to the left of those pursued by Mr. Obama during his first term." At CSIS, Hagel said, "Our strategy must be one focused on direct engagement and diplomacy, backed by leverage of international pressure, military options, isolation, and containment." That sure sounds a lot like Obama's policies. (Hagel outlined similar views in an op-ed in the Post—while urging that we discuss ramifications of a military strike—which the editors noted but dismissed.) But the Post adds, "Mr. Obama has said that his policy is to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and that containment is not an option." The editors ought to level with their readers that the military option alone cannot "prevent" a nuclear Iran, and that though Obama swears off containment of a nuclear armed-Iran, his policy until Iran crosses that threshold has indeed been one of containment, no matter what labels the administration affixes to it. And if Hagel is so out of step with Obama, one wonders why his views laid out in a May interview with Foreign Policy tracked so closely to the administration's position that we needn't yet attack Iran, and that diplomacy was the "best and most permanent way" to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons. It seems strange that someone out of step with the administration would utter, in that interview, the words, "I think Obama is handling this exactly the right way."

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/7161

Norwich: Hinchey the winner in mayor's race Norwich mayoral Democratic challenger Deb Hinchey celebrates with her supporters as she enters Billy Wilson's Ageing Still after Hinchey defeated incumbent Mayor Peter Nystrom in Tuesday's election in Norwich Nov. 5, 2013. Norwich — Democratic mayoral candidate Deberey Hinchey became the city’s first female mayor Tuesday, defeating incumbent Republican Peter Nystrom by 218 votes in a race that was too close to call until the final precinct — the mayor’s home district — was reported.Libertarian candidate William Russell received 369 votes, finishing a distant third.As she did in her primary victory over fellow Democratic Alderman Charles Jaskiewicz, Hinchey won big in her neighborhood precinct, by 120 votes, with a 113-vote margin in the city’s largest voting precinct, which covers much of the urban center, including Nystrom’s neighborhood.Final totals weren’t released until nearly 10 p.m. Hinchey was mobbed by supporters as she entered Billy Wilson’s Ageing Still shortly thereafter.“Wonderful,” Hinchey said with a smile. “It feels wonderful. On the way over, I got a call from the governor… We worked so hard. We campaigned everywhere.”Nystrom, a Republican with a long record of winning in the heavily Democratic City of Norwich, was visibly disappointed at the loss late Tuesday. He served as a state legislator for 18 years, with two stints on the City Council and one four-year term as mayor.“I’m disappointed,” he said outside the registrars’ office at City Hall. “You run for elections. You win some and you lose some.”Both candidates said they worked very hard and ran on the issues, with no attack ads.One major difference in this year’s race was Hinchey’s decision to hire a professional campaign consulting firm at a cost of well over $10,000 for the primary and general election campaigns. Nystrom said he could not compete with the more than $24,000 she raised and didn’t try. In October, the city’s two registrars filed an election complaint with the state against the firm, Vinci Group, accusing the firm’s owner of coercing voters and attempting to intimidate registrars.Hinchey said she based her campaign on making personal contact with as many voters as possible. She said in some cases, residents told her she was the first candidate to come to their doors.“We wanted voter contact, and that’s what we did,” she said.Hinchey pledged to resign from her job as a clinical social worker in Mansfield to devote herself to the mayoral position full time, a point of contention during the campaign. Nystrom works full time for United Parcel Service, but argued that he was able to devote many hours to the mayoral position as well.Democratic Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman both issued statements following Hinchey’s victory.“I would like to congratulate Mayor-Elect Deb Hinchey on her history-making win tonight — becoming the first woman elected mayor of Norwich,” Malloy said. “She’s been an advocate for investing in downtown infrastructure for economic development, while also supporting local services that guarantee a great quality of life. I look forward to working with her and partnering with her administration.”Wyman said Hinchey is dedicated to working on important issues that affect the local economy, such as “education, downtown revitalization and public safety. I'm excited to see what strides she will make during her first term,” he said.The City Council during the first two years of Hinchey’s four-year term will include a mixture of experience and new blood.Democrats Terell Wilson and Bill Eyberse won seats, along with incumbent Democrats Mark Bettencourt, the highest vote-getter, and Francois “Pete” Desaulniers. Republican incumbent Sofee Noblick and Republican former Alderman Bill Nash also won.With the mayor having a vote on the seven-member City Council, Democrats once again will have the maximum allowed 5-2 majority.“It’s still a little surreal,” Wilson, 21, said after confirming his victory. “It’s been kind of overwhelming.”Wilson might be new to city politics, but not to elected leadership roles. He served five years as president of the NAACP state chapter’s Youth and College Council. He said he will bring the youth perspective, giving a voice to the generation that will inherit the city in the years to come.c.bessette@theday.com Norwich Mayor Peter Nystrom takes a quiet moment with his wife, Linda, as they wait for the final voting tallies at Norwich City Hall as Nystrom is defeated by Democratic challenger Deb Hinchey in Tuesday's election Nov. 5, 2013. A voter arrives at the Precinct 2 polls at Kelly Middle School in Norwich Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2013. Big-city campaigning comes to Norwich Dems win cities First order of business for Hinchey in Norwich: avoid layoffs

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/7162

GOP soul searching History may come to view Tuesday's election as the start of the fight for the soul of the Republican Party, culminating in the direction it takes in selecting a candidate for the 2016 presidential election.In one wing of the party are the more traditional Republicans, primarily concerned with providing a healthy climate for business, fiscal constraint and low taxes. It is a wing more willing to compromise to achieve its goals, less fixated on cultural issues such as abortion and gay marriage. This wing sees immigration reform, with its path to citizenship for those who arrived here unlawfully, as politically practical in attracting Latino voters and good for business by bringing millions out of the shadow economy.The other wing, a combination of the tea party movement and what is left of the Moral Majority, insists on greater ideological purity. They demand dramatic reductions in government spending and programs, with little stomach to compromise. They see immigration reform as a pseudonym for amnesty, awarding people for their illegal actions when coming here. They will not bend on abortion or gay marriage, despite any perceived political advantage, considering these moral wrongs they cannot accept.With his landslide re-election victory in a Democratic state, Republican Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey demonstrated traditional, pragmatic Republicanism has the far greater chance of prevailing in a national election. Gov. Christie's combination of fiscal conservatism, a demonstrated ability to find compromises and moderation on cultural issues - he supports immigration reform, the constitutional protection of reproductive rights, and ended his fight against same-sex marriage when the court ruled against his administration - attracted constituencies that Republicans need to win at a national level.Gov. Christie received 57 percent of the female vote, 51 percent of the Latino vote, and the support of 21 percent of black voters.But in the presidential primary process, will conservatives in Iowa and the South accept a Gov. Christie or someone like him or demand an ideological purist who will again demonstrate how to lose a general election? That is the debate likely to play out in the GOP over the next three years. McAuliffe elected governor of Va. over Cuccinelli N.J. Gov. Christie wins 2nd term

