Datasets:

BAAI

/

IndustryCorpus_politics

like 2

Follow

Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence 717

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/7193

Update on US Unions For those looking for an update on the modern role of American unions, the Council of Economic Advisers offers a useful starting point with its October 2015 "Issue Brief: Worker Voice in a Time of Rising Inequality." The report begins with some graphs about US union membership that, while their shape is familiar to me, have not lost their power to shock. For example, US union membership peaked back in the 1950s and 1960s, and has been on a downward path as a share of total US employment since then. (The two different colored lines show that two different sources of data are being used.) The share of US private sector workers belonging to unions is even lower, while public sector unionization rates are much higher. What effects do unions have in modern labor markets and job conditions? The report notes: "Unionized workers still command a sizable wage premium of up to 25 percent relative to similar nonunionized workers, but that premium has fallen slightly over the past couple of decades. ... After controlling for observable differences between union and nonunion workers, research finds that workers who are represented by a union are about 30 percent more likely to be covered by health insurance at their job than similar nonunion workers. In addition, union workers are about 25 percent more likely to have retiree health benefits than similar nonunion worker ..." The reason for this wage premium is a subject of some controversy. One possibility is that unionized workers with firms that have large and ongoing profits can negotiate in a way that gives the workers a larger share of those profit--which is a model that fits fairly well with the auto and steel unions of a half-century ago. Otherwise, union workers get paid more because they have higher productivity. This could happen in various ways: less worker turnover, better training, and the like. It could happen because even among workers who look the same based on observable characteristics in the data, the more motivated and productive workers are more likely to join a union. The possibility barely mentioned in this report is that employers react to a union by investing more heavily in capital equipment and in outsourcing to non-union firms, and increasing the pay of union workers in that way but reducing the number of union jobs over time. Although this report has lots of useful information and embeds links to a number of relevant academic studies, reports from the Council of Economic Advisers are inevitably both economic and political documents. The main place the influence of politic shows up here is in the very brief (four sentences, one paragraph) discussion of "Union Impact on Firm Performance." You will be relieved, as I was, to read that unions always have a positive effect on firms. There was apparently no need to mention the possibility that unions might create inflexibilities: for example, in the size of the compensation bill, in a burden of retiree benefits, in job assignments, in limits on incentive pay, or in adapting new organizational or technological approaches. From the discussion in this report, unionized workforces bring nothing but benefits to firms, and so it would seem that every US employer should be lining up to unionize its workforce. I do think one can make a strong case that unions have bolstered productivity and benefited firms at certain companies and in certain countries, at various places and times. But the possibility that unions at other times and places have had negative effects on firms is not not discussed here. But on a number of other subjects, the report gives a more balanced overview. For example, on the question of whether unions improve job safety, the report points out that while one might be predisposed to believe this claim, in fact unionized workplaces seem to suffer more injuries. There are a number of possible reasons for this pattern. Perhaps workplaces with a lot of injuries are more likely to end up with unions. Perhaps unionized workplaces are more likely to keep a true record of workplace injuries. Perhaps the main gain of unions is not primarily a smaller number of workplace injuries, but that the injuries which occur are milder and less harmful. Work on sorting out these issues is still underway. On the question of whether unions lead to improved skills and training, the report cites strong evidence from a number of other countries that this connection exists. But for the US, the report notes: "Other work examining unionized workers in the United States and Canada also finds that unionized workers tend to develop skills that are relatively job-specific. However, some work suggests little to no difference in training between union and nonunion firms, while other research suggests that employers in unionized workplaces offer less training than those in nonunionized workplaces." Finally, there is the issue of how much the decline in unionization has contributed to the rise in inequality. The graph shows the basic observation suggesting a connection here: the bottom 90% of the income distribution had a higher share of total income when unionization rates were at their highest, and the share of income going to that group has declined as unionization rates have fallen. Of course, this correlation doesn't prove causation. It's easy to imagine that certain factors in the economy--say, the rise in information and communication technology together with an increase in global trade--might account for both the fall in unionization and rising inequality of the income distribution. But more detailed studies that try to take these other factors into account do suggest that the decline in unionization is part of the story, too: "A recent paper finds that declines in unionization explain one-fifth of the increase in wage inequality between 1973 and 2007 for women and one-third of the increase for men. For men, the effect is comparable to the effect of the increasing stratification of wages by education (for women, the effect of deunionization is about half that of education)." However, give the changes in who is a union member over time, it's not clear that a rise in unionization right now would have a substantial effect on inequality. Today's union members are less likely to be low-wage workers; indeed, union workers are now more likely to be college-educated than the average US worker. The report notes: "Union membership has also become more representative of the population, with the share of members who are female or college-educated rising quickly. Studies have shown that union wage effects are largest for workers with low levels of observed skills and that unionization can reduce wage inequality among workers partially by increasing wages at the bottom of the distribution and by reducing pay dispersion within unionized firms and industries. Since both the union wage premium and the coverage of low-skilled workers, who receive the highest wage premium, have fallen, unionization’s ability to reduce inequality has very likely been limited in recent years." During the last few decades, I've seen occasional articles about how US unions are just about to make a comeback. Maybe they will, although after decades of ongoing decline I'm skeptical. But the report also points to other organizations that can offer a voice for workers. For example, Germany is well-known for its "works councils": Works councils, groups of workers that represent all employees in discussions with their employer but are not part of a formal trade union, are a common form of worker voice outside of trade unions in Germany and, under the authority of the German Works Constitution Act of 1952, can be set up in any private workplace with at least five employees. Works councils ensure that workplace decisions, such as those about pay, hiring, and hours, involve workers – they have both participation rights (where works councils must be informed and consulted about certain issues) and co-determination rights (where the works council must be involved in the decision). Works councils are separate from trade unions: trade unions exist to protect their members, while works councils exist to integrate workers with management into the decision making process. In the US, there are some organizations forming that represent independent contractors and freelancers. A similar organization for workers not covered by the National Labor Relations Act, and that operates closely with the organized labor community, is the New York Taxi Workers’ Alliance. Formed in 1998, the New York Taxi Workers’ Alliance helps advocate for taxi drivers, who are primarily independent contractors rather than employees. The organization expanded nationally in 2011 as the National Taxi Workers’ Alliance, and became the first charter for non-traditional workers since the farm workers in the 1960s, and the first one ever of independent contractors; they are recognized by the AFL-CIO as an affiliate organization. The group advocates for its members in much the same way as a traditional union, but their right to collectively bargain is not protected under the National Labor Relations Act due to their non-employee status. I don't know if these kinds of non-union worker-voice organizations have a real future in the US context. But I do think that worker voice offers potentially valuable input, and that many workers want a voice that can speak on their behalf to management. If workers don't have workplace-related organizations to provide such a voice, they will inevitably turn their voices to politicians who promise legislation to address their concerns. Timothy Taylorconversableeconomist@gmail.com Follow by Twitter Follow @TimothyTTaylor Update on the National School Lunch Program The Trade Facilitation Agenda How Tight is the US Labor Market? How Raising the Top Tax Rate Won't Much Alter Ineq... Greater Inequality of Returns Across US Firms The Shifting World Distribution of Income When High GDP No Longer Means High Per Capita GDP Exonerating Henry Ellsworth and Charles Duell, For... When Global Demand Shifts: Cars and Movies Thoughts on Shovel-Ready Infrastructure The 2015 Nobel Prize: Angus Deaton Unpaid Care Work, Women, and GDP The Eurozone Crisis: Crystalizing the Narrative Rethinking Parameters of the US Welfare State Mass Shootings: Trends and Categories An Interview with Amy Finkelstein: Health Insuranc... Causes of Wealth Inequality: Dynastic, Valuation, ... © 2011-16 Timothy Taylor. Picture Window template. Powered by Blogger.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/7241

Home Photo Reportage Photographer: Karel van Milleghem Walter Hallstein, President of the European Economic Community Professor of international law and economics before the war, he was taken prisoner by the Americans (1944). After imprisonment he was elected Rector of the University of Frankfurt (1946). He becomes counsellor to Chancellor Adenauer for international affairs (1950). The “Hallstein doctrine” is one of the basis of West German diplomacy. The FRG refuses to maintain diplomatic relations with states recognising the GDR. German State Secretary for Foreign Affairs (1951-1958), Bonn representative in the Messina Conference (1955), he is omnipresent in the preparatory phase of the European construction. He signs the Treaties of Rome in the name of West Germany (1957), and becomes the first President of the Commission of the EEC (1958-1967). First designated for two years, his mandate will be renewed three times. He is the leader of the institutional building, and gives the Commission its structures and its reputation for technical competence. He is the initiator of an international policy for the European Communities. In 1967, the institution of a single Commission allows General de Gaulle to impose his conceptions for limiting the powers of the Commission. Hallstein does not ask for a renewal of this mandate. After a brief career in the German Parliament, he retires from political life in 1972. Walter Hallstein Reference: P-002796 Date: Planned photo coverage

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/7253

Search Germany's Disputed Dual Citizenship Law''Everyone Must Be Able to Participate''The German government's Commissioner for Human Rights, Markus Löning (FDP), is critical of citizenship laws that force young Turks to choose between German and Turkish nationalities. His view breaks with government policy to date. Daniel Brössler spoke to himIt was a compromise that now forces thousands of young descendants of immigrants in Germany to make a tough decision. Since the year 2000, a regulation has been in force granting immigrants' children born in Germany since 1990 the right to a German passport. They are temporarily allowed to retain the passport of their parents' homeland alongside the German one. But by the time they have turned 23 at the latest, they must give up one citizenship, as long as their parents do not come from an EU country, for example. This has led to quite a number of Germans becoming foreigners again since the beginning of the year. The CDU and CSU, which pushed the compromise through against proposals to fine-tune the legislation by the SPD and the Greens, are keen to maintain the option obligation. But the SPD says if it wins the election it will do away with the ruling – an approach now supported by the government's Commissioner for Human Rights, FDP politician Markus Löning. If young people have to give up their German passport after the age of 23, is it really a matter for the human rights commissioner? Markus Löning: Well in the first instance it's not a matter for the government's commissioner for human rights, as my remit covers human rights in the foreign policy arena. But this is also a question of our own credibility, and the human rights policies that we represent to the rest of the world. We have to practice the same things at home that we advocate outside. That also applies to equality before the law, equal opportunities for all, democratic participation and other similar basic human rights. And you think these rights are infringed by German citizenship laws? Löning: The main problematic issue is the unequal treatment of people of different origins. For children of bi-national parents, for people from the EU or ethnic German immigrants, there are no impediments to dual citizenship. It is made impossible for other people, although they were born and raised here. That is unequal treatment in my view. The great-grandchildren of German immigrants in Argentina, who have no other connection to Germany other than their German great-grandfather, have an Argentine and a German passport and can take part in German parliamentary elections, while Turkish immigrants and their children cannot vote, although they live here, pay taxes and participate in society here, just because they don't want to give up their Turkish passport. That's an untenable situation in my view. Forced to choose: This is often a difficult decision for young Turks in particular. Until 2017, between 3,000 and 7,000 children must opt for a nationality every year. It's much easier for EU citizens to obtain dual nationality ​​Germany's Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich (CSU) refers to the case of a violent criminal from Berlin who holds two nationalities and is now seeking protection in Turkey. Are you convinced by this argument? Löning: Why should we hold thousands of citizens responsible for the misdemeanours of one individual? No, it doesn't convince me at all. You think German citizenship laws need an overhaul? Löning: Our citizenship laws initially adhered to the principle of descent. Over the past few years, we've taken a few steps towards the territorial principle. We should complete the circle and say: Anyone that lives here also has a claim on political participation. Everyone must be able to participate, everyone must be able to vote. That's also a claim on us as democrats. At the moment, we're excluding a large group from taking part in elections through unequal treatment. Also in the case of qualified immigrants I believe it is important that we offer them the prospect of full citizenship while retaining their primary nationality. Do you not fear conflicts of loyalty? Löning: It's not a problem if people feel connected to their roots or the homeland of their parents. I feel connected with Emsland, where I was born, although I only lived there for a year. And I feel connected to Luxemburg, where I lived during my youth. Other people may feel connected to the homeland of their parents. I don't see as a problem. There are those who perceive the origins of their parents as a part of their identity. It also bothers me that this question is only posed in the case of some people. We should take a much more relaxed approach to the issue. "Everyone must be able to participate, everyone must be able to vote": Markus Löning's plea for long-term dual nationality runs contrary to government policy. The CDU rejects an amendment to current regulations ​​What do you suggest? Löning: If we work on the assumption that everyone should have the right to participate in the democratic process, then we have to make naturalization even easier and not make a big deal about dual citizenship. Our message should be: It's not a problem for us if somebody has a second passport and feels a bond with the homeland of his parents. What's important is that he enjoys the rights of a full citizen here in our country. But that's not the policy of your party, the FDP, is it? Löning: Equality before the law is a liberal stance that I represent as human rights commissioner, just as many of my party colleagues do. When I'm travelling I'm repeatedly confronted with the realization that we are reproached for our citizenship laws. That's my contribution to the debate on the matter, also within my party. Do you see citizenship laws as a post-election reform project? Löning: Yes I do. I believe we need this reform. Many half-measured steps have been taken over the past few years. We now need a thorough and complete reform. Interview: Daniel Brössler © Süddeutsche Zeitung / Qantara.de 2013 52-year-old Markus Löning has been the government's Commissioner for Human Rights since 2010. He was a member of parliament from 2002 to 2009, most recently as his parliamentary group's spokesman on European policy. He sat on the FDP's leadership committee until 2011. HomePrintNewsletterMore on this topicInterview with Doug Saunders: ''Muslim Infiltration Is a Myth''Integration Minister Öney: ''Integration is a matter of wanting to, being able and being allowed to''Dossier: Migration in GermanyRelated TopicsIntegration in Germany, Islam in Germany, Migration in Germany, Muslims in the WestAll Topics Syrian refugee Nather Henafe AlaliExile and integration: the double whammy28.09.2016As a result of this war, we Syrians experience terrible things every day, even in exile: despite the distance, we suffer along with those members of the population who have stayed ...More Bonn′s BeethovenfestSounds of the Arab Spring28.09.2016Six composers from five Arab countries translated their impressions of the Arab Spring into music, providing the pianist Seda Roder with material for her multimedia ″Songs of ...More Interview with Firas Alshater″Being a refugee is not my dream job″26.09.2016″Who are these Germans?″ That′s the question Firas Alshater asks on his YouTube channel Zukar. Ula Brunner interviewed the Berlin-based Syrian filmmaker and refugee on acceptance ...More Integration in GermanyWhat is required of us21.09.2016Our country needs to respect and value minorities more and to empathise with them more. It also needs an honest debate about what we – not they – must bring to the table, writes ...More DeutschعربيAuthor: Daniel BrösslerDate: 27.02.2013Mail: Send via mail Share: Topics: Integration in Germany, Islam in Germany, Migration in Germany, Muslims in the WestPrint: Print articleCountries: GermanyPermalink: http://en.qantara.de/node/1404

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/7258

Search WWW Liberals want to be "Commander" in Chief By J.J. Jackson web posted June 11, 2007 There are a lot of liberals out there vying for the Presidency in 2008. Some have that little "D" for Democrat next to their name while others have an "R" for Republican. And we haven't even gotten into discussing other parties infested with liberals like the Greens, Socialists and Communists; the latter of which will probably just throw support behind the Democratic Party nominee anyway when all is said and done. All these candidates have their eyes set on the Presidency and the role of "Commander in Chief" because liberals see their roles in government as one of "commanding" America how to act. Someone should tell them however that is not what the founders meant by the President being "Commander in Chief". Liberals want to be the "commander" of our lives, institute "command" economies and all the wonderfully failed policies of the past. They want to "command" us all how to save for our retirements, to "command" that we must provide for the retirement of others at gun point and under penalty of imprisonment, to "command" that we must have government run health care, to "command" that we must pay for the health care of others that might not even want it, to "command" how many miles to the gallon our cars get, to "command" how many gallons of water our toilets can hold, and so on. They want to "command" us right down the road already traveled by so many into oblivion. They do this, of course, because they claim to believe in compassion. But they have no real compassion for those that they saddle with the yoke of government and enslave into the service of others. Benjamin Franklin wisely said, "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." By that standard our republic ended long ago. But then again, what did he know right? He was just some old white guy of European decent that helped form a nation that enslaved poor black people and suppress the rights of women. Well, one can also argue that he helped form a nation that fought long and hard to free the slaves and give women equal rights too. But that wouldn't fit the template. So we'll just ignore that. Freedom isn't easy. And it sure as heck isn't perfect. But it works pretty darn well when it is embraced. Today, contrary to Franklin's admonitions, we've become a nation full of people voting themselves money and requiring that others pay the tab. We have become a nation all too willing to accept a "Commander" in Chief, or even Chiefs when you consider all the would-be "commanders" in Congress. We have bastardized what were once grand ideas and a sound blue print, save a few blemishes, and departed from the principles of liberty while seeking out our next "commander" to lead us. We have ditched the concept of a confined and limited scope of federal government to tax and spend clearly described by James Madison in Federalist 41: "It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. "Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare." "But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?" We, as Americans, are all in this, the great and continuing experiment of America, together. And if you listen to the carefully worded rhetoric of would-be "commanders" seeking our votes in 2008 you might be lulled into a sense of believing that they are right there with us. Like when Hillary Clinton says, "I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society". That is a pretty broad and perfectly couched statement and it is a sentiment that, without looking at her proposals, and proposals by other liberals, anyone would tend to agree with. But the devil, as they say, is always in the details. Her idea of being "in this together" is having government confiscate the wealth of others who have worked for it and which has been freely given in exchange for services. Or as Hillary puts it, "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." How nice. But I already have a mommy and I have grown up and don't really need another. This is also the same woman who proclaimed that she wanted to seize oil company profits so the federal government could better use. Bet that makes all of you out there with 401ks, union retirements, pensions and IRAs invested in the oil companies happy right? It is not just Hillary Clinton that desires to be our "commander". Barack Obama, once you wade through all his similar "we're in this together" speak designed to lull Americans to sleep has the same desires and goals stating "Effective federal programs are necessary to protect the rural economy." (Obamaforillinois.com May 2, 2004) and dictating ("commanding") through government force what wages must be paid: "Obama voted to increase the minimum wage to $6.50 an hour" (Press Release, "Creating Jobs in America" Jun 21, 2004) When did we stop believing in freedom? When did we stop believing that people making their choices and rising and falling by the virtue of those choices was so bad? And when did we start looking for someone to "command" us from on high? Have we not seen how poorly that works? Have we not seen the utter collapse of "command" economies and nations like the former Soviet Union and even Castro's Cuba? Have we been so blind to the havoc wreaked by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela in the past months? Have we not witnessed the anemic growth of even just soft socialist nations in Europe? Have we really degraded so much as a culture where a "Commander" in Chief is more preferable to the blessings of liberty? J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative author who has been writing and promoting individual liberty since 1993 and is President of Land of the Free Studios, Inc. He is the lead editor of Conservative News & Opinion – The Land of the Free and also the owner of The Right Things – Conservative T-shirts & Gifts. His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at http://www.libertyreborn.com.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/7286

Country Sick of Obama Job Act Acting Job He wasn’t ready to be a US Senator and he wasn’t ready to be president either. And because some Americans put White Guilt above common sense and thereby elected the most unready of candidates to the office of President of the United States, our economy is at a standstill. But even more importantly, the country has, under Obama, once again lost a sense of its place and is questioning its historical mission of being the City on a Hill for the rest of the world. Only 18 percent of Americans now believe that the country is on the right track, according to Rasmussen. The number has never been above 47 percent since Obama took office. The country reached it’s feel good moment at the six-month mark of the Democrat takeover of Congress, and it’s been downhill for Obama ever since. He now faces an 18 precent gap between those who strongly approve of his performance versus those who strongly disapprove according to Rasmussen. The last time the world was this demoralized, was the last time a Democrat president let things drift because he had no idea how to be president of the United States. CARTOONS | Herman View Cartoon Obama has been lately reprising that president’s “malaise” speech, calling Americans “lazy” and generally bemoaning the country’s lack of direction. The guy who couldn’t find his way to Congress even if a cruise missile was strapped to his backside recently sympathized with the one-tenth percent of Americans whom Occupy Wall Street think they represent, saying, according to ABCNews: “A lot of the folks who’ve been down in New York and all across the country in the Occupy movement,” says Obama, “there is a profound sense of frustration, a profound sense of frustration about the fact that the essence of the American Dream… feels like it’s slipping away.” Bravo, Mr. Obama. Terrific job acting like Occupy Wall Street has anything to do with the American Dream. Terrific job pretending like you even understand what the American Dream is about. Spoken like a true, leftist community organizer. If the American Dream is slipping away, though, the only replacement Obama has offered the country is the lush verbiage from the book Dreams from My Father, a mish-mash of circular logic, an American Oblomov, superfluous, inert and self-absorbed- the inverse actually of the American Dream. “Congress needs to pass the rest of my American Jobs Act,” said Obama, after Dems and the GOP passed modest legislation aimed at making it easier to hire veterans, “so that we can create jobs and put money in the pockets of the middle class.” But Obama’s words belie the real trouble with him: He doesn’t really have a Jobs Act. He doesn’t have a budget, a foreign policy, an energy policy, an immigration policy. Instead he only acts like he has some of these. He’s the incomplete genesis of a community organizer. But reading words on cue cards prepared by others isn’t a substitute for having a policy; it isn’t the same thing as being president of the United States. Complicating things for Obama is the dilemma that is that he has never really decided in life who he really is. “Thomas Aquinas once raised the issue of choosing between a proud man and a pusillanimous one,” writes William Manchester in Goodbye Darkness. “Take the proud one every time, he advised, because you will be sure that he will at least do something.” Perhaps it’s time for someone to ask the relevant question: Does the life of a community organizer, which is necessarily a parochial endeavor, adequately prepare someone for the job of leading the nation? At least in the case of Obama, one would have to say no; not because of policy, not because of ideology, not because of point of view, but rather on account of inadequate preparation. When the history of the Obama administration is written, I predict, Americans will be appalled by the pusillanimity of the man once anointed the One. But that’s not all. Because, he not only lacks the skills, but he also lacks the conviction to be president of the United States. A man with conviction would be either for or against Occupy Wall Street- or banks or illegal immigrants, etc- not both for and against them at the same time. That’s what happens when a community organizer wars with the president of the United States, wholly in the person of himself. It makes for great drama, great acting. But it makes for the poorest possible history. PS- If you friend me on Facebook you get sneak peeks of columns! John Ransom | Create Your Badge Twitter http://twitter.com/#!/bamransom -See more top stories from Townhall Finance. New Homepage, more content. Be the best informed fiscal conservative. Share this on Facebook Tweet Tags: Obama

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/7296

Birds of a feather: flocking together or flying apart? By Stephen M. WaltStephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University. I suspect most of the AfPak attention will be focused on the revelations that President Hamid Karzai’s brother has been on the CIA payroll, the Taliban attack that killed six people at a U.N. staff house in Kabul, and the bombing that killed more than 80 people in Peshawar. Plus, there are new reports that the United States is going to adopt a strategy that eschews counterinsurgency throughout all of Afghanistan and concentrates on protecting major cities. These are all important stories, because they underscore just how difficult it has been, is, and will be to do social engineering on the lives of 200 million Muslims in Central Asia. But I want to focus on somewhat broader question today. Yet another justification for continuing the war in Afghanistan is the belief that the Afghan Taliban, al Qaeda, the Pakistani Taliban, and groups such as the Haqqani network form a tight ideologically-inspired alliance that is relentlessly anti-American and dedicated to attacking us no matter where we are or what we are doing. In this view, these various groups are “birds of a feather flocking together.” This belief fuels the fear that a Taliban victory in Afghanistan would produce a dramatic increase in al Qaeda’s capabilities, once their Islamic soulmates provided them with territory, recruits, and other forms of support for attacks on the West in general and the United States in particular. Such an outcome cannot be wholly ruled out, I suppose, and well-informed experts like Ahmed Rashid apparently think it’s likely. But there are several good reasons to doubt it. The first is that we know that there have been intense frictions between some of these groups in the past, as well as intense divisions between Osama bin Laden and some of his own associates. In his prize-winning book The Looming Tower, for example, Lawrence Wright describes the repeated tensions between Mullah Omar and Bin Laden, which nearly led the former to turn Bin Laden over to the Saudis. The rift was reportedly healed after bin Laden swore an oath of loyalty to Omar, but their interests and objectives are not identical and one can easily imagine new quarrels in the future. A second reason to be skeptical that these groups are tightly unified by a set of common beliefs or doctrines is the fact that the foreign presence in the region gives them an obvious incentive to help each other. In other words, what looks like ideological solidarity may be partly a manifestation of balance-of-power politics, and these groups’ tendency to back each other might easily dissipate once the foreign presence were reduced. Afghan political history is one where diverse coalitions form, dissolve, and realign in myriad ways, and similar dynamics are likely to resurface once the the United States and its foreign allies are gone. A third reason has to do with the nature of certain types of political ideology. Unlike liberalism, which emphasizes the need to tolerate a wide range of political views, political ideologies that rest on a single authoritative interpretation of “truth” are inherently divisive rather than unifying. In particular, ideologies that call for adherents to obey the leadership because it wields the “correct” interpretation of the faith (whether in Marxism, Christianity, Islam, etc.) tend to foster intense rivalries among different factions and between different leaders, each of whom must claim to be the “true” interpreter of the legitimating ideology. In such movements, ideological schisms are likely to be frequent and intense, because disagreements look like apostasy and a betrayal of the faith. Instead of flocking together, these “birds of a feather” are likely to fly apart. During the Cold War, for instance, hawks repeatedly worried about a “communist monolith” and were convinced that Marxists everywhere were reliable tools of the Kremlin. In reality, however, world communism was rife with internal tensions and ideological schisms, as illustrated by the furious Bolshevik-Menshevik split, the deadly battle between Trotsky and Stalin, and the subsequent rift between Stalin and Tito. China and the Soviet Union became bitter rivals by the early 1960s — on both geopolitical and ideological grounds — and the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam ended another yet another period of illusory communist unity and quickly led to wars between communist Vietnam, communist Kampuchea, and communist China. Such historical analogies should be used with caution, of course, but in this case the logic is similar and compelling. Islamic fundamentalists rely in part on specific interpretations of Islamic thought to recruit and motivate their followers, and disagreements over doctrine and policy can easily lead to bitter internal quarrels, especially once the immediate need to cooperate against a common enemy is gone. We’ve already seen amples sign of division within al Qaeda and its clones, and more are to be expected. This is not to say that global terrorists won’t continue to learn from each other, to inspire imitators (much as Marxism-Leninism once inspired a wide array of fringe groups who had nothing to do with Moscow) and they may even provide each other with various forms of tactical support on occasion. But there are good reasons to question the facile assumption that they are eternally loyal comrades-in-arms, united forever by a shared set of a deeply held politico-religious beliefs. And if there is considerable potential for division among both the leaders and even more among their followers, then a strategy of divide-and-conquer makes more sense than a long and costly counterinsurgency campaign that gives them every reason to stay united. SHAH MARAI/AFP/Getty Images al QaedaIslamTaliban About Stephen M. WaltStephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.@stephenwalt

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/7309

HomeMayor Virtually Assured of Jewish Agency Job NewsMayor Virtually Assured of Jewish Agency Job Dina KraftMay 20, 2005 JERUSALEM — Ze’ev Bielski, mayor of the Tel Aviv suburb of Ra’anana, can be seen in the mornings opening car doors for school children, ushering them toward their classrooms with a smile. Now Bielski, 58, may be heading to one of the most powerful offices in the Jewish world: chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel. With an annual budget of $400 million, the agency facilitates immigration to Israel, sponsors numerous development and social service programs in the country and runs Zionist education programs worldwide. Prime Minister Sharon announced Monday that Bielski was his choice to succeed Sallai Meridor, who announced last week that he would step down after six years at the helm of the agency. Sharon’s backing, and a subsequent affirmation the same day by the Jewish Agency’s Advice and Consent Committee, which represents Diaspora donors, virtually assures Bielski of the job. The affable Bielski, who once played basketball in Israel’s national league, is known as a consummate politician and fundraiser. Residents of Ra’anana’s neat, flower-lined streets credit Bielski for the high quality of life in the city and for running one of the few municipalities in Israel with a balanced budget. Known for his accessibility, he has an e-mail address to take comments from the public, with responses promised within 24 hours. Bielski also knows his way around the Diaspora: A pioneer of Jewish Agency-sponsored partnerships between Israeli and Diaspora communities, in recent years he teamed affluent Ra’anana with the Jewish Federation of MetroWest in the affluent suburbs of northern New Jersey. The relationship has proved to be hugely beneficial to his town, and is expected to pay dividends when he takes over the Jewish Agency. “That nomination is about as good a thing that can happen to the Jewish people as anything in the last number of years,” said Stephen Greenberg, a former vice president of the United Jewish Communities of MetroWest’s executive committee. Greenberg met Bielski more than 20 years ago at a conference that brought Israeli and Diaspora Jewish leaders together to map a common agenda. Bielski has made a point of staying in touch with his Diaspora friends, Greenberg said. He cited Bielski’s “spectacular personality that endears him to people” and his understanding of the Diaspora Jewish mind-set. Greenberg also pointed to Bielski’s sense of innovation: A formula he helped create to involve Ra’anana residents in the integration of new Russian immigrants became a model program in Israel. Diaspora backing will be critical for the Jewish Agency’s next chairman: The agency continues to struggle to secure funding from North America’s system of Jewish philanthropic federations, its primary financial backer. He must also put into effect a new strategic plan that emphasizes strengthening Diaspora Jews’ Zionist identity. “This position has become more and more important as the Jewish Agency has become more and more challenged,” said Richard Wexler, head of the Jewish Agency’s North American Council. “Core parts of the Jewish Agency’s mission, such as rescue of Jews in endangered Diaspora communities, are being challenged in a post-rescue era.” Wexler added: “We need someone in this position who can inspire greater American Jewish support. That will be Ze’ev Bielski’s challenge.” Bielski is expected to be approved by the Zionist General Council, which meets in Jerusalem June 21, and by the agency’s assembly, which meets June 26. Mayor Virtually Assured of Jewish Agency Job