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/7164

Mayor-picking time in New London looms Could it be too soon to think about New London's mayoral race of 2015, even as the March winds of 2014 still blow so cold?Nah.After all, the country is already engaged in presidential politics of 2016, from the deflation of Chris Christie to Hillary Clinton's reach for the family crown.Besides, I think New Londoners have thoroughly enjoyed having a full-time mayor to kick around for the last couple of years, for the first time in a long while.Imagine the fun of picking one again.The inaugural full-time mayor, Daryl Finizio, must like the job, because he has officially announced he's in for another run next year. This is a little like stepping off the roller coaster and getting in line to buy another ticket.City Councilor and city firefighter Michael Passero hasn't announced yet, but he couldn't look more like a candidate if he wore a sandwich board with his name on it around town.I'm not sure whether Passero more likes the idea of being mayor or the idea of evicting his fellow Democrat from City Hall. My advice: Don't get between the two of them, any more than you would want to separate fighting dogs.For comic relief, there is former City Councilor Marie Friess-McSparran, who, you may recall, ran again for council last election as a Republican, after Democrats rejected her. She finished third from the bottom of the big pack.Friess-McSparran, who said recently she is exploring a run for mayor, seems to have as a principal plank in her platform the fact that she hates the incumbent mayor. But, heck, stand in line. I think a lot of people are probably prepared to run on that platform.There are others in the current cast of characters running the city who certainly may give a mayoral run a go.But I am hoping for a wider field, the more the merrier.I know of one member of the New London Democratic Town Committee who would make an excellent mayoral candidate. But city Democrats rejected his council bid for the last election and probably can't be counted on to acknowledge his exceptional qualifications in 2015.Chris Soto, a Latino who grew up in a modest neighborhood in New Jersey, graduated in 2003 from the Coast Guard Academy. After serving as a Coast Guard officer in drug interdiction and harbor defense, he returned to the academy to work in its diversity office.He later earned a master's degree from Brown University, then went on to start a New London nonprofit dedicated to helping high school kids, especially the children of parents who did not go to college, to navigate the process of applying to college.It is hard to imagine a better set of credentials for someone running for mayor in New London.I've met Soto a few times and he strikes me as not only smart, honest and polite, as are so many Coast Guard Academy graduates, but also engaged, charming and inclusive, someone well suited to weave together the various factions of the city.I have also heard some mention of the intriguing notion of state Rep. Ernest Hewett making a run for mayor.I believe Hewett might have felt betrayed by the Democratic leadership in Hartford, after his innocent snake remark. But they have the chance to make it up to him this session, if they help put into law a requirement that New London and other municipalities can tax nonprofit colleges and hospitals.That would be some big bacon for Hewett to bring home from Hartford and lay out for the 2015 New London mayoral race.Without the benefit of polling, it would be hard to fully assess Mayor Finizio's chances at winning a second term. But reading the social media tea leaves, it would seem it doesn't look so good.It is hard to imagine how he can successfully climb out of the quagmire of a broken public works department and an understaffed and combative police department run by a chief who has been missing for so long it seems like they should issue a silver alert for her.I don't think they can have enough simulated groundbreaking for a new Coast Guard Museum by the fall of 2015 to make that project a factor.More worrisome for the mayor is the fact that Democrats didn't even re-elect him to their town committee. It's hard to think they will support him for another term as mayor.But, hey, the winds of March haven't even started to warm up yet.This is the opinion of David Collinsd.collins@theday.com Loading comment count...

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/7201

Ayotte critical of Obama for missing fourth budget deadline in five years WASHINGTON -- U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte on Monday criticized President Barack Obama for missing a legal deadline to present a budget to Congress.It was the fourth time in five years the President has missed the deadline for a budget blueprint, which is the first Monday in February.The White House said this year's budget blueprint was delayed by the last-minute passage earlier this month of the tax hikes aimed at averting the so-called "fiscal cliff." It said negotiations over that plan forced it to delay its budget preparations.Ayotte, a New Hampshire Republican and a member of the Senate Budget Committee, said, "On the day President Obama is required by law to submit a budget, we're hearing crickets from the White House."It's the same on Capitol Hill, where Senate Democrats have failed for nearly four years to pass a budget for the country while nearly $6 trillion has been added to our debt," said Ayotte. "The President is not above the law. He's legally required to send Congress a budget on time, and there's no excuse that this is the fourth time in five years that he's missed the deadline."With four straight years of $1 trillion-plus deficits, we can't afford to keep operating without a budget," said Ayotte.The Washington Times reported that President George W. Bush was late once in his eight years in office, President Bill Clinton was late twice and presidents George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan were each late once.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/7215

Home / Blog Did Joe Biden hint at possible 2016 presidential run? [VIDEO] | Updated Jan. 21, 2013 at 3:19 PM Comments | License Photo Though Joe Biden got sworn in as Vice President for his second term Yesterday, the 70-year-old politician appears to have his sights set on the 2016 election. Multiple media sites have reported that Biden might be gearing up for a presidential run in 2016, especially after he mistakenly referred to himself as the president of the United States during Saturday's surprise appearance at the Iowa State Inaugural Ball in Washington, D.C. "I'm proud to be President of the United States," the Vicepresident told the audience before laughing and starting over," "I'm proud to be Vice President of the United States, but I'm prouder to be President Barack Obama's vice president." Moreover, many attribute New Hampshire Gov. Maggie Hassan's invitation to Biden's swearing in ceremony as another hint that the vice president is already thinking about the 2016 caucuses, as New Hampshire is one of the first states to hold the primaries. Biden himself has also hinted at the possibility of running for office. The Vice President was quoted saying, "You'll vote for me in 2016" while on the phone with a Republican voter, and when asked if this was the last time he expected to vote for himself during election day, he responded, "No, I don't think so." Though a recent CNN poll states that the Vice President's approval rating has gone up, he is still not popular enough to beat everyone's hopeful contestant, Hilary Clinton. "If Biden were to run in 2016, polls show he'd be a popular candidate, though not as popular as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who's also speculated to be considering a run," CNN reported. Related UPI Stories The Most Depressing Day of the Year: Welcome to January 21 Obama on Michelle's bangs: I love them [VIDEO] George W. Bush's truck sells for 300K WATCH LIVE: President Obama's Second Inauguration

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/7398

Sat September 8, 2012 Inside Security Council Talks On Syria Share Tweet E-mail Print By editor Listen Listening... Transcript SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Last week, the French ended their rotation at the head of United Nations Security Council. Their permanent representative, Ambassador Gerard Araud, had one preeminently difficult issue on his agenda while in charge. And, of course, that was the question of what to do about Syria. Ambassador Araud joins us from his office in New York City. Mr. Ambassador, thanks very much for being with us. AMBASSADOR GERARD ARAUD: Good morning. SIMON: Mr. Ambassador, first, of course, there seemed to be more reports of civilian deaths every day in Syria. How frustrating were these last few months for you? ARAUD: It was extremely frustrating because we have seen Syria sinking into what is now a real civil war. And we have desperately tried to avoid it because this country has an incredible potential for violence, violence within Syria and unfortunately also beyond the borders of Syria. SIMON: Can you give us some insight into the discussions that have gone on on the Security Council and especially why when the security council decries the violence it's been so difficult to agree on a course of action to try much of anything. ARAUD: Well, actually, we have faced three Russian vetoes in a row on the same crisis, and I think we have not seen such a crisis since the end of the Cold War. I think there is a fundamental political difference. The Russians are telling us we have a choice between on one side Assad; on the other side Islamist radicals. We don't like Assad so much but we prefer him to the Islamist radicals. On our side, we are telling them with your policy, we are going to have Assad and then the Islamist radicals. Because more we are waiting and more the Islamist radicals will be influential within the opposition, more the opposition will be radicalized. So, it's a real political debate. Very tough. SIMON: Mr. Ambassador, are the opposition Islamist radicals? Is that accurate? ARAUD: I think in the beginning, no. It was not, there were not Islamist radicals. There were simply Syrians who were protesting against dictatorship, which has been around for 40 years and which is quite brutal and corrupt. But more the time is going and more, you know, radicals are coming. Al-Qaida, you know, started to be active in Syria, coming from Iraq. And we know there are Salafis coming from Iraq also. And it's obvious that when you have a civil war, usually the opposition is radicalized with the time. So, there is a danger - at the end - there is a danger that the radicals will have an influence on the final outcome of the crisis. So, that's a reason why, beyond the humanitarian aspect, that we really want to solve the crisis as soon as possible. SIMON: Mr. Ambassador, I probably don't need to tell a French diplomat that there are some of these anxieties, very similar anxieties, that went on in Bosnia years ago, and with the result being massacres continued to occur and I think the European democracies, including France and Britain, who actually did commit some troops in Bosnia in peacekeeping forces, have wound up regretting their inaction. Is there that risk now? ARAUD: Well, I suspect that we can conclude unfortunately that now the action is out of the Security Council, that we have all concluded that nothing is possible in Security Council because of the Russian and Chinese stance. If one of the two sides decide to negotiate, if the government decides to negotiate, so maybe the Security Council could come back to the stage. But for the moment, I don't see any way to get out of the blockage that we are facing. SIMON: Ambassador Araud, that raises a larger question: What's the future of the United Nations if it can't find a common course of action for what is one of the preeminent disasters on the planet? ARAUD: But, you know, I'm always, frankly, I'm always a bit surprised by this sort of question because actually United Nations itself, you know, it's a group of these united nations. The United Nations may work on when its members decide to work together on a lot of issues. For instance, the (unintelligible) conflict. The members of Security Council are so divided that the U.N. can't do anything, as you know. So, the United Nations is effective when on some issues, the member states decide that they have a common interest to find a common solution. And there are a lot of issues where we don't succeed to do it. Frankly, on Afghanistan, Iraq, the (unintelligible) conflict, the whole of the U.N. is very marginal. There are issues in Africa where we are working together. But on a lot of issues we simply can't, and it's not the responsibility of the United Nations; it's the responsibility of the nations, which disagree. SIMON: Yeah. Looking forward to your next rotation? ARAUD: My next rotation, it's in 15 months. SIMON: And you think you'll be addressing some of these same issues? ARAUD: Well, I do hope, I do pray that in 15 months, you know, the Syrian crisis would have found a peaceful solution. But, frankly, for the moment I, beyond this act of faith, I can't answer to your question. SIMON: Ambassador Gerard Araud, who is permanent representative from France to the United Nations. Thank you very much. ARAUD: Thank you very much. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/7461