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/7328

The Nation's Most Interactive Political Review World Justice Reinhardt, Right-Wing Nightmare: The Implications of His Ruling on Proposition 8 February 22, 2012 By: Cody Knapp On February 7, 2012, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld Chief Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling in Perry v. Brown (formerly Perry v. Schwarzenegger). The Ninth Circuit panel concurred with Walker, holding that California’s Proposition 8, a 2008 ballot initiative and constitutional amendment that revoked the right of gay couples to marry in California, was unconstitutional. Meanwhile, Governor Chris Gregoire of Washington signed same-sex marriage into law on February 13, and the legislature of New Jersey passed same-sex marriage legislation on February 16 (in spite of Governor Chris Christie’s subsequent veto, the legislators believe they can override the governor before the current legislative period ends in 2014). All in all, February 2012 seems to have been a landmark month for the LGBT community. But what was special about the Ninth Circuit panel’s majority opinion, and what does it mean in the context of the same-sex marriage debate? First, it is important to take note of salient background information regarding the judicial panel. The three judges on the panel, which rendered a 2-1 decision against the appellants, were randomly selected from the court’s 47 active and senior judges. From this random selection came a fairly diverse judicial panel: N. Randy Smith, a conservative George W. Bush­–appointee; Michael Daly Hawkins, a moderate Clinton–appointee; and Stephen Reinhardt, a Carter–appointee and the court’s longtime liberal bastion. Reinhardt, the 89-year-old husband of Ramona Ripston, former Executive Director of the Southern California ACLU, is widely regarded as one of the most liberal justices on the bench today. His often unorthodox findings (which include a legal right to physician-assisted suicide and that using police dogs to track down drugs violate the Fourth Amendment) are viewed suspiciously by the current Supreme Court. He is one of the most overturned justices in history and, reportedly, the Justices in 1997 referred to him privately as a “renegade judge” (For further reading on Reinhardt, I recommend a 1997 article in the Weekly Standard). Reinhardt, who wrote for the majority in the panel’s ruling, has stated his belief that the role of the court system is that of an agent of social change (i.e. judicial activism). He has also openly criticized the Supreme Court’s relative shift to the right in recent years. Accordingly, one might be surprised upon reading his opinion in this case, an opinion that is quite restrained and articulates a finding that seems quite narrow when contrasted with Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling. District Chief Judge Walker had previously struck down Proposition 8 on extremely broad terms, finding that it violated both the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause and the right to due process. Among a variety of important findings in his ruling, he found that domestic partnerships, even those with the same legal rights as marriage, were not equivalent because they intentionally withheld the associated cultural benefits of marriage from same-sex couples. He also wrote that marriage was a “fundamental right,” and, as such, “may not be submitted to [a] vote.” This was certainly the most decisive ruling for which the plaintiffs, represented by David Boies and Ted Olson, the opposing counsels in Bush v. Gore, had hoped. In upholding Walker’s ruling, however, Reinhardt and Daly took a different tact. Reinhardt, a proverbial battle-scarred general against the right-wing in its war on judicial activism, almost certainly agrees with each of Walker’s findings. As a veteran of the Supreme Court of the United States’ (SCOTUS) review process, however, he probably saw the great potential for SCOTUS to rule against the plaintiffs if presented with such a sweeping ruling. Ever the legal strategist, he severely narrowed the scope of the ruling; he and Daly refused to address the larger issue of the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage. Instead, they held the following: “By using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw a right that it possessed, without a legitimate reason for doing so, the people of California violated the Equal Protection Clause.” Thus, the majority effectively ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional because it removed the right of same-sex couples to marry, previously granted by the California Supreme Court, without good reason – not necessarily because same-sex couples enjoy a fundamental right to marry. Reinhardt goes on to highlight this distinction and says that the court would not have shied away from ruling on the larger issue if it were appropriate, but that in this case it was not necessary (Additionally, the liberal lion also offers many amusing remarks about the case that are sure to please liberal activists). The court’s narrow ruling and the fact that Reinhardt grounded the ruling by using Romer v. Evans (a Supreme Court ruling regarding an anti-gay rights Colorado amendment in 1996) as precedent for much of the majority’s argument suggest that Reinhardt and Daly wanted to ensure that this ruling would survive both an en banc review and a SCOTUS review. Because Justice Anthony Kennedy, generally regarded as the major swing vote if and when Proposition 8 comes before SCOTUS, wrote the majority opinion in Romer v. Evans, many legal analysts feel that this opinion was written specifically for him. By articulating a narrower ruling and targeting Justice Kennedy, Reinhardt and Daly have taken great pains to avoid a potentially devastating reversal for pro-marriage advocates. On February 21, the proponents of Proposition 8 filed a petition seeking an en banc review by the Ninth Circuit. This means that their appeal will be heard by 11 of the Court’s 28 active judges. Presumably, the losers in this round will appeal the case to SCOTUS. I am no longer convinced, however, that SCOTUS will issue a writ of certiorari. I believe that SCOTUS would prefer to postpone a definitive ruling on the issue of same-sex marriage until public opinion is less divisive. I think this is not merely because it is a controversial topic, as the Court has ruled on controversial topics before. It is a result the political atmosphere surrounding the Court. Justice John Roberts has stated (and all of the Justices seem to agree) that the Court has a public image problem. Any decision on a high profile case like Perry v. Brown would likely come down as a 5-4 decision, further incentivizing discussion of the Court as political instrument regardless of the ruling. This term, the Court will hear a case on the constitutionality of President Obama’s health care plan. Adding a gay marriage decision on top of this ruling would guarantee to diminish the Court’s standing in public opinion, regardless of how the rulings comes down. Reinhardt saw this, and gave them a way out. By tempering his normal inclination to issue broad rulings that challenge and push the Robert’s Court, I believe that Reinhardt has almost guaranteed a victory for same-sex marriage proponents in California. If affirmed by the full Ninth Circuit and/or SCOTUS, his ruling will provide a template for judges around the country. A victory in this case, while not proving the decisive win that same-sex marriage advocates have hoped for, will represent a huge win for the LGBT community. Tagged: California, LGBT, Prop 8, Reinhardt, SCOTUS, Supreme Court You may also like... Disenfranchised from the BeginningThe Native American Fight for Voter Equality Private PrisonsA Distraction From the Main Problems of the U.S. Justice System What Can ISIL Do for Free Speech? August 24, 2016 'Justice Reinhardt, Right-Wing Nightmare: The Implications of His Ruling on Proposition 8' has no comments Tweets by @GAPolitical Partners American Foreign Policy–Princeton Berkeley Political Review Columbia Political Review Fordham Political Review Harvard Political Review Harvard Salient History News Network-George Mason University Peach Pundit Penn Political Review Stanford Review Triple Helix Online Vanderbilt Political Review Washington University Political Review Content Arts & Culture About UsHome Editorial Statements Apply to GPR SupportersAlliance of Collegiate Editors © 2015 by Georgia Political Review GPR

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/7440

Argentina's 'Grandmothers' Ask Pope Francis To Help Find Disappeared Children Published April 26, 2013Fox News Latino Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo activist Buscarita Roa, of Chile, shows a scarf with the symbol of the Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo association, in St. Peter's Square after meeting Pope Francis at the end of his weekly general audience at the Vatican. (AP Photo/Alessandra Tarantino)AP2013 VATICAN CITY – Almost 40 years ago, their grandchildren were taken from political prisoners during the country's 1976-83 military dictatorship in Argentina. Now, members of of the Argentine human rights group "Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo" asked Pope Francis for help finding still-missing children— and said the pontiff told them they could count on him. Estela de Carlotto, president of the group, met briefly with the Argentinean pope after Francis' general audience in St. Peter's Square. She handed him a written request that he authorize the opening of archives from the Vatican and the Catholic Church in Argentina in hopes of finding clues about the whereabouts of the children. The organization estimates that around 500 babies were taken from their mothers while they were detained by the military. We ask that they help us, open the archive and investigate who was responsible in the church for the abduction of our grandchildren.- Estela de Carlotto "Every detail can help to identify those who were taken from our families," the letter read. "We ask that they help us, open the archive and investigate who was responsible in the church for the abduction of our grandchildren," de Carlotto told a news conference. She told reporters that Francis had told her: "'You can count on me. You can count on us.'" The former Jorge Mario Bergoglio was the young head of the Jesuit order in Argentina during the initial years of the dictatorship. In 1998, he was named archbishop of Buenos Aires and the country's top churchman — a position he held until he was named pope last month. Under Bergoglio's leadership, Argentina's bishops issued a collective apology in October 2012 for the church's failures to protect its flock. But the statement blamed the era's violence in roughly equal measure on both the junta and its enemies. The babies — some were abducted along with their parents, others were born in captivity — were mainly given to army families or supporters of the military regime, according to a government report titled "Never Again." In many cases, the infants' names were changed. The "Grandmothers" group has been marching every Thursday since 1977 in the Plaza de Mayo, the main square in front of Argentina's Government House, to demand answers about the whereabouts of the missing. "They know where these children can be found," de Carlotto said of church authorities. She said she was satisfied with her brief meeting with the pope but criticized him for not speaking out about the "disappeared" during the dictatorship. Bergoglio, like most other Argentines, didn't openly confront the military junta as it kidnapped and killed thousands of people in a "dirty war" to eliminate leftist opponents. But human rights activists differ on how much responsibility Bergoglio himself bears given he was just a young priest in charge of a few hundred Jesuits at the time, not the Catholic Church's main representative in the country. The request to open the Vatican archives is somewhat fraught: Vatican archives are sealed for decades after a pontificate and are opened only after they have been catalogued. Vatican archivists are currently working at an accelerated pace to open the archives of Pope Pius XII amid charges from some Jewish groups that the World War II-era pontiff didn't speak out enough against the Holocaust. Based on reporting by The Associated Press. Like us at facebook.com/foxnewslatino Print Argentine Cardinal Elected Pope Francis, The Soccer Pope The Cinderella of the Vatican? Pope's Tough Choices On Vatican Reforms Pope Urges Protection of Poor, Nature Argentineans at the Vatican Ecstatic Argentinean Cardinal Elected Pope

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/7463

Argentina takes step toward cleaning up 'Dirty War' The Supreme Court is due to consider reversing amnesty for ex-military men. By Tom Hennigan, Special to The Christian Science Monitor / The former Navy officer's dashing white dress suit is long gone. But Alfredo Astiz retains enough of his youthful good looks for Argentines to instantly recognize him as he was led from a courtroom in handcuffs last Friday.Justice finally looks to be catching up with Mr. Astiz. Twenty years after Argentina's return to democracy, Astiz remains for many the public face of Argentina's military death squads, which human rights groups say were responsible for the disappearance of up to 30,000 people during the 1976-83 military dictatorship. For years, Astiz and other former officers accused of human rights abuses have been protected by a series of amnesty laws passed in the face of pressure from the military in the years following the return to democracy in 1983. But all that changed Friday when Argentina's new president, Nestor Kirchner, annulled a decree forbidding extradition of former military men to stand trial abroad for crimes committed in Argentina. Many here hope that Mr. Kirchner's move is just the first step in rolling back all the legislation that has protected the former officers, including amnesty from trials in Argentine courts.Among the crimes Astiz is accused of is the disappearance of three of the founding members of the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, a group formed during military rule to pressure the Army for information about their missing loved ones.France has wanted to extradite Astiz since 1990 when a French court sentenced him in absentia to life in prison for his role in the disappearance of two French nuns in Argentina. Sweden also wants him in connection with the 1977 killing of Swedish teenager. Since Friday's ruling, he has not responded publicly.Since the president's move, more than 40 other former officers have been arrested along with Astiz. Spain has issued extradition warrants for men who committed crimes against Spanish nationals. Among those being held is former dictator Jorge Vidal.Kirchner, who was detained briefly during military rule, has actively identified himself with the "disappeared generation." One of his first acts upon taking power at the end of May was to purge the military of generals whose attitude he considered ambivalent toward the Army's role in the "Dirty War."He told The Washington Post on his trip to the US last week that he was in favor of repealing the laws protecting the military from Argentine courts, though he does not have the power to repeal them himself. Human rights groups welcomed the lifting of the extradition ban but still say there is a long way to go. "It is progress on the road to justice, truth, and the end of impunity," says Rosa Roisinblit, one of the leaders of the Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo, the successor to the original mothers' organization. "But I think there is still a long and winding road ahead."The Supreme Court is due to consider the legality of the remaining amnesty laws after lower courts in 2001 ruled them unconstitutional in the light of the military threat that surrounded their enactment. The country's Congress says it, too, will debate the laws.But despite the enormity of the crimes involved, others are uncertain of the wisdom of proceeding against the former officers.Sharp lines were drawn in Argentine society during the "Dirty War" period, with many people supporting the military's battle against leftist insurgents, though they say the government went too far. Some fear dredging up the past will only bring back those bitter divides."The attempt to revive the polarization of our country which bled us to death in the 1970s is a grave error," wrote La Nación, one of the country's leading newspapers, in an editorial following the extradition repeal.As well as those who would leave the past alone, there are those who defend the accused. They say the military was involved in a civil war with armed leftists in which both sides committed atrocities. They want to know what Kirchner intends for former leftist guerrillas who also benefit from current amnesty laws.The task now for Kirchner, analysts say, is to finally account for the dark deeds from Argentina's recent past without reopening old divisions in Argentine society at a time when he is trying to pull the country out of its worst economic crisis ever. Argentina officially indicts civilians for role in 'dirty war' Falklands War: Why the battle continues 30 years later (+video) Making nice? Argentina's Kirchner and Pope Francis meet in Rome (+video)

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/7466

Outrage over Taliban flogging of Pakistani girl could threaten peace deal A video of a girl being lashed 34 times for allegedly being seen with a man who was not her husband has prompted a chorus of condemnations led by President Asif Ali Zardari. By Issam Ahmed, Correspondent / Mingora, Pakistan The public flogging of a 17-year-old girl in Pakistan's Swat Valley sparked a wave of protests across the country this weekend, but local residents fear the backlash may jeopardize a precarious peace deal between the Pakistani government and militants in the troubled region.A grainy video depicting a girl being pinned down by three men and lashed 34 times – Islamic law punishment for allegedly being seen with a man who was not her husband – was released on private Pakistani television channels on Friday night prompting a chorus of condemnations led by President Asif Ali Zardari, who has ordered an inquiry into the incident. "[We] have a responsibility to stand for our people if they are being subjected to atrocities by elements that are not recognized by the state as legitimate actors. Ignoring such acts of violence amounts to sanctioning impunity," says Sherry Rehman, a member of parliament from the ruling Pakistan People's Party, who was information Minister at the time the Swat Valley peace deal allowing Islamic law was signed in February. She adds that the government may be forced to review its position with regard to the peace deal in the face of growing condemnation. In Swat's main town of Mingora, however, anger is overridden by a practical desire to maintain good relations with the Taliban whom residents say are in de- facto control of the region. The consensus is that the video, which was shot with a cellphone camera, took place in January – before the peace accord – and that the Taliban has done nothing as controversial since that time."There are no words strong enough to condemn the incident," says Ahmad Shah, principal of a local private school. "But the question is why now? Where was the outcry from [nongovernmental organizations] and the media when hundreds of people were being executed before the peace deal? Where were the countrywide strikes then? The situation is now on the right track. Let's give an opportunity to the peace process."The government lacks the ability to arrest Taliban militants, even if it wished to, he adds."Killers are no longer roaming the streets, there are no longer public hangings," adds Sardar Ali, a clothing shop owner. "During the fighting there was chaos, now things are much better."The February peace dealOn Feb. 16, a cease-fire was declared between the Pakistan Army and the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), led by Maulana Fazlullah. It came after three years of sporadic fighting that left 1,200 people killed, at least 250,000 displaced, and saw the destruction of more than 200 (mainly girls') schools. As part of the deal, the government agreed to allow the region to be governed by Islamic law, or "Nizam-i-adl," which was a key demand voiced by Mr. Fazlullah's father-in-law, Sufi Mohammed, who leads the movement's political wing. Almost two months later, the streets and bazaars of Mingora have returned to some semblance of normalcy. Shopkeepers say business is back up again, gaggles of school girls covered from head-to-toe in black burqas can be seen making their way through town, and a few dozen police constables direct traffic in the former tourist hot spot. Taliban fighters are instantly recognizable, too, by the Kalashnikovs slung over their shoulders and their fresh white sneakers with socks tucked over their baggy pants.The district coordination officer, Khushal Khan, points to a relatively low crime-rate – "one-odd murder here, one abduction there" in the district since peace was restored – as evidence of a return to order. He adds that the government has now undertaken a number of steps to restore public confidence.Debris from schools is being collected while makeshift tent schools have been erected for children from 13 of the more than 200 schools that were destroyed by militants before the peace deal. Hospitals have been reopened, and applicants are being invited to take part in a crash course to become police constables. Nearly all the local police had quit the force in the face of killings and threats over the past three years.Permission from 'good Taliban'Mr. Khan, who was kidnapped by Taliban fighters on his entrance to Mingora prior to his first day of work in the district, now terms the incident a "misunderstanding." He says that, in the absence of adequate state machinery, he has to work under the permission of certain "good Taliban" in order to get things accomplished.Though mid-level Taliban commanders routinely attempt to "out-Islam" each other by forbidding, for example, female high school students from taking their exams, or prohibiting an eye doctor from carrying out his work, appeals to the Taliban leadership are usually able to resolve the issues, he says.The much-vaunted Islamic courts are partly operational, hearing mainly financial or land disputes that are settled through a quick verdict by Qazis (religious scholars, who were already in place and working as magistrates before the peace-deal). Opposing parties describe their disputes, which could center around a bounced check or a defaulted loan, to the Qazi who in turn makes a swift decision and orders the families to come together and shake hands. There are few documents involved and no lawyers. One hundred and fifteen new cases have been heard since the peace deal, of which 50 have been resolved. "People seem to prefer it this way," says court clerk Zafar Ali. "Things are done a lot sooner."Even Aftab Alam, who, as the district bar association president is the elected leader of the more than 300 lawyers who have remained out of work since regular courts stopped working, sees working with Taliban as the only way forward."The restoration of regular courts can only follow a permanent peace," he says, adding that the government must make good on his promise to officially sign the Islamic regulations so their jurisdiction is formalized and criminal cases can be heard. Last week, cleric Sufi Mohammed threatened to step away from the peace deal if the document was not signed by Pakistan's secular government."If President Zardari fails to sign the draft of the sharia [Islamic law] regulation 2009, it shows he is willing to hand over the region to hands of extremists," says Mr. Alam. "What has been shown or [broadcast] is the tip of the iceberg. A lot more criminal acts have been done but no one was there to help us."Though trained as a secular lawyer, Alam says that implementing Islamic law regulations "to the letter and spirit" may prevent the worst forms of punishments carried out by Taliban during what effectively was a period of war."It is not ideal but we are making it work," adds Mr. Shah, the school principal.For now, however, national momentum appears to moving in the opposite direction.Pakistan's popular Chief Justice Ifthikar Chaudhry on Friday scheduled a hearing into the flogging incident and ordered the victim to be produced before the court on Monday, while thousands of rights activists took to the streets of Islamabad, Peshawar, Lahore, and Karachi on Saturday to protest.A slew of high-profile religious scholars branded the flogging of a woman in public as "unIslamic," while women's rights activists in Lahore vowed to continue to voice their anger over the next three days."The government has gone too far in issuing concessions to religious extremists but has gotten nothing in return. This incident is an indication of the type of society [the Taliban] have in mind for the rest of the country," says Dr. Mehdi Hassan, a Lahore-based senior member of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan who took part in a street demonstration on Saturday. Afghan peace: Karzai, Ahmadinejad in Pakistan for talks Pakistani Taliban shoot teenaged champion of girls' schools Pakistani police arrest suspects in schoolgirl shooting (+video)

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/7499

Yet again, no deal for Zimbabwe Zimbabwe’s main rivals failed to reach a settlement on the final day of a regional summit where the country’s crisis was high on the agenda, a spokesperson for the opposition leader said on Sunday.“We’re finished,” said George Sibotshiwe, spokesperson for Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) leader Morgan Tsvangirai, referring to Tsvangirai’s meetings with regional leaders at the Southern African Development Community (SADC) summit in Johannesburg.Asked if there was an agreement, he said: “No, not at all.” He declined to discuss details of the talks at the summit, saying only that Tsvangirai had met the heads of state and that the MDC was planning a news conference for later in the day.Major stumbling blocks were said to remain in the talks, with much of the disagreement centred on the distribution of power between Tsvangirai and President Robert Mugabe.A South African official close to the negotiations said remaining sticking points included whether Mugabe would retain the right to hire and fire ministers and how long a transitional government would remain in place.The MDC wants a clause stating that if one of the parties pulled out of the government of national unity, elections would be held within 90 days, according to the official.“It’s better not to have a deal than to have a bad deal,” Tsvangirai told the New York Times in an interview published on Sunday.South African President Thabo Mbeki, the regionally appointed mediator for the Zimbabwe talks, had raised the possibility on Saturday that a deal could be reached before the end of the meeting.SADC’s troika on security issues also agreed that a deal to resolve the crisis should be signed during the summit, a foreign minister who attended the meeting said. The body comprises Angola, Tanzania and Swaziland.However, the troika will continue to meet the leaders of Zimbabwe to find a “speedy resolution” to the political situation in the country, Mbeki said on Sunday.In his closing address at the summit, he said the council had been meeting Zimbabwe’s rival leaders and will continue to do so even after the summit officially closed.“The [troika] continues to engage with this matter and indeed after we have formally closed the organ will convene again. It is an indication of the seriousness with which SADC approaches this question,” he said.“[They need to reach] a speedy conclusion of negotiations so that it indeed becomes possible to address the enormous challenges that face the masses of the people of Zimbabwe,” said Mbeki.Earlier, Seychelles President James Michel said his country applauded the “courage and wisdom” of the Zimbabwean people. He also paid tribute to Mbeki for his “exemplary” efforts in his role as a mediator.Michel said it was a “very special day” for Seychelles that it had been readmitted after a five-year stayaway from SADC.He said reasons for withdrawing from SADC earlier had been financial. However, a “more realistic membership fee” had been negotiated.Michel was adamant that though it is a small country, Seychelles has a role to play in SADC.“We may be small but we will also give of our best to promoting the interests of SADC as a sincere and responsible partner,” he said.—Sapa Thabo MbekiRobert MugabeMorgan TsvangiraiSouth AfricaSouthern African Development CommunityMovement for Democratic ChangeGauteng Zim talks: End is in sight, says Mbeki Zim on agenda as heads of state gather Zimbabwe looms over SADC summit

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/7525

READ MONTHLY REVIEW! IN LABOR'S CORNER CAMPAIGN AGAINST SANCTIONS AND MILITARY INTERVENTION IN IRAN THE ALTERNATIVE INFORMATION CENTER NEWS FROM WITHIN JOIN THE NEW SDS ADD YOURSELF TO OUR FRAPPR - - - - - - - - - - - - - COMMUNITY LABOR NEWS Connecting Advocates with Activists and Ideas with Direct Action PROMETHEUS Builds Union Web Sites! Rainbow Bookstore Cooperative 426 W. Gilman St. Madison, WI BUY THIS BOOK NAKED IMPERIALISM: The U.S. Pursuit of Global Dominance by John Bellamy Foster READ EXCERPT BUY THIS BOOK POX AMERICANA: Exposing the American Empire edited by John Bellamy Foster and Robert W. McChesney TOWARD AN OPEN TOMB: The Crisis of Israeli Society by Michel Warschawski BUY THIS BOOK EASTERN CAULDRON: Islam, Afghanistan, Palestine, and Iraq in a Marxist Mirror by Gilbert Achcar RELIGION AND THE HUMAN PROSPECT by Alexander Saxton BUY THIS BOOK THE COLD WAR AND THE NEW IMPERIALISM: A Global History, 1945–2005 by Henry Heller THE AMORAL ELEPHANT: Globalization and the Struggle for Social Justice in the Twenty-First Century by William K. Tabb BUY THIS BOOK THE LIBERAL VIRUS: Permanent War and the Americanization of the World by Samir Amin BUY THIS BOOK THE FICTION OF A THINKABLE WORLD: Body, Meaning, and the Culture of Capitalism by Michael Steinberg READ EXCERPT BUY THIS BOOK CULTURES OF DARKNESS: Night Travels in the Histories of Transgression by Bryan D. Palmer BUY THIS BOOK Submissions About MR On the Jewish Presence in Iranian History by Arshin Adib-Moghaddam When the chairman of Iran's Jewish Council, Haroun Yashayaei, criticized President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a letter condemning his remarks on the Holocaust, he was supported by a range of Iranian intellectuals, artists, poets, and others both within the country and without. For those amongst us with some understanding about the Jewish presence in Iranian history, it was immediately clear that Ahmadinejad's comments could be attributed to a mixture of individual ignorance about the factual circumstances of the holocaust and, more importantly, Machiavellian expediency during a period when the Iranian state was targeted by a relentless public relations campaign in the international media. As such, his comments are quite comparable to Bush's declaration that, after 11 September 2001, the United States was on a "crusade" or Silvio Berlusconi's statement about the inherent superiority of "Western" values during the same period. Indeed, I do not think it an exaggeration to place Ahmadinejad in the same category as Bush and Berlusconi. All three represent that type of politician that adhere to a dichotomous worldview: things are either black or white, good or bad, you are either with them or against them. Ironically enough, Ahmadinejad's shortcomings are most evident in his understanding of his own civilization, especially Iran's intimate historical encounters with Judaism. A few lessons in theology communicate to us that the Bible is dotted with praise for ancient Persia and its imperial masters. The Old Testament describes the Persian king Cyrus the Great as God's "anointed" and "chosen" ruler because it was he who gave refuge to the Jews when they were persecuted by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar in sixth century B.C. These actions also explain why Cyrus is mentioned in the Torah as a saint and savior of the Jewish people. Indeed one of his successors to the Persian throne, Xerxes I (Artaxerxes), married a Jewish woman, Esther, the daughter of one of his ministers. The tomb of Esther in the north-western Iranian city of Hamadan (originally called Ecabatana) draws Jewish pilgrims from all over Iran, especially during the holiday of Purim (the walls of the building explain the origins of Esther in Hebrew). It should be added as a footnote to the contemporary history of the Persian Gulf area that Iran's real and perceived support to persecuted Jews was used by Saddam Hussein in order to demonize the "Persian menace from the East" during the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988). This was the central theme of two books published in Baghdad in the early 1980s: Al-Madaris al-Yahudiyya wa-l-Iraniyya fi-l-'Iraq (Jewish and Iranian Schools in Iraq) by Fadil al-Barrak; and Al-Harb al-sirriyya, khafaya al-dawr al-Isra'ili fi harb al-khalij (The Secret War: The Mysterious Role of Israel in the [First] Gulf War) by Sa'd al-Bazzaz. The former alleges the "destructive" and "dangerous" impact of Jewish and Iranian schools on Iraqi society. The latter claims to outline how Israel and Iran conspired to combat Iraq, with special reference to the destruction of the nuclear reactor in Osirak by Israeli Air Force in June 1981. Further lessons in Iran's contemporary history show that at a time when Nazi Germany was busy implementing the "Endlösung," Iranian diplomats offered hundreds of Iranian passports to European Jews in order to facilitate their exodus, especially from Poland (there continues to be a sizeable Polish-Jewish minority in Iran to this date). The Islamic Republic itself guarantees the rights of Iran's Jewish minority, which is the largest in West Asia outside of Israel and Palestine. The 25.000 to 60.000 Jews of Tehran, Shiraz, Isfahan, Boroujerd, and Yazd have their own cemeteries (Tehran's Jewish cemetery is online at www.beheshtieh.com), which, unlike those in Europe and Russia, are not desecrated by skinhead mobs; attend packed synagogues; send their children to Jewish schools; buy their meat in kosher butchers; and are exempt from prohibitions on alcohol. Their political representation in the Iranian parliament (majlis) is secured in the Iranian Constitution. Indeed, many Iranian-Jews fought Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988), and Ahmadinejad himself recently honored an Iranian-Jewish war veteran on the occasion of the commemoration ceremony for the liberation of the south-western town of Khorramshahr from Saddam Hussein's forces. It should be added that, in August of last year, the "Association of the Iranian Jewish Community" and the management of the Jewish hospital "Sepir" in Tehran facilitated the medical support to Palestinians wounded by Israeli armed forces during the latest intifadah against the occupation. "Anti-Semitism" is a distinctively European invention, and projecting its ideological tenets and political agenda to the Muslim world is intellectually unrewarding and analytically flawed. This is not to say that there are no anti-Jewish sentiments in the region. There are, but they are not racially motivated. They are political in nature. The equivalent to the attitudes of Ahmadinejad exists in many countries today as a consequence, in my opinion, of both the resurgence of ultra-nationalist ideologies which are always intrinsically xenophobic and the continued occupation of Palestinian territories by the Israeli state. The real object of this type of politics is thus not the holocaust per se. It is the Israeli state and its underlying Zionist ideology. That is why Ahmadinejad received the support of Jewish organizations such as "Neturei Karta International" which presents itself as a "world wide organization of Orthodox Jews opposed to Zionism." Anti-Zionism as opposed to anti-Semitism is a legitimate political position to take, and many will continue to voice their dissent in order to protest the abominations committed in the name of the Zionist ideal. In the meantime, it is important to divorce facts from fiction. The calculated ignorance of states means that we should strengthen our empathy and alertness, especially when it comes to unearthing their myths and distortions, whether with regard to established historical facts such as the holocaust or in relation to the deaths and destructions in Gaza, Kabul, Baghdad, or Grozny. What is needed, above all else then, is inclusive dialogue that is ideologically dispassionate and intellectually honest. For those readers who think that this is merely an abstract demand from an idealistic intellectual, allow me to discuss a very specific example. In May 2006, bloggers and investigative journalists exposed as wholly invented a story by Amir Taheri, a story that was concocted in order to present Iran as an anti-Semitic entity. In an article for the National Post of Canada, Taheri had claimed that a new law would require Iranian Jews to "be marked out with a yellow strip of cloth sewn in front of their clothes while Christians will be assigned the color red. Zoroastrians end up with Persian blue as the color of their zonnar." Accordind to Taheri, "the new codes would enable Muslims to easily recognize non-Muslims so that they can avoid shaking hands with them by mistake and thus becoming najis (unclean)." To reiterate the message, the paper ran alongside the article a 1935 photograph of a Jewish businessman in Berlin with a yellow, six-pointed star sewn on his overcoat. The National Post was forced to retract the bogus piece and apologize publicly. But by then the New York Post and the Jerusalem Post, which also featured a photo of a yellow star from the Nazi era over a photo of Ahmadinejad, and the New York Sun had picked up the story. It should be added that, in another New York Post column in 2005, Taheri claimed that Iran's ambassador to the UN, Javad Zarif, was one of the students involved in the capture of US diplomats in Tehran between 1979 and 1980. The story was retracted after Dwight Simpson, a professor at San Francisco State University, wrote to the newspaper explaining that the allegation was "false." On the day of the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran, Zarif was a "graduate student in the Department of International Relations of San Francisco State University. He was my student," Simpson told the editors, "and he served also as my teaching assistant." Worringly, Amir Taheri was amongst a group of "experts" on Iran and the region invited to the White House in a meeting with Tony Blair and George W. Bush in May 2006. There is a particular interest linked to the representation of Iran as an irrational, "anti-Semitic" polity. At the least, it legitimates the demonization of the Iranian state, at most it mobilizes public opinion in support of military action. The ball is in our court. Unravelling the myths and distortions of politicians or the transnational media is not a futile endeavor. Our powers to dissent from the mainstream are real. Our instruments, scholarly research and critical analysis, are strong. You will find that anyone who tells you otherwise is either chronically disillusioned or the agent of a particular ideology opposed to the merits of international dialogue and cross-cultural empathy. Arshin Adib-Moghaddam is the author of The International Politics of the Persian Gulf: A Cultural Genealogy (London: Routledge, 2006). He teaches international relations at Oxford University. MRZine has published his "The Muslim in the Mirror" (23 Feb. 2006); "Persian Atoms: Enriching Facts, Diverting Fiction" (26 April 2006); "Iraq, Iran, and the New World Order" (25 May 2006); "The Muslim Presence in the Racist Mind" (15 June 2006); "Palestine Sans Frontières" (18 July 2006); "Reflections on Arab and Iranian Ultra-Nationalism" (20 November 2006); and "Uprising against the 'War on Terror': The Danger of US Foreign Policy to International Security" (16 February 2007). Consult Adib-Moghaddam's Web site for his upcoming publications.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/7621