Search Archive Primary tabsSearch Blogs(active tab) Browse by Blog: - Any -Beat the PressVox PopThe Monkey CageTAPPED Browse by Year: Year -Year1990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014 The Limitations of Barack Obama's Rhetorical Repertoire Paul WaldmanSep 03, 2014 U.S. Army photo by Spec. Daniel J. HerreraIf there's one thing we can all agree on, it's that Barack Obama is not good enough at making Americans feel angry and afraid. When he first ran for president, we were astounded at his rhetorical gifts, but in retrospect they seem so touchy-feely. He made his listeners feel things like hope, optimism, and inspiration. Which is all well and good, but a country that can't go more than a few years without invading somebody needs a leader who knows how to beat the war drums, get the blood pumping, ride his horse back and forth in front of the assembled troops and shout, " This day, we fight! " Barack Obama is not that leader. He doesn't do anger and fear, probably because he tends not to get angry or afraid. So who can step up to don that mantle? Little Joey Biden, that's who : Vice President Joe Biden used the strongest language to date from the Obama administration in response to the beheading of American journalist Steven Sotloff by ISIS militants. Speaking at the Portsmouth Naval... Read more about The Limitations of Barack Obama's Rhetorical Repertoire PinItInstapaperPocketEmailPrint Don't Blame Eric Cantor For His New Gig Paul WaldmanSep 02, 2014 Richmond, VA, where Eric Cantor will not be living. (Flickr/rvaphotodude)To no one's real surprise, former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor announced today that because his years representing Virginia's 7th district in Congress had so infused him with the desire to serve others, he'll be spending his post-congressional career passing out blankets for Doctors Without Borders in disaster zones all over the...no, I'm kidding. He'll be joining a boutique investment bank , opening a Washington office from which he'll offer strategic advice to well-heeled clients. Good work, if you can get it. Which you can't, but Eric Cantor can. This makes him a bit different than most people in his position, since they tend to become lobbyists upon leaving Congress, whereas it sounds like Cantor won't have to suffer the indignity of asking his former colleagues for favors. And you can't blame him, since this is a horrible time to be a lobbyist, what with Congress not passing any laws. But Cantor's new gig highlights something I talked about in my column earlier today, about... Read more about Don't Blame Eric Cantor For His New Gig The Stupidity of Hating Your Senator for Living Where You've Sent Her to Work Paul WaldmanSep 02, 2014 (MSNBC/Morning Joe)(MSNBC/Morning Joe) T his year, not one, but two, incumbent senators up for re-election have been dogged by the "issue" of the precise location where they rest their heads at the end of a weary day of lawmaking. First it was Republican Pat Roberts, who, we learned in February , lists the home of some friends as his official residence in Kansas; apparently he crashes there when he's in the state. And now it's Democrat Mary Landrieu, whose heretofore unimpeachable Louisiana roots (her father Moon was the mayor of New Orleans in the 1970s, and her brother Mitch holds that office today) are now being questioned. It seems that although Landrieu owns a home in Washington, she's registered to vote in the New Orleans house she grew up in, where her parents still reside (even though it's technically owned by Mary and her eight siblings, all of whose names begin with "M"—make of that what you will). The opposition researchers have certainly been earning their keep. But should the rest of us... Read more about The Stupidity of Hating Your Senator for Living Where You've Sent Her to Work Is Elizabeth Warren Just an Ordinary Politician? Paul WaldmanAug 29, 2014 Flickr/Edward KimmelHero-worship is always risky in politics, because if you put all your hopes on one politician, eventually you're sure to be disappointed. And so it has come that Elizabeth Warren, who inspires more dewy-eyed infatuation than any other current Democratic officeholder, may have given her liberal admirers a reason to feel dismayed. This article from the Cape Cod Times is a week old, but it's just now making the rounds, and it shows that on one subject, Warren isn't quite the same strong progressive some might hope her to be. Here's what happened when a constituent criticized her vote to send an additional $225 million to Israel during the recent military conflict in Gaza: Warren told Bangert she appreciated his comments, but "we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one." "I think the vote was right, and I'll tell you why I think the vote was right," she said. "America has a very special relationship with Israel. Israel lives in a very dangerous part of the world, and a part of... Read more about Is Elizabeth Warren Just an Ordinary Politician? Why Republicans Can't Solve Their Problem With Women Voters Paul WaldmanAug 28, 2014 Dangerous radicals who thought women should be able to vote. (1927 photo from the Duke University Archives)I'll give Republicans credit for this: they keep trying to figure out why their party remains unappealing to large and important groups of voters. They've been mulling over their problem with Latino voters for some time, and now Politico has gotten a hold of a study commissioned by some GOP bigwigs to figure out why women keep giving more of their votes to Democrats: But in Washington, Republican policies have failed to sway women — in fact, they appear to have turned women off. For example, the focus groups and polls found that women "believe that 'enforcing equal pay for equal work' is the policy that would 'help women the most.'" "Republicans who openly deny the legitimacy of the issue will be seen as out of touch with women's life experiences," the report warned, hinting at GOP opposition to pay-equity legislation. It's the policy item independents and Democrats believe will help women the most. The groups suggest a three-pronged approach to turning around their relationship with... Read more about Why Republicans Can't Solve Their Problem With Women Voters The Difference Between Accuracy and Fairness In Campaign Ads Paul WaldmanAug 26, 2014 From a Mark Pryor ad explaining that Tom Cotton may or may not want your children to get Ebola.Before we get to today's campaign nastiness, a word about that creature known as "opposition research." Most people who are familiar with the term probably think it means something like "digging up dirt" on your opponent, which must involve things like going through the transcripts of his divorce to read about that time his wife came home early to find him doing unspeakable things with a roll of cling wrap, or rooting through his garbage to read his credit card bills. Every once in a while it can, but oppo researchers' biggest job is usually going through every vote the client's opponent ever took to see what sort of hay can be made out of them. Since bills are often complex—particularly budget bills that can have hundreds and hundreds of items in them—it's usually possible to say, "Our opponent voted for this horrible thing," or alternatively, "Our opponent voted against this wonderful thing," whether or not that was the intention of his vote. Even on bills whose provisions are less... Read more about The Difference Between Accuracy and Fairness In Campaign Ads The Silver Lining for Democrats if They Lose the Senate in 2014 Paul WaldmanAug 25, 2014 Click inside for the full charty goodness.There are really only two possible outcomes for Democrats in this year's Senate elections. Either Republicans are going to win enough seats to take control of the chamber, or Democrats will hold on by the skin of their teeth. The first outcome is more likely, simply because of the map. Democrats are defending twenty-one seats while Republicans are only defending fifteen seats. Furthermore, many of those Democratic seats are in conservative states like West Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Montana, making it even tougher. So if you're a Democrat who's getting depressed by the prospect of a Republican Senate and all the loveliness that would bring, here's something that might make you feel a little better. A couple of weeks ago, I made a graph showing all this year's Democratic candidates and the tough environment many face. I decided to duplicate it for the 2016 races, as a little liberal pick-me-up. Here's the good news for Democrats: Even if Republicans take the Senate this year,... Read more about The Silver Lining for Democrats if They Lose the Senate in 2014 The Fire This Time: America's Withdrawal From the Fight Against Racism Guarantees More Fergusons Bob HerbertAug 25, 2014 (AP Photo/St. Louis Post-Dispatch, J.B. Forbes)(AP Photo/St. Louis Post-Dispatch, J.B. Forbes) A protester shouts as she moves away from a line of riot police in Ferguson, Missouri, on Wednesday, Aug. 13, 2014. (AP Photo/St. Louis Post-Dispatch, J.B. Forbes) This article originally appeared on the Policy Shop website of Demos . I remember the stunned reaction of so many Americans back in the summer of 2005 when legions of poor black people in desperate circumstances seemed to have suddenly and inexplicably materialized in New Orleans during the flooding that followed Hurricane Katrina. Expressions of disbelief poured in from around the nation: “How can this be happening?” “I had no idea conditions were that bad.” “My God, is this America?” People found themselves staring at the kind of poverty they thought had been largely wiped out decades earlier. President George W. Bush seemed as astonished as anyone. He made an eerie, oddly-lit, outdoor appearance in the city’s French Quarter on the evening of September 15 to announce that... Read more about The Fire This Time: America's Withdrawal From the Fight Against Racism Guarantees More Fergusons Why We Need Killer Robots Paul WaldmanAug 22, 2014 See, they can be our friends. (Flickr/Brian Gyss)If there's one thing we can all agree on, it's that we don't want killer robots on the battlefield, mowing down the pathetic human meatsacks in front of them as they practice for the inevitable uprising in which they enslave us all. Or do we? The other day, Rose Eveleth reported in the Atlantic about a company called Clearpath Robotics that had issued an open letter foreswearing the manufacture of killer robots (which we can define as robots that can make the decision to kill human beings without the approval of a human being). This follows on a lengthy 2012 report from Human Rights Watch laying out the case against any military creating such machines, and a UN meeting in May at which countries were urged not to develop autonomous systems with the ability to kill on their own. But I'm here to say: we need killer robots. Let's understand first of all that we're some time away from having software sophisticated enough that we could trust it to operate a lethal machine on its own on a... Read more about Why We Need Killer Robots Why Rand Paul Is a Press Management Wizard Paul WaldmanAug 22, 2014 Flickr/Gage SkidmoreHow does Rand Paul do it? He's not someone who can give a speech that'll make you cry, like Barack Obama can, and he's not someone who lights up a room like Bill Clinton. He's never written a law, let alone an important one that improved people's lives. Nobody thinks he's some kind of super-genius. When he first came on the political scene he was stumbling all over himself to reconcile his quasi-libertarian beliefs with mainstream opinion. And yet he gets way more attention than anybody else running for president. While it would be foolish to talk about anyone being a front-runner at this point, he seems to have at least as good a shot as anyone at being at least one of the main contenders vying for the Republican nomination. So how does he do it? Let's take a look at today's case study, a front-page article in the Washington Post about a trip Paul took to Guatemala to do some charitable ophthalmological work. (Paul is an ophthalmologist.) The Post sent a reporter down with him, at no... Read more about Why Rand Paul Is a Press Management Wizard