← Is Argentina “Blockading” the Falklands? Somone Who Comes between One Person and Another: Lubanga, Local Cooperation and the Right to a Fair Trial → Can the ICC Investigate Crimes in South Sudan? by Kevin Jon Heller That’s the question asked by my friends at Wronging Rights, in response to a recent article in Time: TIME claims to have obtained an internal ICC memo showing that the Court is “compiling evidence of possible recent war crimes in southern Sudan, allegedly directed by Sudanese Defense Minister Abdelrahim Mohamed Hussein.” Apparently, in addition to the Prosecutor’s request for a warrant for Hussein in connection with attacks on civilians in Darfur, “the ICC is separately building a case that Hussein may be behind the killing of civilians over the past year in Kordofan, Nuba Mountains, Blue Nile state and South Sudan.” Internets, help us figure out what’s going on here. How can the ICC be investigating these events? To review: There are three paths to an ICC case. The first is a referral of a situation by an involved state. The second is Security Council authorization. The third is that the Office of the Prosecutor can initiate its own investigation, but only into alleged events either (1) occurring on the territory of a state that’s accepted the ICC’s jurisdiction, or (2) perpetrated by a national of a state that’s accepted the ICC’s jurisdiction. Sudan is not a member of the ICC, and President al-Bashir is not exactly besties with Moreno-Ocampo, so we think it’s unlikely Khartoum referred this situation to the Prosecutor. The newly independent South Sudan has not signed up to the ICC yet, so they probably didn’t do it either. (Although there is a mechanism through which a non-signatory state can accept jurisdiction of the court over specific crimes occurring on its territory. In the case of South Sudan, this would likely only be possible for crimes occurring since July 9, 2011, when they assumed sovereign authority.) The Security Council didn’t refer these events to the ICC either. While Security Council resolution 1593 expressly requested that the ICC take up the issue of Darfur, that referral was limited to events taking place in Darfur since 2002. None of the new areas supposedly included in the memo are located in Darfur. So, no jurisdiction there. And as far as we can tell, the Prosecutor should also have been estopped from initiating his own investigation because of Sudan’s and South Sudan’s non-membership. So, uh, what gives? Kate and Amanda have asked me to weigh in, so I’ll give it a shot. My best guess is — as they suggest — that the OTP has received assurances from the new South Sudanese government that it will either (1) ratify the Rome Statute and accept the Court’s jurisdiction retroactively, or (2) file a declaration under Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute accepting jurisdiction on an hoc basis over the crimes the OTP is investigating. Either way, the issue would be how far back in time South Sudan could accept the Court’s jurisdiction. Kate and Amanda suggest that the relevant date would be 9 July 2011, South Sudan’s chosen independence day. That makes sense, but the issue is murky — as it always is when it comes to state formation and recognition. So I can imagine two arguments for more expansive retroactive jurisdiction. To begin with, South Sudan could argue that, for purposes of acceptance of jurisdiction, the relevant date is 7 February 2011, when the results of the independence referendum were formally published by the referendum commission. That would be enough to justify the OTP’s investigation, because the Time article notes that the investigation is focusing on crimes committed in late May 2011. A second argument, however, is much more interesting. South Sudan could invoke the Eichmann “precedent” and argue that a state should have the right to give the Court retroactive jurisdiction over any and all crimes committed against its citizens, even if the state did not formally exist at the time of their commission. Both the District Court of Jerusalem and the Israeli Supreme Court accepted a similar argument (involving domestic jurisdiction) with regard to Eichmann’s crimes against the Jews during World War II, which obviously predated Israel’s formal existence as a state. Would the Court buy an argument based on Eichmann? I have no idea — but I don’t think it’s frivolous. What do you think, Kate and Amanda? December 7th, 2011 - 2:17 AM EDT | Trackback Link | http://opiniojuris.org/2011/12/07/can-the-icc-investigate-crimes-in-south-sudan/ 5 Responses Oh, interesting point about Eichmann. Even if that argument worked, though, it would only apply to events (now) on the territory of South Sudan. So I remain puzzled about the investigation regarding Kordofan, Nuba Mountains, and Blue Nile. It seems like they would have to be anticipating a Security Council referral, right? at 10:47 am EST Kate Cronin-Furman I think the Eichmann argument is particularly strong with regard to allegations of genocide. Although Eichmann is often read as a universal jurisdiction case, for me it is really a passive personality jurisdiction case. This is particularly apt since Eichmann was charged with committing “crimes against the Jewish People” — that was one of the substantive crimes for which he was convicted. This is often overlooked by scholars. Although Israel did not exist at the time he committed the crimes, the Jewish people certainly did. Does the ICC investigation in this case include genocide? See Schabas here. at 11:41 am EST Jens David Ohlin Nice article, but there is a problem with the line of argument. According to the Art. 11 (2) of the Rome Statute, “if a State becomes a Party to this Statute after its entry into force, the Court may exercise its jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of this Statute for that State, unless that State has made a declaration under article 12, paragraph 3.” In other words, upon ratification the state cannot retroactively accept the Court’s jurisdiction. The Statute is silent whether or not a non-state party can accept ICC’s jurisdiction retroactively under article 12, paragraph 3. at 11:56 am EST Larisa Jens, I think the passive personality point would be persuasive if South Sudan were planning to prosecute these crimes (the ones involving their citizens, anyway) domestically. But as I read the Rome Statute, the ICC only inherits state parties’ territorial and active personality jurisdiction, so I’m not sure it could proceed with a case on this basis. at 1:52 pm EST Kate Cronin-Furman Peeps – you’re all overlooking a key point: Geography lesson: The States of South Kordofan and Blue Nile both lie in SUDAN, NOT SOUTH SUDAN – so the reference to “Eichmann” is somewhat bizarre; aka ‘virtual Sudan’ (misinformation taken as FACT) at play again. I Adam at 6:46 am EST IAdam Sudan Trackbacks and Pingbacks There are no trackbacks or pingbacks associated with this post at this time.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/7666

Public Diplomacy Public Diplomacy Navigation Smith Mundt Act Edmund Gullion Judy Milestone Mehri Madarshahi Nation Branding Steven Kinney TestPage Spam cleanup script Rotlink Amyhochadel Baybars Atatevos Jopeters The US Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (Public Law 402), popularly referred to as the Smith-Mundt Act, specifies the terms in which the U.S. government can engage in public diplomacy. The Smith-Mundt Act institutionalized the Voice of America and create additional exchange programs beyond the original Fulbright programs. The act was originally introduced at the request of the U.S. State Department as the Bloom Bill, after Rep. Sol Bloom (D-IL), the chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs, in October 1945. The purpose of the bill was to make various existing information and exchange activities permanent, such as the Voice of America radio broadcasts that began in 1942, and to create the institutional framework to grow the programs as required. In other words, its purpose was to institutionalize America’s communication and engagement programs with audiences around the world. The bill would reintroduce informational and cultural programming as a new peacetime instrument of foreign policy. The bill was met with resistance by a Congress that had concerns greater than the recent memories of President Woodrow Wilson’s Committee for Public Information (CPI), President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Office of War Information (OWI), and the Nazi propaganda machine. Congress harbored significant reservations about empowering the State Department. The key issue was not whether US Government information activities should be known to the American public, but whether the State Department could be trusted to create and disseminate these products. When the Bloom Bill (HR 4982) went to the House of Representatives Rules Committee in February 1946, committee Chairman Eugene Cox (D-GA) informed Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs William J. Benton that ten of the twelve committee members were against anything the State Department favored because of its "Communist infiltration and pro-Russian policy." That the House Foreign Affairs Committee unanimously reported the bill out was meaningless. Cox told Benton that the Foreign Affairs Committee was "a worthless committee consisting of worthless impotent Congressmen; it was a kind of ghetto of the House of Representatives." Cox publicly characterized the State Department as "chock full of Reds" and "the lousiest outfit in town." The information component of the Bloom Bill was seen as a revitalization of the Office of War Information, for which many in Congress held contempt as a New Deal "transgression." The cultural component was held in greater disdain, which caused Benton, to change the name of his office from the Office of Cultural and Public Affairs a year after it was created to the Office of Public Affairs. Other comments were similarly tough. The ranking minority member of the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee, Rep. John Taber (D-NY), called for a "house-cleaning" of "some folks" in the State Department to "keep only those people whose first loyalty is to the United States." The FBI was also concerned over the ability of State to monitor and control participants in the exchange programs. The State Department was in new territory. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs had just been created in 1944, the result of a self-reorganization to meet the needs of the 20th century. The office was originally the Assistant Secretary for Cultural and Public Affairs, but Benton, the second occupant of the office, the first being Archibald MacLeish, previously the Librarian of Congress, removed the “Cultural and” to avoid the immediate conflicts with the Congress. Benton focused on the information aspects of engagement. In July 1946, the Bloom Bill passed the House (272 to 97) only to die in the Senate on August 2 at the hands of Sen. Robert Taft. While Taft never gave a reason for blocking the bill, he was an isolationist who held virtually everything supported by the Truman Administration in disdain. For example, he opposed sending US forces overseas for training after the war. The day before the Bloom Bill died in the Senate, an amendment to the Surplus Property Act of 1944 was passed. Promoted by Sen. J. William Fulbright (D-AR), this law expanded funding and mandates for previously authorized exchange programs. At the request of the State Department, who was struggling through appropriations hearings and defending its activities to Congress, the Bloom Bill was introduced by Congressman Karl Mundt (R-SD) on March 21, 1947. As the State Department admitted to lax oversight due to personnel and budget constraints, Congress voiced its frustration and slashed State’s information budget. This time, Taber said if the "drones, the loafers, and the incompetents" were weeded out, he would allow a few million dollars for international broadcasting. The State Department's information and exchange activities were continuing, although without explicit authorization from the Congress. The authority was derived from Congressional appropriations legislation. In other words, the activities continued because they received money from Congress, which carried implicit authority but actual authority was still lacking. A pre-Pearl Harbor isolationist, Mundt sought to formalize the State Department's information activities to ensure both funding and quality thresholds. Cosponsoring the now-Mundt bill was Sen. Alexander Smith (R-NJ). The stated purpose of the reintroduced legislation was not to curtail the overall information activities of the United States, but to raise the quality and volume of the government’s information programs. Several significant leaders went to the House to testify in support of the bill, including Secretary of State George Marshall, Chief of Staff General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Under Secretary of State Dean Acheson, Secretary of Commerce W. Averell Harriman (formerly the Ambassador to Russia), and Ambassador to Russia Walter Bedell Smith. They agreed that it was "folly" to spend millions for foreign aid and relief without explaining America’s aims. Between March 1947 and January 1948 when the bill became law, several significant events helped move the legislation forward. In May 1947, the rhetoric between the State Department and the Associated Press, who had cut off access to the State Department in January 1946 in response to the Bloom Bill, notched up. The result was several other newspaper and radio publishers and presidents lining up against the Associated Press and supporting the government. Secretary of State George C. Marshall announced the Marshall Plan in June 1947, which resulted in increased volume and tempo of Communist propaganda around the world, particularly in Europe when a Congressional delegation comprising both houses traveled to the continent to see the “front lines” in August 1947. Reconciliation between the House and Senate versions took place in early January 1948 and on January 27, 1948, President Harry S. Truman signed the bill into law. Congress, in recommending passage of the bill, declared that "truth can be a powerful weapon." Congress further declared six principles were required for the legislation to be successful in action: tell the truth; explain the motives of the United States; bolster morale and extend hope; give a true and convincing picture of American life, methods, and ideals; combat misrepresentation and distortion; and aggressively interpret and support American foreign policy. In the Act, Congress added three major 'protections.’ 1. The first was to protect the American media by requiring the State Department to maximize its use of private resources. 2. The second was to ensure the State Department would not have a monopoly on broadcasting. The third, the prohibition on domestic dissemination by the State Department, was put in place because Congress feared the State Department - full of "loafers, incompetents" and "men of strong Soviet leaning" - could undermine the US Government. The second and third restrictions were of greater interest to the Congress as they answered their critical concerns about a deep pocket government engaging domestic audiences. These two provisions remain unamended and in force and were the true prophylactic intended to prevent Nazi-style propaganda or President Wilson's Committee for Public Information activities. Added to the Bloom Bill, the predecessor to the Smith-Mundt Bill in June 1946 by Representative John M. Vorys (R-OH) "to remove the stigma of propaganda" and address the principle objections to the information activities the Congress intended to authorize. The amendment said the information activities should only be conducted if needed to supplement international information dissemination of private agencies; that the State Department was not to acquire a monopoly of broadcasting or any other information medium; and that private sector leaders should be invited to review and advise the State Department in this work. In 1967, the Advisory Commission on Information (later renamed the Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy) recommended the de facto prohibition on domestic distribution be removed noting that there is "nothing in the statutes specifically forbidding making USIA materials available to American audiences. Rather, what began as caution has hardened into policy."[i] This changed in 1972 when Sen. J. William Fulbright (D-AR) argued America’s international broadcasting should take its "rightful place in the graveyard of Cold War relics." That year, Fulbright declared that America's information broadcasters, the "Radios", "should be given an opportunity to take their rightful place in the graveyard of Cold War relics." Trying to dis-establish America's international broadcasting, Fulbright asked the US Attorney General to block a domestic broadcast by a U.S. senator to his constituents of a movie produced by the United States Information Agency. The Attorney General, Richard Kleindienst, did not while noting the "apparent purpose" of the section prohibiting domestic dissemination applied to the State Department only and that Congress did intend that "USIA materials available to the American public through the press and members of Congress." Fulbright would fight the Nixon Administration to first get rid of the Radios and then attempt to abolish USIA. The Administration responded by moving the Radios out of USIA into a precursor to today's BBG and ultimately successfully battling Fulbright to that the once-powerful Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would not even go to the floor for his pet projects, "why bother?" he would ask. Fulbright realized the Cold War had shifted. It was no longer a struggle for the minds and wills of people, as President's Truman and Eisenhower had described it. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1972 amended the Smith-Mundt Act to include a ban on disseminating within the United States any "information about the United States, its people, and its policies" prepared for dissemination abroad. The "loop hole" was further tightened in 1985 when Sen. Edward Zorinsky (D-NE), inspecting USIA for nepotism and fighting the establishment of Radio MARTI, was unhappy with what he thought was a tactical use of "public diplomacy" - namely the USIA - to support immediate policies goals of the Reagan Administration. On the floor of the Senate, Zorinsky declared that the "American taxpayer certainly does not need or want his tax dollars used to support the US government propaganda directed at him or her." This quote, often cited, was offered in a context that is often not cited. A breath or two before the aforementioned quote, Zorinsky said, referring to the 1972 amendment, "By law, the USIA cannot engage in domestic propaganda. This distinguishes us, a free society, from the Soviet Union where domestic propaganda is a principle government activity." The Zorinsky Amendment added a new prohibition: "no funds authorized to be appropriated to the United States Information Agency shall be used to influence public opinion in the United States, and no program material prepared by the United States Information Agency shall be distributed within the United States." This amendment also added that domestic access to USIA products be "for examination only." For several years, Zorinsky Amendment was interpreted as a Congressional intention to exempt USIA products from the Freedom of Information Act. An act of Congress, through legislation or verbal agreement, is traditionally used permit a program for domestic release in less than 12 years. As a Cold War measure, the act was intended to counter and inoculate against propaganda from the Soviet Union and Communist organizations primarily in Europe. The principle purpose of the legislation was to engage in a global struggle for minds and wills, a phrase used by Presidents Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower. Since 1972, the act prohibits domestic access to information intended for foreign audiences. Prior to this, the State Department and then the USIA beginning in 1952, were prohibited from disseminating information intended for foreign audiences with the express intent that Congress, the American media, or academia would be the distributors of such information. Today, the Smith-Mundt Act's most well-known component is Section 501, as it was labeled in the original bill. In its original form, Section 501 directed the Secretary of State to disseminate information abroad. As the Smith-Mundt ban on domestic dissemination has been tightened over the years by subsequent legislation, Section 501 has been challenged on several grounds. Many argue that the introduction of the Internet and related advances in communication technologies have rendered the prohibition on domestic propaganda anachronistic. U.S. cultural and information programs meant for foreign audiences are now readily accessible via the web. It is important to note that the Smitht-Mundt Act does not define or use the word propaganda. In 1994 when the USIA launched its Internet service, providing access to the text of news dispatches, and audio feeds from VOA radio programs, Senator Jesse Helms objected on the grounds that it violated the Smith Mundt Act. In response, the USIA moved these services from a domestic to a foreign server. Employees of overseas and cultural programs were also forbidden from giving out the URL address of their websites to US citizens. However, these websites remain easily accessible via Google and other Internet search engines. Others have challenged Smith Mundt on the grounds that it violates the Freedom of Information Act. In February 1996, Essential Information, Inc., a non-profit citizen activist group founded in 1982 by Ralph Nader asked the USIA for six months records. The USIA refused citing the Smith Mundt Act as the reason for noncompliance. Essential Information Inc. then filed suit. In November 1996 the federal District Court in Washington, D.C., ruled that the material under the Smith-Mundt Act is not to be available, applying the Freedom of Information Act's Exemption 3 to block access. Recently, Smith-Mundt has resurfaced as a serious topic of discussion in Washington, D.C. On Jan. 13, 2009, the first-ever Smith-Mundt Symposium took place on Capitol Hill in the largest room of the Reserve Officers Association and gathered public diplomacy and strategic communication practitioners from governmental and non-governmental groups, including the Departments of State, Defense and Homeland Security; Congress; academia; and media. Four panels of public diplomacy professionals provided: History of Smith-Mundt, America's Bifurcated Engagement, Rebuilding the Arsenal of Persuasion, and The View From the Hill, and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Support to Public Diplomacy Mike Doran delivered the keynote speech. Matthew Armstrong, public diplomacy advisor and publisher of the MountainRunner blog, convened and chaired the symposium. On July 13, 2010, U.S. Congressmen Mac Thornberry (TX-13) and Adam Smith (D-WA), members of the House Intelligence and Armed Services Committees, introduced "The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2010" (H.R. 5729), a bipartisan bill to revise the outdated restriction that interferes with U.S. diplomatic and military efforts. On Congressman Thornberry's website, Congressman Smith said, "While the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 was developed to counter communism during the Cold War, it is outdated for the wars of today. Effective strategic communication and public diplomacy should be front-and-center as we work to roll back al-Qaeda’s and other violent extremists’ influence among disaffected populations. An essential part of our efforts must be a coordinated, comprehensive, adequately resourced plan to counter their radical messages and undermine their recruitment abilities. To do this, Smith-Mundt must be updated to bolster our strategic communications and public diplomacy capacity on all fronts and mediums – especially online.” This updated act is more reflective of current times and the modern strategic information environment, by also acknowledging the Internet as an information medium. Armstrong says this act by Reps. Thornberry and Smith will help move the United States toward a more modern information environment involving the Internet and 24/7 news cycles. Wikipedia's entry on Smith-Mundt Smith-Mundt Act: Myths, Facts, and Recommendations (PDF) Read the Full Text of Smith Mundt. Read Essential Information, INC's Appeal Alvin Snyder (1994) Is the Domestic Dissemination Media Ban Obsolete? Part II in U.S. Foreign Affairs in the New Information Age: Charting a Course for the 21st Century (Washington, D.C.: The Annenberg Washington Program in Communications Policy Studies of Northwestern University). William P. Kiehl (2002) Can Humpty Dumpty Be Saved? American Diplomacy. Volume 8(4). == ==| Retrieved from "http://publicdiplomacy.wikia.com/wiki/Smith_Mundt_Act?oldid=7318" Public Diplomacy is a Fandom Lifestyle Community. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/7700

Voting machines for disabled went unused in primary Not one of the new machines intended to make voting more accessible to those with disabilities was used in Tuesday’s primary balloting. "None," replied Catherine A. Dumka, deputy Republican elections commissioner, when asked today if any of the ballot marking devices were used, Non-disabled voters cast tallies on the traditional lever-style machine as usual. Absentee ballots are also available to disabled voters, and many disabled persons have chosen to use them in the past. This week’s balloting was the first time that the new machines, meant to allow disabled voters to vote at the polls without assistance, were available at all polling locations. For several previous elections, the county Board of Elections had one such machine available at its office in Union Station in Utica. It was never used. Implementation of the new models is part of the state’s coming into compliance with the federal Help America Vote Act. In 2009, all voting machines are to be accessible to the handicapped, meaning all the lever machines will be scrapped. The county ordered 130 of the new machines earlier this year to have at least one in every polling place. There are about 123 voting locations because multiple election districts vote at the same site in some instances. The machines cost about $11,500 each, with the federal government picking up 95 percent of the cost. The county Board of Elections anticipates that the new model bought this year will become the standard voting machine. Dumka also said today that machine returns have now been compiled from all of the county’s 192 election districts following Tuesday’s primary contests. Results from six districts were not immediately available after the polls closed. In the only countywide primary, James R. Griffith now leads Dean L. Gordon by a 92-69 margin in the Independence Party contest to pick a Family Court judge candidate. The deadline for absentee ballots is Tuesday.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/7811

What Sort of Universal Service Will the Candidates Embrace? With the candidates oiling up for the primaries, an opportunity is at hand for serious debate about universal service. It’s the notion that in some capacity everybody should serve the nation — each doing his share in give-back service, civilian or military. Service lies at the root of philanthropy and volunteerism throughout our adult lives. It is deemed so important that churches instill it in our young and some high schools require it — enabling the college-bound to pad their applications with testimonials about their commitment to helping others. And of course the ultimate give-back is service in the nation’s armed forces. Yet even in time of war (aren’t we at war against global terror?), less than 1 percent of the American population is on active duty or in the Reserves or National Guard. By most accounts, our all-volunteer military boasts too few volunteers. We address this undermanning by contracting out many of our crucial military tasks — with for instance 180,000 contractors in Iraq, more than our 169,000 troops at the peak of the Petraeus “surge.” In the wake of 9/11, President Bush missed perhaps the ripest opportunity ever to galvanize the nation’s young adults by rallying them to the service ramparts. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said we could fight the jihadists with minimal forces. He fired Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki for suggesting that securing Iraq would require 400,000 ground troops. So rather than issuing a call to service, President Bush told Americans to go on and live their lives as before — and they did. View Cartoon Since John Kennedy formulated the Peace Corps, most presidents have tried to make it better and broader; some have proposed — or actually instituted — domestic service rather than service solely abroad. Yet for the most part, as on the campaign trail now, national service has become largely a Democratic — as opposed to Republican — cry. Democratic Sen. Thomas Dodd, according to a wire-service report, “is issuing a call for community service that aims to create the first generation in which everyone serves their country.” How? By “making community service mandatory for all high-school students, doubling the size of the Peace Corps by 2011, and expanding the AmeriCorps national service program to 1 million participants by the end of his presidency.” That’s mandatory volunteerism. What’s lacking? A military component. Not to be outdone, Hillary Clinton wants to create a national academy to train public servants, saying: “I’m going to be asking a new generation to serve. I think just like our military academies, we need to give a totally all-paid education to young men and women who will serve their country in a public service position.” She cites the nation’s military service academies as exemplars, but neglects to address either the military manpower shortage or the chasm between the nation’s civilian and military communities. The nation does require young men turning 18 to register for the draft; the Selective Service System has 13.5 million on the books right now. Yet over the summer, so vast is the disconnect with the military, Selective Service bagged plans to test its draft machinery for the first time since 1998 — citing lack of money and staff. Libertarians left and right object to compulsion, but service to one’s country may be a special case. Voluntary programs don’t have a high yield. Isn’t the time at hand for a compulsory service program, one or two years — with a front-end military component followed by enrollment in any on an endless list of civilian service entities — for all men and women 18-23? Why hasn’t a Republican picked up the fumbled ball and run it into the end zone? Donald Horner, a leadership professor at the Naval Academy, had this to say in a Sept. 28 piece in the Baltimore Sun: “The war is background noise. . . . We follow this war about as much as we pay attention to the daily operations of the Department of Agriculture.” Though he doubts it will happen, Horner favors a draft — to close the great divide “between Americans and their military.” A draft, he says, “could be designed to equally distribute service requirements among the rich, the middle class, and the poor.” Not only would it spread the burden. It also would heighten awareness “that we really are a nation at war.” Compulsory universal service as outlined here would accomplish those things — and more — far better than a draft. It would help undo rampant selfishness and meism. And it would institutionalize service, both military and civilian, as central to the wellness of the country’s soul — conforming with Theodore Roosevelt’s admonition: “The first requisite of a good citizen in this republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his weight.” So (because pure volunteerism demonstrably isn’t cutting it) mandatory volunteerism. Compulsory (that is, no exceptions) universal service, with a front-end military component. Required give-back and pulling of one’s weight to keep America the land of the free. What a concept.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/7910