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/7508

Congresswoman Waters Issues Statement on FHA's Annual Report By: Maxine Waters Date: Nov. 16, 2012 Location: Washington, DC Congresswoman Maxine Waters (CA-35) released the following statement in response to the Federal Housing Administration's annual financial status report issued to Congress today: "While I remain concerned about the health of the Federal Housing Administration's (FHA) Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund (MMIF), I think it is important to balance these concerns with a recognition of FHA's crucial role in our housing finance system. At a time when the private market constricted, FHA stepped up, providing crucial liquidity and access to the mortgage market. All told, over the course of its 78-year history, FHA has helped millions of Americans achieve homeownership, with a particular focus on first-time and minority homebuyers. "I believe that Congress should continue to closely monitor FHA's health, and while it's clear that the MMIF is in a vulnerable position, I also think that we should not act precipitously to limit loan availability, especially as the housing recovery remains fragile. "Over the past three years, FHA has taken corrective action to address prior problems, including increases to premiums, ending the practice of seller-funded down payment assistance, and lender enforcement efforts. In fact, I am pleased that the report confirms what many of us believed -- that this Administration's actions beginning in 2009 have resulted in a book of business that is expected to yield a net positive return and help offset the anticipated losses resulting from loans insured between 2007 and 2009. "I intend to work with the Administration, and my colleagues in Congress, to continue the improvement in the quality of loans insured by FHA that we've seen in the last few years, and I would also urge my colleagues in the Senate to take up the bipartisan FHA reform bill the House has passed over the last two Congressional sessions. I hope that we can continue a discussion of FHA during a wider housing finance reform debate during the next Congress." Source: http://waters.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=312511

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/7545

US' move to arm Syrian rebels poignant in aftermath of Aleppo attack US Secretary of State John Kerry has postponed his scheduled visit to the region in light of a series of talks occurring within the Obama administration this week on Syria, with a possible view to arm the Syrian rebels in light of regime successes. The United States could imminently make a decision over its choice to arm the Syrian rebels, officials said on Monday, as it was announced that US Secretary of State John Kerry was postponing a Middle Eastern tour to attend the discussions. The issue of arming the Syrian opposition has been a hot topic within the Obama administration for months. As of yet, the ruling powers have decided against arming Syrian President Bashar Assad's opposition, due to fears over whose hands the arms would end up in. A US official who spoke to Reuters on the condition of anonymity said that although the subject of arming the rebels is likely to be brought up within the White House this week, deliberations over the issue or the enforcing of any decision made would likely take a lot longer. The same source added that Kerry had put off his planned visit to Israel and Palestine on hold so that he could be part of the discussions. It is likely that the flurry of gains and successes made by the Assad regime in Syria over the past two weeks have spurred the US towards making a decision over arming the rebels. The battle seems to be uphill for the beleaguered Syrian rebels, as the Assad regime, propped up by the Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah, has made significant gains over the past two weeks, including securing the strategic town of Qusayr [2]. Shortly after it was announced that the US would deliberate over providing assistance to the rebels, reports from inside Syria siad that the regime had launched an offensive against the northern province of Aleppo [3], where many of the rebels have been staying. The recent ground developments in Syria may be significantly jeopardising the likelihood of the previously planned US-Russian peace conference over Syria. The negotiations sought to bring both regime and rebel representatives to the discussion table [4], with a view of organising a political transition that would remove Assad from power. However, now that his troops have been making gains in the long held rebel-bastions in Syria, it seems unlikely that Assad would have any incentive to participate in the international talks. [5] © 2013 Al Bawaba (Albawaba.com) Source URL: http://www.albawaba.com/news/kerry-postones-regional-tour-us-talks-arming-syria-rebels-498496 [2] http://www.albawaba.com/news/syrian-army-totally-controls-qusayr-border-497022 [3] http://www.albawaba.com/news/syrian-army-shells-rebel-held-aleppo-airbase-498483 [4] http://www.albawaba.com/news/russia-us-syria-490156 [5] http://www.albawaba.com

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/7597

The LGBT Faction Of Occupy Los Angeles Protested Lloyd Blankfein's Support Of Gay Marriage This Weekend Lisa Du Mar. 19, 2012, 4:08 PM 515 When Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein became the first national corporate spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign (HRC)—an advocacy group that promotes equal rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people—it was expected that there would be many who wouldn't see eye-to-eye with the executive. But we didn't expect this—a faction of Occupy Los Angeles called the Occupy Los Angeles Queer Affinity Group is protesting HRC's decision to retain Blankfein as a spokesperson because of the nature of his work, CNBC's Jane Wells reported. Essentially, although the QAG supports gay marriage, they don't want Blankfein to be associated with it. Wow. This weekend, the group wore hazmat suits to denote the hazardous nature of HRC's relationship with Goldman, and protested at a HRC fundraiser in Los Angeles. "HRC dump Goldman Sachs!" was a common chant. A spokesperson for the group told Wells that the protest was planned way before the Greg Smith resignation letter fiasco, but the timing "couldn't be more relevant" as Goldman's business practices has drawn national attention and interest as a result of the letter. CNBC just aired a clip from the protest this weekend: They support gay marriage, but not Lloyd.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/7624

Strengthen our unity Tuesday, January 1, 2013 Tags: Editorial Comments The monthly ritual at the Western Wall has now become a melodrama of political theatre. The Women of the Wall bring prayer shawls, some bring tfillin, to their court-designated location at the Western Wall for the prayers ushering in the new month. But the women are prohibited – by a decision of the rabbinic establishment and sanctioned by the Israeli Supreme Court – from wearing prayer shawls, for the shawl is considered by that rabbinic establishment to be halachically forbidden to women. And thus, the police, some enthusiastically, some quite embarrassed, are compelled to enforce the law by confiscating the women’s prayer shawls and detaining the women intent on wearing the shawls on suspicion of “disturbing public order.” The real underlying issue is less theological than it is political, namely, who is to set the rules for prayer and Jewish ritual congress in Israel’s public spaces. Given the historical, religious, national and emotional significance of so many of Israel’s public spaces – especially the Western Wall – to the entirety of the Jewish People, the question can no longer be considered “merely” an internal domestic issue within Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu understands this. A public policy that does not also somehow accommodate non-Orthodox rituals of prayer at the Western Wall alienates millions of Jews who consider themselves excluded because their way in the Jewish faith is not that of Israel’s rabbinate. Thus, he, the prime minister, last week asked Jewish Agency chairman Natan Sharansky to find a way that does accommodate non-Orthodox prayer at the Wall. Despite the hold on Jewish religious institutions in Israel by the haredi establishment, there are encouraging signs that changes may not be too far off. As reported in the Jerusalem Post, two leading non-haredi Orthodox rabbis have expressed support for accommodating non-Orthodox prayer at the Western Wall. Rabbi Yuval Cherlow, dean of the Hesder Yeshiva in Petah Tikva, told the Jerusalem Post last week that “Jerusalem is at the heart of the Jewish People, and if we want all of the Jewish People to feel connected there, then we need to find a place for all parts of the Jewish People at the Western Wall.” Rabbi Benny Lau said the fact that only Orthodox worshippers feel at home at the Western Wall is damaging to the Jewish people and that the “sectoralization” of the site “distances other Jews from their heritage.” As Netanyahu himself noted when he instructed Sharansky to undertake this new important task, “the Western Wall must remain a source of Jewish unity rather than division.” The unity – not uniformity – of the Jewish People has been one of the millennial cords binding us together in common moral commitment through the long years of history. We must do our utmost to buttress that unity, not undermine it. We commend Netanyahu for this initiative. View the discussion thread. Search: Tweets by @TheCJN Home