Taxes Are A Stumbling Block To Fiscal Cliff Talks By David Greene Originally published on December 5, 2012 9:09 am Transcript DAVID GREENE, HOST: This is MORNING EDITION from NPR News. I'm David Greene. RENEE MONTAGNE, HOST: And I'm Renee Montagne. Americans are not optimistic that leaders here in Washington will strike a budget deal in time to avoid automatic tax increases and spending cuts. A new poll by the Pew Research Center found nearly half the country expects the budget stalemate to drag on. GREENE: It is a political game of chicken. And by nearly 2-to-1, those surveyed say Republicans will get the blame for a crash. President Obama and congressional Republicans do seem far a part with no clear path to a resolution right now. And we've brought in two of our colleagues. NPR's Tamara Keith covers Capitol Hill and Scott Horsley covers the president. We hope they can break this down for us. Good morning to you both. TAMARA KEITH, BYLINE: Good morning. SCOTT HORSLEY, BYLINE: Good morning. GREENE: Well, Scott, let's begin with you. The major difference between the parties here still seems to be this question of tax rates. Has there been any movement? HORSLEY: Not really, David. Republicans' position since the election has been that they're willing to accept more tax revenue but not an increase in marginal income tax rates. But in an interview with Bloomberg Television yesterday, the president was adamant that people making more than a quarter million dollars a year must see their tax rates go up. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: The reason I say that is not to punish success or go after folks just because they're wealthy. It's a simple proposition that you can't raise enough revenue, and if you don't raise enough revenue through closing loopholes and deductions, then it's going to be middle-class families who make up the difference. GREENE: So, Scott, it sounds like it's not just a matter of tax rates, but it's a difference of opinion on whether closing these loopholes can actually make up revenue. HORSLEY: Well, that's right. We've reported, for instance, that you can theoretically raise a lot of money by closing loopholes. But the White House says if you really try to limit the impact of that to the top income families, and if you try to say protect charitable contributions, the amount of revenue you can raise drops off pretty sharply. GREENE: Well, Tamara Keith, House speaker John Boehner put his on offer on the table this week, $800 billion in additional tax revenue, but it calls for tax rates that are actually lower and not higher. He also is talking about cuts to Medicare, Social Security. I mean, talk about some of the pressures that he's under, as he navigates this on the Hill. KEITH: Well, he's getting it from all sides. You know, this offer didn't come with any details on which of these deductions would be cut, or which loopholes would be closed. And so, Democrats are crying out for more specifics. And then on the right, he's getting pressure from conservative groups who say that his opening offer didn't do enough in terms of spending cuts. And then also, putting revenues on the table, not surprisingly, isn't unpopular with some in his party. Senator Jim DeMint, who's influential among the Tea Party flank of the Republican Party, put out a press release saying speaker Boehner's $800 billion tax hike will destroy American jobs. So that's not exactly a glowing review. GREENE: OK. So as we get into the month of December here, both sides seem to be done in. We have this poll suggesting that if, you know, if we go over this cliff that at this point at least American would tend to blame Republicans. I mean, who do you both think has the upper hand really? HORSLEY: Well, I think the president has the upper hand. You know, in their counteroffer to the White House, the House Republicans made reference to what they call status quo election. But the Democrats really don't see it that way. While the GOP kept the majority in the House, they lost seats in the House, they lost seats in the Senate. And, of course, the president was re-elected after explicitly campaigning on the need for higher tax rates on the wealthy. The most important ace in the hole for the president though, is the fact that if he does nothing - if there is no deal - guess what? Tax rates for the wealthy go up along with tax rates for everybody else. KEITH: And Republicans, even conservatives in the House conference, realize they're in a tough spot. I want to play a piece of tape from James Langford. He's a freshman from Oklahoma and this is how he summed up the GOP bargaining position yesterday. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES LANGFORD: It's a terrible position because by default the Democrats get what they want. They get spending decreases in defense on a very significant level and they get tax rates to go up to the Clinton level, that they all, over and over again, say we like that Clinton tax rates. They get that by default. KEITH: He basically said that all they can do now is argue their position on tax rates, hope for the best and try to get this over as soon as possible. And, you know, the one big thing that the Republicans have out there as their trump card, is the debt ceiling. We're going to bump up against that again and Congress would have to sign off. But unlike a year and a half ago in that big fight, it doesn't seem like Republicans are really spoiling to have this fight again - down to the wire, at least. GREENE: All right. Well, I'm sure we'll be talking about this much more with both of you, and listen to your reporting as it goes on. NPR's Scott Horsley and NPR's Tamara Keith, thank you both for talking to us this morning. KEITH: Glad to be with you. HORSLEY: You're welcome. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright National Public Radio.View the discussion thread. © 2016 WVAS

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/7942

* Korea Armistice “Dead” * Why Military Exercises? March 13, 2013 Share FRANCIS BOYLE, [email] Boyle is a professor at the University of Illinois College of Law and author of Tackling America’s Toughest Questions. The New York Times wrote on Friday “The North said this week that it considered the 1953 armistice agreement that halted the Korean War to be null and void as of Monday because of the joint military exercises. The North has threatened to terminate that agreement before, but American and South Korean military officials pointed out that legally, no party armistice can unilaterally terminate or alter its terms.” Boyle said today: “Nonsense. An armistice agreement is governed by the laws of war and the state of war still remains in effect despite the armistice agreement, even if the armistice text itself says additions have to be mutually agreed upon by the parties. Termination is not an addition. Under the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 and the Hague Regulations, the only requirement for termination of the Korean War Armistice Agreement is suitable notice so as to avoid the charge of ‘perfidy.’ North Korea has given that notice. The armistice is dead.” See Army Field Manual: “In case it [the armistice] is indefinite, a belligerent may resume operations at any time after notice.” CHRISTINE HONG, [email] Professor at the University of California at Santa Cruz, Hong recently co-wrote “Lurching Towards War: A Post-Mortem on Strategic Patience.” Hong said today: “The military exercises that the U.S. and South Korea just launched are not defensive exercises. As of last year, in the wake of Kim Jong Il’s death, they escalated in size, duration, and content, enacting regime change scenarios toward North Korea. The North Korean government continually refers to these war games as being extremely provocative. “The Obama administration’s ‘strategic patience’ policy toward North Korea boils down to non-engagement at the same time that it implemented its forward-deployed ‘Asia pivot’ policy, which has the U.S. concentrating its military resources in East Asia. The goal is to contain China. In retrospect, Bush made more diplomatic overtures to North Korea than Obama. “People in the U.S. need to understand that the 1953 armistice agreement called for talks to begin three months after its signing regarding the peaceful settlement of the Korean War and withdrawal of all foreign troops. Chinese troops left soon after. U.S. troops remain six decades later, and the Korean War has never ended. “In Korean culture, 60 years represents one life cycle. We’ve had a full life cycle of war so Korean activists are dubbing 2013 “Year one of peace.” Hong was recently interviewed on FAIR’s radio program CounterSpin. Search News Releases

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/7951

Apr 9 2013 at 12:32 AM Updated Apr 9 2013 at 12:32 AM Life goes on in the south despite northern threats North Korean soldiers and military dogs take part in drills in an unknown location in this picture released by North Korea’s official KCNA news agency in Pyongyang on Sunday. Seoul Choi Yong Wook woke on his 29th birthday to the news that North Korea had repositioned a missile days after threatening to turn Seoul into a “sea of fire". That didn’t stop him from a dinner with his wife in one of the South Korean capital’s busiest areas.“This is how we survive; we continue living our lives," Choi, a Daewoo Electronics salesman, said. “North Korea has always threatened that war can break out any day. But who can believe them?"As tensions escalate, life for 10 million South Koreans in their capital 40 kilometres from the world’s most fortified border goes on uninterrupted. Schools, businesses and public offices keep regular schedules and there are no reports of panic-buying in shops. While Choi and his wife blew out his birthday candles, Seoul’s LG Twins lost their baseball game against crosstown rivals Nexen Heroes, 4-3. South Koreans have grown accustomed to North Korea­’s threats, including its frequent “sea of fire" warning. While the nuclear strike threat is new, the north’s bellicose rhetoric has occasionally led to direct action against its neighbour. In 2010, the sinking of a South Korean warship killed 46 sailors, and four people died when North Korea shelled a border island eight months later.“Just look around, nobody worries about it," says Choi, whose grandmother fled North Korea during the 1950-53 war. “Even if they were to launch a nuclear attack, we’d be dead within minutes anyway."Not everyone is so sanguine. South Korea’s Kospi stock index fell more than 3 per cent last week and the won dropped about 1.5 per cent as North Korea said it was poised to conduct a “smaller, lighter and diversified nuclear strike". The Bank of New York Mellon Korea ADR index, which measures the US depositary receipts of South Korean companies, sank 2.6 per cent, the most since June 21, to 171.80 on April 5. Opinion polls reflect the mixed feelings of South Koreans as they consider how seriously to take the threats from Kim Jong-un ’s regime. More than two-thirds of respondents to a poll by Seoul-based Realmeter last month said Kim will never give up developing nuclear weapons, while just over half don’t expect an all-out war with the north, and 43 per cent do.The divisions may be generational. Han Jae Jung lost her husband and elder brother during the war, which ended with an armistice instead of a peace treaty. Now she can’t sleep.“I’m paranoid about another war," the 70 year-old said on her way to visit her pastor. “If North Korean attacks, I’m not going to run. I’d prefer to wait for death at home. SHowing offNearby at Bosingak square, which houses a bell tower restored after it was destroyed during the war, Oh Gyeong Hoon, 38, played on an iPad while enjoying the spring weather.“Even if North Korea attacks tomorrow, I won’t be bothered," the Metlife Inc. (MET) office worker said. “North Korea will make another provocation for the sake of showing off."Such calm belies rising aggression. North Korea fired a long-range missile in December then detonated its third nuclear bomb in February in defiance of international sanctions, and says US-South Korean drills that began in March and last through the end of April are rehearsals for attacks against it. The US responded by flying nuclear-capable B-52 bombers and B-2 stealth bombers over the Koean peninsula. It has also sent two navy destroyers to the region and is deploying a missile-defence system to Guam. US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel over the weekend decided to postpone an intercontinental ballistic missile test to avoid exacerbating the situation, according to a Pentagon official who asked not to be named.Security awarenessAs a result, South Korea’s government should be raising civilian alert levels, said Sung Nak Sul, a judicial scrivener who served as a major in the army from 1977 to 1985, including near the border.“Whether wanted or not, the war can happen at any time and we have to fight to win," said the 64-year-old Sung, adding that his four children say he’s too combative. “Looking around Seoul and the general lack of security awareness -- that’s what’s frightening." Seoul’s residents don’t have to go far to see reminders of the risks associated with proximity to the north. The city’s subway stations double as evacuation points in case of emergency. Almost 350 gas masks and two oxygen tanks are stocked on each side of the track at Jonggak station in central Seoul, used by nearly 100,000 people every day, said Lee Kang Se, a spokesman for Seoul Metro.South Korea began holding monthly nationwide evacuation drills in 1972 in case of North Korean attack. Nowadays they happen once a year, and the National Emergency Management Agency is considering an additional drill in light of the north’s recent threats, the agency’s civil defence director Han Kwang Soon said in a phone interview.In the meantime, residents cope in different ways.“My mom recently put up newspaper clippings on the fridge on what to buy to prepare for a war and where to evacuate to," said Kim Hannah, a 23-year-old trade major at the University of Incheon, west of Seoul. “This is the first time she’s shown so much concern for North Korea, but she also hasn’t done any of the things the clippings say we should be doing." Bloomberg, Bloomberg Abbott quashes rumours of secret deal with Japan to build subs Freed journalist Peter Greste reflects on Egyptian prison trials PM agrees Japan subs a risk to China ties Japanese submarine deal would irk China, experts say Manus Island detention centre hunger strike worsens Latest Stories