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/7649

Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, Chairman Volume: 40 Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin, Co-Chairman HELSINKI COMMISSIONERS MEET WITH VACLAV HAVEL, COMMEMORATE 30TH ANNIVERSARY OF CHARTER 77 MOVEMENT By Erika B. Schlager On February 27, 2007, Representative Alcee L. Hastings (D-FL) and Senator Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD), Chairman and Co-Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, met with Vaclav Havel, former president of the Czech Republic (1993–2003), world renowned human rights activist, and playwright. “This year marks the 30 th anniversary of Charter 77’s founding, a movement that was dedicated to compelling the communist government of Czechoslovakia to abide by the international human rights agreements it had freely adopted, including the Helsinki Final Act ,” observed Chairman Hastings. “I was delighted to be able to personally share with President Havel the deep respect I have for him, for the movement he helped to found, and for his continuing leadership on human rights issues around the globe.” Former Commission Chairman Representative Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ) and Czech Ambassador Petr Kolar also participated in the discussions , which touched on issues including Russia, China, Cuba, and developments in the Middle East. Havel was briefly in Washington early this year at the Library of Congress’ John W. Kluge Center. Librarian of Congress Dr. James Billington hosted meetings on Capitol Hill with Havel and Members of Congress. Havel addressed a joint session of Congress in 1990 and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2003. The Charter 77 movement was founded in Czechoslovakia in 1977, originally with the support of approximately 240 signatories, each of whom signed a card stating, “I agree with the Charter 77 declaration of January 1, 1977.” The original cards have since been discovered in the Czechoslovak secret police archives. In January, the National Museum in Prague mounted an exhibit of materials related to the Charter 77 movement. In addition, the Washington-based National Security Archives (affiliated with George Washington University), in conjunction with the Prague-based Czechoslovak Documentation Center, released a compilation of documents about the Charter 77 movement, including now-declassified State Department and CIA reporting. Statements made by current and former leaders of the Helsinki Commission on the occasion of the 30 th anniversary of Charter 77, as published in the Congressional Record, are printed below. ____________________________________________________________________________ STATEMENTS REPRINTED FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD THE 30TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ‘‘CHARTER 77 MOVEMENT’’ HON. ALCEE L. HASTINGS OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 1, 2007 Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, as Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I am privileged to add my voice today to those honoring Vaclav Havel, Czechoslovakia's first post-communist President, and the Charter 77 movement which, 30 years ago, he helped to found. Three decades ago, the Charter 77 movement was established and its founding manifesto was formally delivered to the Communist regime in Prague. The goals of the Chartists – as signatories came to be known – were fairly straightforward: “Charter 77 [they stated] is a loose, informal and open association of people of various shades of opinion, faiths and professions united by the will to strive individually and collectively for the respect of civic and human rights in our own country and throughout the world – rights accorded to all men by the two mentioned international covenants, by the Final Act of the Helsinki conference and by numerous other international documents opposing war, violence and social or spiritual oppression, and which are comprehensively laid down in the U.N. Universal Charter of Human Rights.” The phrase “people of various shades of opinion” was, in fact, a charming understatement regarding the diversity of the signatories. Founding members of this movement included Vaclav Maly, a Catholic priest banned by the regime; Vacla Benda, a Christian philosopher; former Trotskyite Peter Uhl; former Communists like Zdenek Mlynar and Jiri Hajek, both of whom were ousted from their leadership positions in the wake of the 1968 Soviet attack that crushed the Prague Spring reforms; and, of course, Vaclav Havel, a playwright and dramatist. Notwithstanding the many differences these people surely had, they were united by a common purpose: to compel the Communist regime to respect the international human rights agreements it had freely adopted. Interestingly, the Charter 77 movement was never a mass dissident movement – fewer than two thousand people ever formally signed this document. But, to use a boxing analogy, Charter 77 punched above its weight. Its influence could be felt far beyond the number of those who openly signed on and, ultimately, in the battle of wits and wills with the Communist regime, Charter 77 clearly won And most importantly, Charter 77 – like other human rights groups founded at roughly the same time in Moscow, Vilnius, Warsaw and elsewhere – looked to the Helsinki process as a vehicle for calling their own governments to account. Although it is sometimes said that the Helsinki process helped to bring down communism, it is really these grass roots movements that gave the Helsinki process its real meaning and its true legitimacy. Thirty years ago, a small, courageous band of people came together and said, “We believe that Charter 77 will help to enable all citizens of Czechoslovakia to work and live as free human beings.” Today, we remember their struggle and praise their enduring contributions to democracy and human rights. IN HONOR OF VACLAV HAVEL SENATOR BENJAMIN L. CARDIN OF MARYLAND IN THE SENATE March 13, 2007 Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, 30 years ago, the Charter 77 movement was established with the simple goal of ensuring that the citizens of Czechoslovakia could ``live and work as free human beings.'' Today, as cochairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I join with my colleagues in celebrating the founding of Charter 77 and honoring those men and women who, through their personal acts of courage, helped bring freedom to their country. When the Charter 77 manifesto was issued, three men were chosen to be the first spokespersons of this newly formed movement: a renowned European philosopher, Jan Patocka; Jiri Hajek, who had been Czechoslovakia's Foreign Minister during the Pragu

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/7841

Georgia: Ban on Soviet Symbols Proposed (Dec 08, 2010) As reported by the Newsru.com Information Agency, on October 29, 2010, the Parliament of Georgia almost unanimously adopted the "Liberty Charter" introduced by pro-government parliamentary factions. The document provides for additional national security measures, lustration of former high-level Soviet officials, and a prohibition against the use and display of Soviet and Nazi symbols. According to the Charter's authors, similar acts were passed in other post-communist countries that have been able to free themselves of their totalitarian past. The measures provided by the Charter foresee increased government control of the transfer of funds to Georgian public associations and individuals from abroad; enhanced video surveillance in airports, on public transportation, and in other strategic areas; and tightened police control over suspicious cargo shipments to Georgia. In regard to lustration, the Charter provides that persons who formerly played an active role in Soviet and Communist authorities will not be able to work in high government positions. If they already occupy such positions, they will have to resign within one month. In addition, information on ties between Georgian citizens and the former Soviet secret police, the KGB, will be made public. However, the parliamentary opposition, while agreeing with most of the Charter's provisions, believes that Soviet symbols are a part of Georgian history and that it is not necessary to outlaw them. (V Gruzii Hotyat Zapretit Sovetskuyu Simvoliku [Soviet Symbols Might Be Banned in Georgia] [in Russian], NEWSRU.COM INFORMATION AGENCY (Oct. 29, 2010), http://www.newsru.com/world/29oct2010/hartia_print.html.) Author: Peter Roudik More by this author Topic: National security More on this topic Jurisdiction: Georgia More about this jurisdiction

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/7842

After two years of confusion and complaint, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed legislation establishing Thanksgiving Day as the fourth Thursday in November. Calendars and holiday plans were already set for the third Thursday in November, 1941 so the legislation took effect in 1942. Roosevelt, recognizing the problems caused by his 1939 decree, had announced a plan to return to the traditional Thanksgiving date in 1942. But Congress introduced the legislation to ensure that future presidential proclamations could not impact the scheduling of the holiday. Their plan to designate the fourth Thursday of the month allowed Thanksgiving Day to fall on the last Thursday five out of seven years. The Landis Family Says Grace Before Carving the Thanksgiving Turkey on the Fourth Thursday of November, 1942.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/7895

Romney, Culture, Politics, and Development By John O’Sullivan August 7, 2012 2:45 PM Comments 0 Mitt Romney’s argument that the contrast between Israel’s economic success and the economic stagnation of the Arab world is attributable largely to a difference in culture has evoked a stimulating debate — oops, sorry, liberals are “stimulating,” conservatives are “controversial.” The latest contributor to it is Richard Cohen, who adds a column to the debate in today’s Washington Post, more or less on Romney’s side, which I found, ah, surprisingly stimulating. So far my judgment is that Romney has had the best of the controversy. But his most subtle opponent is my old friend Fareed Zakaria, also in the Post, who argues that it is capitalism rather than culture that drives success. Fareed’s argument should be read in full.But one of his stronger points is as follows: “Ironically, the argument that culture is central to a country’s success has been used most frequently by Asian strongmen to argue that their countries need not adopt Western-style democracy. Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew has made this case passionately for decades. It is an odd claim, because Singapore’s own success would seem to contradict it. It is not so different from neighboring Malaysia. The crucial difference is that Singapore had extremely good leadership that pursued good economic policies with relentless discipline.”The examples Fareed gives, however, triggered a memory going back to the 1980s when I wrote several articles with my even older friend, the late Lord (P. T.) Bauer. As a specialist in development economics, Peter had obviously given Romney’s question a great deal of thought. He had spent many years in Malaya researching into the rubber industry, and he had refined his answer down to something like this. My less elegant paraphrase follows:#more#Economic development is the result of two factors: culture and policies (or institutions.) We see this from the examples of Malaya and Germany. Since 1945 the people of Germany, who share the same culture, have been living under two different sets of political and economic institutions. Those living in West Germany under capitalism have prospered far more than those living under communism in East Germany. So policies/institutions matter to economic development. On the other hand, there are three ethnic groups in Malaya — the Chinese, the Indians, and the Malays. They all live under the same institutions, but they prosper at very different rates in the following order: The Chinese do best, the Indians better, and the Malays worst. So culture matters too.Peter would add two points. First, the success of the Chinese and Indians in Malaya was all the more striking and significant because Malaya’s institutions discriminated against them on behalf of the Malays unofficially and through the Bumiputera system of affirmative action. (Thomas Sowell’s Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study documented the world-wide extent of this paradox — and its main result, namely that the main beneficiaries of this official discrimination were not the poor but the top tiers of favored groups.)Second, we should not necessarily conclude that a culture is “wrong” in some wider sense because it doesn’t excel at economic development. Buddhist priests have a culture that prizes other things, principally holiness, above prosperity. Who is to say that they are wrong? What we can say, however, is that Buddhist priests shouldn’t complain if they are under-represented in multinational boardrooms or on the front page of Forbes magazine.So culture and institutions both matter. Romney is at least half-right, and maybe more than half-right. For the moment most Arabs live under regimes that pursue policies detrimental to development in one way or another. Under those regimes the Palestinians outside Palestine, especially in the Gulf States, seem to achieve greater prosperity than do most other Arabs. We shall discover the precise truth about (differential) Arab economic stagnation when they all live in a Middle East composed of market democracies. When that happens I look forward to sifting through the evidence with Peter Bauer, in between harp concertos.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/7901

Tags: Tom Coburn Coburn: I Could Support Tax Revenue Increase Sunday, 24 Apr 2011 12:25 PM By Hiram Reisner A A Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., says he could support a net increase in tax revenue if it there were no hikes in tax rates, in direct opposition with Americans for Tax Reform and founder, Grover Norquist, Politico reports. Coburn, a member of the “Gang of Six"”bipartisan group working on a deficit reduction plan, also said Sunday on “Meet the Press” he would do so even if did not include a dollar-for-dollar match in spending cuts he agreed to when he signed a 2004 pledge to Norquist’s group. “Which pledge is most important ... the pledge to uphold your oath to the Constitution of the United States or a pledge from a special interest group who claims to speak for all American conservatives when, in fact, they really don't?” Coburn asked. “The fact is we have enormous urgent problems in front of us that have to be addressed and have to be addressed in a way that will get 60 votes in the Senate... and something that the president will sign.” Speaking on the same show, Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., refused to say when the Gang of Six would release its plan.

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/7986

Bob Kasten Works Internationally in D.C. | Life After Congress Julie Ershadi Roll Call Staff May 20, 2013, 2:52 p.m. Courtesy Library of Congress Kasten, right, with President Ronald Reagan in 1987. After serving two terms in Congress, Kasten stayed in D.C. to run a baking and consulting group. Years after leaving Congress, former Sen. Bob Kasten, R-Wis., has kept his eye on the issues he focused on while he was a member. Kasten�s two Senate terms provided him time to focus on foreign aid, particularly during his tenure on the Appropriations Committee. He lost his bid for re-election in 1992, but he still lives in Washington, D.C., where he operates an international banking and business consulting group, Kasten & Co. Being in the nation�s capital is helpful, he said in a recent interview, because he�s close to all the familiar amenities and people: the Senate barbershop; former colleagues; his ex-wife and two children, who all live here. �But more importantly for me, it�s put me where the embassies and the ambassadors and the [International Monetary Fund] and the various multilateral banking groups I�m trying to work with are located,� he said. Kasten�s investment work takes him to Middle Eastern countries often, though the uprisings that began rocking the Arab world in 2010 have disrupted some of his partnerships. He�s been to Egypt several times since the protests at Tahrir Square led to the downfall of President Hosni Mubarak in 2011, but it�s much more difficult now, he said. �It�s complicated,� he said. �The rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and the rise of, if you will, Islamic fundamentalists, is creating significant problems, not just for business and private enterprise, but for, you know, the goal of a secular kind of government in places like Egypt.� Compounding his foreign affairs focus, Kasten is also on the board of trustees of the American University in Cairo and the board of advisers of the American Foreign Policy Council think tank. He has also served on the board of the Center for International Private Enterprise, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce�s portion of the National Endowment for Democracy, he said. He�s also on the board of Talos Partners LLC, an investment firm, and the InStore Broadcasting Network, a Utah-based music and advertising provider. Kasten, among others, was named in a fraud lawsuit concerning Talos and IBN in April. �The issues involved happened way before I went on the board,� he said. He hasn�t yet been served and he said he expects to be dropped from the case. Kasten continues to pay attention to the world of politics, even if most of his business is in finance. After all, as long as he lives in the nation�s capital, it�s all going on in his own backyard. �There are two people that I have huge respect for who are doing, in my mind and judgment, wonderful work in politics,� he said, referring to two former aides who are now Republican rock stars. Scott Walker, who got his start working for Kasten�s Senate campaigns, is one of them. The Wisconsin governor became a hero to the right for his stand against labor unions. Rep. Paul D. Ryan is the other. Kasten related the tale of Ryan�s rise through the former senator�s office, which began with a summer internship after his sophomore year of college and led him to where he is today, chairman of the House Budget Committee and the 2012 Republican vice presidential nominee. Kasten hit the trail twice for Ryan after Mitt Romney took on the younger Wisconsin native. �He�s still a close friend,� he said of Ryan. JulieErshadi@cqrollcall.com | @jershadi Email More Life After Congress Brian Baird Trades Congress for Family Time Mfume Brings Dose of Activism to Health Policy Kennedy's Syllabus: Get Things Done in Washington James Walsh Enjoys Digging Deeper as K&L Gates Lobbyist Lieberman's Independent Streak Carries On | Life After Congress James Jones Has Traveled Far but Still Calls Capitol Hill Home | Life After Congress Alan Wheat to Work With Former House Colleagues | Life After Congress Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. Graham Says Iran Sanctions Vote Will Come in January (Video) 4:06 p.m. Slideshow: Roll Call's 2014 News Photos of the Year 10 Races to Watch in 2016: North Carolina Senate 10 Races to Watch in 2016: Florida's 2nd District HOH: Members of Congress Cut Anti-Drunk Driving Spots (Audio) House Rule Change Would Force Long-Term Estimates for Major Bills More News

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/8026

Islamists, liberals square off on anniversary of Egypt uprising Associated PressWednesday, January 25, 2012 9:25pm For the first anniversary of the 18-day uprising that toppled President Hosni Mubarak, Egyptians set up an obelisk Wednesday in Cairo’s Tahrir Square with the names of people who were killed. But the rallies illustrated the divisions that replaced last year’s unity. CAIRO — Hundreds of thousands of Egyptians thronged major squares across the country Wednesday, marking the first anniversary of the uprising that toppled Hosni Mubarak with rallies that laid bare the divisions that have replaced the unity of last year's revolt. Cairo's Tahrir Square, the epicenter of the 18 days of protests against Mubarak, was transformed into the focal point of the rivalry between revolutionary activists intent on showing they can still mobilize the street and the Muslim Brotherhood, who emerged as Egypt's dominant political force after a landslide victory in parliamentary elections. The secular activists want continued protests to force the immediate ouster of the generals who took power after Mubarak's fall, saying they are just as dictatorial as the former president. The activists touted their powerful turnout as a sign they can pressure the Brotherhood, who they fear will accommodate the military in order to ensure their own political dominance. Both sides were intent on bringing out as many supporters as possible to show their weight in a nation still reeling from the aftershocks of Mubarak's ouster. The Islamists got off to a strong start, taking up positions in the morning and claiming the right to police the square, with Brotherhood volunteers checking the bags of those entering. From a large stage with 10 loudspeakers, they blared religious songs and chants of "Allahu akbar" and set a tone of celebration for what they called the successes of the revolution, particularly the newly elected parliament. But a dozen large marches organized by secular groups converged on Tahrir from various parts of the city, chanting "Down, down with military rule!" and filling boulevards as passers-by joined in along the way. The "non-Islamists" swarmed into the downtown plaza before sunset, jam-packing it to outnumber the Islamists. Some marched to the sober beat of drums to pay tribute to the hundreds of protesters killed in the past year — by Mubarak's regime and the military — and to emphasize that this was not a joyous anniversary, with so many demands for democratic reform left unachieved. There were no army troops or police present, a sign the military was looking to avoid an eruption of new clashes after deadly violence in October, November and December. Islamists, liberals square off on anniversary of Egypt uprising 01/25/12 [Last modified: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 10:49pm]

时政

2014-52/4411/en_head.json.gz/8045

Need for Rte. 11 toll Pursuing a strategy to use tolling as a funding source may well be the last, best chance to finally complete Route 11, extending it from the current terminus in Salem to an interchange connecting with Interstates 95 and 395. The General Assembly's Transportation Committee last week approved a bill that would allow for the installation of tolls as a means to pay for construction. Its final approval by the legislature is far from certain, however, in large part because it will continue to be tied to the larger debate about the use of tolls in Connecticut.This newspaper has supported the concept of reintroducing tolls in Connecticut, using the new E-Z Pass technology, as a funding source to maintain and improve the state's transportation systems. But lawmakers should treat the Route 11 toll proposal as a separate issue, a means to pay for an environmentally sensitive and so expensive highway project during difficult fiscal times.But the committee vote, with all Republicans voting no, shows why it will be difficult to make that separation from the larger toll debate. One of the few political strongholds for state Republicans is southwest Connecticut, where opposition to tolling is particularly strong. That's because tapping commuters going to and from New York will almost certainly be part of any state tolling strategy. Suggest tolls anywhere and expect Republican opposition.This newspaper remains convinced that completing Route 11 is important for a variety of reasons. It will reduce congestion on Route 85, a two-lane route not designed for the heavy traffic volume it now experiences, and where crashes are too frequent. It would provide a direct route between the Hartford metropolitan area and the tourist attractions and recreational opportunities in southeastern Connecticut. And easier access between Hartford and southeastern Connecticut would be good for business generally.Without a plan to pay for Route 11 construction the various federal regulatory approvals necessary for the project cannot move forward. But the price tag is high, $1.2 billion or more, with 80 percent coming from federal aid. A toll price cannot be set so high that it would discourage use of the new road. The state Department of Transportation is studying what would be an optimum toll rate. It may be that toll revenue can only supplement the state's share of the construction cost, not pay for it entirely.But it is critical the process move forward. We give particular credit to the persistence of Rep. Ed Jutila, D-East Lyme, a member of the Transportation Committee, and Sen. Andrea Stillman, D-Waterford, the vice chair, for keeping the project alive. That alone is quite an achievement. DOT talks Route 11 tolls, despite bill's demise Route 11 tolls clear latest hurdle

时政