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/7959

Congress passes bill to avoid cliff By DAVID ESPO and ALAN FRAMAssociated Press WASHINGTON, D.C. — Past its own New Year’s deadline, a weary Congress sent President Barack Obama legislation to avoid a national “fiscal cliff” of middle class tax increases and spending cuts late Tuesday night in the culmination of a struggle that strained America’s divided government to the limit. The bill’s passage on a 257-167 vote in the House sealed a hard-won political triumph for the president less than two months after he secured re-election while calling for higher taxes on the wealthy. In addition to neutralizing middle class tax increases and spending cuts taking effect with the new year, the legislation will raise tax rates on incomes over $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples. That was higher than the thresholds of $200,000 and $250,000 that Obama campaigned for. But remarkably, in a party that swore off tax increases two decades ago, dozens of Republicans supported the bill at both ends of the Capitol. The Senate approved the measure on a vote of 89-8 less than 24 hours earlier, and in the interim, rebellious House conservatives demanded a vote to add significant spending cuts to the measure. But in the end they retreated. Supporters of the bill in both parties expressed regret that it was narrowly drawn, and fell far short of a sweeping plan that combined tax changes and spending cuts to reduce federal deficits. That proved to be a step too far in the two months since Obama called congressional leaders to the White House for a postelection stab at compromise. Majority Republicans did their best to minimize the bill’s tax increases, just as they abandoned their demand from earlier in the day to add spending cuts to the package. “By making Republican tax cuts permanent, we are one step closer to comprehensive tax reform that will help strengthen our economy and create more and higher paychecks for American workers,” said Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. He urged a vote for passage to “get us one step closer to tax reform in 2013” as well as attempts to control spending. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi also said the legislation included “permanent tax relief for the middle class,” and she summoned lawmakers to provide bipartisan support as the Senate did. The bill would also prevent an expiration of extended unemployment benefits for an estimated two million jobless, block a 27 percent cut in fees for doctors who treat Medicare patients, stop a $900 pay increase for lawmakers from taking effect in March and head off a threatened spike in milk prices. It would stop $24 billion in across-the-board spending cuts set to take effect over the next two months, although only about half of that total would be offset with savings elsewhere in the budget. The economic as well as political stakes were considerable. Economists have warned that without action by Congress, the tax increases and spending cuts that technically took effect with the turn of the new year at midnight could send the economy into recession. Even with enactment of the legislation, taxes are on the rise for millions. A 2 percentage point temporary cut in the Social Security payroll tax, originally enacted two years ago to stimulate the economy, expired with the end of 2012. Neither Obama nor Republicans made a significant effort to extend it. House Republicans spent much of the day struggling to escape a political corner they found themselves in. “I personally hate it,” Rep. John Campbell of California, said of the measure, giving voice to the concern of many Republicans that it did little or nothing to cut spending. “The speaker the day after the election said we would give on taxes and we have. But we wanted spending cuts. This bill has spending increases. Are you kidding me? So we get tax increases and spending increases? Come on.” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor told reporters at one point, “I do not support the bill. We are looking, though, for the best path forward.” Within hours, Republicans abandoned demands for changes and agreed to a simple yes-or-no vote on the Senate-passed bill. They feared that otherwise the Senate would refuse to consider any alterations, sending the bill into limbo and saddling Republicans with the blame for a whopping middle class tax increase. One Senate Democratic leadership aide said Majority Leader Harry Reid would “absolutely not take up the bill” if the House changed it. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity, citing a requirement to keep internal deliberations private. Despite Cantor’s remarks, Speaker John Boehner took no public position on the bill as he sought to negotiate a conclusion to the final crisis of a two-year term full of them. The brief insurrection wasn’t the first time that the tea party-infused House Republican majority has rebelled against the party establishment since the GOP took control of the chamber 24 months ago. But with the two-year term set to end Thursday at noon, it was likely the last. And as was true in earlier cases of a threatened default and government shutdown, the brinkmanship came on a matter of economic urgency, leaving the party open to a public backlash if tax increases do take effect on tens of millions. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said the measure would add nearly $4 trillion over a decade to federal deficits, a calculation that assumed taxes would otherwise have risen on taxpayers at all income levels. There was little or no evident concern among Republicans on that point, presumably because of their belief that tax cuts pay for themselves by expanding economic growth and do not cause deficits to rise. The relative paucity of spending cuts was a sticking point with many House Republicans. Among other items, the extension of unemployment benefits costs $30 billion, and is not offset by savings elsewhere. Others said unhappiness over spending outweighed fears that the financial markets will plunge on Wednesday if the fiscal cliff hasn’t been averted. “There’s a concern about the markets, but there’s a bigger concern, which is getting this right, which is something we haven’t been very good at over the past two years,” said Rep. Steve LaTourette of Ohio. For all the struggle involved in the legislation, even its passage would merely clear the way for another round of controversy almost as soon as the new Congress convenes. With the Treasury expected to need an expansion in borrowing authority by early spring, and funding authority for most government programs set to expire in late March, Republicans have made it clear they intend to use those events as leverage with the administration to win savings from Medicare and other government benefit programs. McConnell said as much moments before the 2 a.m. Tuesday vote in the Senate – two hours after the advertised “cliff” deadline. “We’ve taken care of the revenue side of this debate. Now it’s time to get serious about reducing Washington’s out-of-control spending,” he said. “That’s a debate the American people want. It’s the debate we’ll have next. And it’s a debate Republicans are ready for.” The 89-8 vote in the Senate was unexpectedly lopsided. Despite grumbling from liberals that Obama had given way too much in the bargaining, only three Democrats opposed the measure. Among the Republican supporters were Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, an ardent opponent of tax increases, as well as Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, elected to his seat two years ago with tea party support.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/7977

South African ministers resign - Al Jazeera English Created with Sketch. Watch Live Now Playing AfricaSouth African ministers resign The announcements come as parliament formally accepts President Mbeki's resignation. 24 Sep 2008 08:47 GMT Vice-President Mlambo-Ngcuka is among the long list of departing Mbeki allies [EPA] The ANC, which ousted Mbeki over the weekend, has recommended its deputy president, Kgalema Motlanthe, for that post. Jessie Duarte, an ANC spokeswoman, told 702 Talk Radio in Johannesburg, the commercial capital, on Tuesday that the party wants Motlanthe as acting president so that Zuma could be elected next year with "a fresh mandate.'' Divided house Mbeki's departure was forced in part by accusations that he interfered in the prosecution of his rival, Jacob Zuma. The African National Congress party (ANC) is divided between supporters of Mbeki and his rival, Jacob Zuma, the ANC leader. Zuma, the man expected to become South Africa's next president when elections are held in 2009, is not eligible to replace Mbeki at this stage because he is not a member of parliament.Zuma's supporters say they wanted the cabinet to stay in place to ensure a smooth transition. Mbeki to appealJane Dutton, Al Jazeera's correspondent reporting from Cape Town, said: "There haven't been any mass resignations, certainly not as yet, most of the resignations are expected to happen after the new president is sworn in on Thursday. "Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka's resignation now paves the way for Motlanthe to take over the position of president tomorrow here in parliament. "Thabo Mbkei says he wants to fight back ... to clear his name, and he is appealing to the highest court in the land, the constitutional court. Because he feels he was unfairly implicated in the Jacob Zuma case, so he is asking for a retrial."Mbeki had faced criticism over allegations that he pushed for corruption charges to be brought against Zuma. A court ruling, handed down on September 12, threw out charges of corruption against Zuma, saying the prosecuting team violated some of his procedural rights.Bulelani Ngcuka, the former prosecutor, said in 2003 that there was a case againstZuma, but did not press charges because, in political terms, he said the casewas "unwinnable." Parliament's sealThe national assembly formally adopted a motion by 299 to 10 votes on Tuesday,accepting Mbeki's resignation and thanking him for his service to the nation for the past 14 years as deputy and then national president. The main opposition Democratic Alliance voted in favour of the motion butsaid it was troubled by the ANC's behaviour. Sandra Botha, the alliance's leader, said: "The ANC's decision to force the resignation of President Thabo Mbeki was motivated purely by revenge and the desire to settle political scores. "It has nothing to do with the interests of the people of South Africa." RelatedANC selects Mbeki's successor South Africa's ruling party names deputy leader as head of state until 2009 polls. Profile: Mbeki's rise and fall South African president quits before end of his term. Politics, Africa, South Africa Content on this website is for general information purposes only. Your comments ANC selects Mbeki's successor South Africa's ruling party names deputy leader as head of state until 2009 polls. Politics, Africa, South Africa Mbeki quits as S African president

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/7991

The GOP Presidential Field and The Narcissism of Small Differences By Mike Razar The vicious fighting between and among the various Republican candidates for President brings to mind Sigmund Freud who wrote, in German of course, of der Narzissmus der kleinen Differenzen, or “the narcisissims of small differences.” Perhaps that has something to do with the vituperativenss which has come to characterize the contest of late. The most striking thing about the field of GOP candidates is the extent to which they agree on policy issues. I have chosen seven overlapping groups of issues important to Republicans . Foreign policy and defense. This includes robust support for veterans and their benefits. Respect for the Constitution. This includes opposition to anything which comes close to restricting First and Second Amendment rights of individuals and entities formed by many individuals. The Tenth Amendment is often mentioned here as are the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Lower taxes, lower spending, lower deficits and greater economic growth. Social issues. The main one is opposition to Abortion. Sometimes gun issues are put in this category, but I have chosen to group those with other constitutional matters. The other major social issues are gay rights and religion in the public sphere. Illegal Immigration. The main issues are border security and what to do about illegal immigrants, already here. Government corruption. This includes crony capitalism and other special favors to donors. Tactical issues in governing. There is near unanimity among Republican voters and all the candidates on many aspects of these issues. Of course there are small differences, and these tend to get blown way out of proportion As to the 7 points listed above: Republican voters and candidates all support a strong military and a foreign policy which is pro-Israel, anti-Islamic radicalism and opposed to terrorism in all forms. I would like to see all candidates join Cruz and Rubio to explicitly vow to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and to support Israeli sovereignty over all of Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria. The phrases “West Bank” and “occupied territories” should never be used by Republicans. They should also pledge to never publicly castigate our allies. These fine points have come up very little in the debates but I doubt that any of the candidates disagree. They should all support the Kurds. If lip service were a reliable indicator, I think we would have near unanimity here. All the candidates ridicule political correctness and support the Constitution. Some have questionable historic positions on gun control but disavow those today. I doubt that any of them would flip-flop when in office. In any case, they are unlikely to face a Democrat majority in Congress. Trump is weak on eminent domain because of his use of it in his business. Inexplicably, Bush recently spoke against the Citizens United Court decision. I can’t think of any other constitutional issues on which the candidates disagree. No doubt, all intend to appoint conservative originalists to the Supreme Court. George W. Bush thought he was doing so when he appointed Justice Roberts. Conservatives have not been happy with some of his key rulings. I believe that Cruz would do best here in practice, but there is little in the expressed opinions of the other candidates to cause great concern, though Trump has not expressed a clear view on this matter. The recent tragic death of Justice Scalia serves to remind us that this may be the most important issue of all. All Republican voters and candidates claim to be fiscally conservative deficit hawks. All support lower taxes and spending. All favor tax reform of some kind. The tax reform proposals advanced by the candidates are pathetic. All, however, are improvements on the current system. They rely on minor tweaks around the edge. Some are downright sneaky. Read any critique of the Cruz proposal. Does it explain that he wants to transfer the better part of a trillion dollars of FICA tax liability from individuals to corporations? That may or may not be a good idea, but it does tend to call into question the claim that corporate income taxes have been eliminated. Most of the other proposals reduce the number of brackets and limit some deductions, but none are truly flat. All are fuzzy on the issue of FICA taxes versus income taxes. Some ideas like the “penny plan” sound good but are hopelessly naïve with regard to entitlements and defense spending. The main take-away is that the differences among the candidates on taxes and spending are minor compared to the Democrat alternatives. This is the main category for the Tea Party and I am hard pressed to rank the candidates, or even to highlight significant differences among them. One last point here is that none of them have explained what to do about the shortfall in revenue from their plans beyond cliché calls for lower and smarter spending. Supposedly it is on social issues that Republicans disagree with each other, but I am hard pressed to find major differences even between evangelicals and the most socially liberal Republican candidates. This was not always true. The social conservatives should be pleased that they have won this battle (in the GOP) on the most important social issue, namely abortion. All the candidates are pro-life and oppose funding Planned Parenthood. As far as I know they all oppose gay marriage. I do not consider this a core issue, but there is a related core issue. Nobody should be forced to participate in a wedding they disapprove of. For example florists and bakers should not be fined or jailed. It is an example of liberal overreach that all Republicans oppose, even those who care little about gay marriage itself. The Little Sisters of the Poor deserve an abject apology from the next (Republican) President on behalf of the American people. The nominee should make this a central campaign issue. Illegal immigration was more divisive a few years ago. Today, no Republican candidate would dare oppose tight border security, whether with a “huge, beautiful wall” or more modern techniques. Similarly, full amnesty leading to citizenship seems to be off the table for Republicans. That is good. Entering illegally should cause a lifetime ban on citizenship, with possible exceptions for veterans. Some form of “legalization” with no voting rights might be considered but the so-cons have won for now. Clearly, Trump has leveraged this issue to the hilt, but the differences between his views and the others’ are small. If promises could be banked, corruption and crony capitalism would disappear. I concede that it is a frustrating issue. Ted Cruz was eviscerated by “popular” Governor Terry Branstad of Iowa for opposing the ethanol boondoggle. The governor’s son heads a company that profits from ethanol quotas and subsidies. Have these people no shame? Have voters in Iowa no ethical standards? Anyway, this is as tough an issue as there is in American politics. I wish I could even propose legislation to limit crony capitalism but I have no idea how. Donald Trump goes the farthest in ridiculing political correctness, though critics might say that being politically incorrect doesn’t demand rudeness and slander, particularly with overly general remarks. As a native of Forest Hills, Queens, NY myself, I get it. I grew up in the same years and lived only a few blocks from Mr. Trump. You can taunt your friend with “Ahhh…yer muddah wears combat boots” one day and be his best friend the next day. So far it has worked well for Trump, but it is no substitute for clear, well-reasoned policy proposals. The best of Trump is his keen sense of what needs to be fixed, but that is also his riskiest trait. It is hard to tell how far he would go, with or without Congress, on trade and other international issues. Tariffs always sound good, but the historical record doesn’t support their likelihood of success. His position on eminent domain and his veiled threats against anyone who crosses him are troubling to true conservatives. When it comes to character, however, you have only to look at the Trump adult children. Nobody raises exemplary, successful kids like that without being a magnificent father. Nobody can fault Trump on family values There are tactical issues in governing -- beyond the demeanor of the president. Are there principles which will never be compromised, or is everything up for grabs as seems to be the case today? I confess that I trust Trump and Cruz the most to stand up to political heat. Yet there are also times we need tactical compromise. The main point I would like to leave with the readers is that there is little difference among the candidates on major issues. There are differences in temperament and will. There are differences in administrative experience. Maybe there are differences in priorities, though I don’t see much conflict over the order to take things up. All can be addressed quite comfortably during the first year of a new administration. Just so there is no misconception, I have been impressed with the whole GOP field. I would vote for any one of them. It is a big problem for me to have a tie in my mind after months of campaigns and debates. I wish the press (laughter) would do a better job of highlighting real substantive policy differences --- or maybe there just aren’t any. The conflict has evolved, or deteriorated in my view, into a barrage of insults among four of the candidates --Trump, Cruz, Rubio, and Bush. Only Kasich and Carson seem to have remained above that fray. There are two main and intertwined “issues” at stake here. The first is consistency; the second is lying. For example, all candidate are now pro-life. Twenty years ago, Trump was a strong proponent of “choice” including partial birth abortion. He says he has changed. Fine. I enthusiastically welcome him from the dark side to the light side. But shouldn’t he then cut Mr. Rubio some slack on his changed views on amnesty? Granted, two years is not twenty years, but all are entitled to state their current views and all should accept reminders of what they used to believe without hurling charges of lies and slander. Conservatives should be able to discuss the small differences among the field without the anger and vitriol. I hate to have to give credit to Freud, but his words cited in the title of this article seem all too descriptive.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/8010

You are hereHome - New coalition to TPP negotiators: This is what a Fair Deal looks like New coalition to TPP negotiators: This is what a Fair Deal looks like MONTREAL, May 16 (APCNews) May 16, 2013 – Today, APC along with a coalition of organisations representing a diversity of interests have come together from around the world to ask for A Fair Deal on intellectual property (IP) in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP). The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a trade agreement being negotiated by Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Peru, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States. The changes to copyright required by the TPP would reduce access to information and restrict the ability to innovate, both on and offline. The coalition is launching a website at http://www.OurFairDeal.org calling for TPP negotiators to “reject copyright proposals that restrict the open internet, access to knowledge, economic opportunity and our fundamental rights.” Susan Chalmers from internetNZ said today, “A fair deal on copyright in the TPP takes into account the interests of internet users, libraries and archives, those with disabilities, educators and business innovators as well as creators. We’re all part of the internet economy. The Fair Deal coalition is promoting fair copyright standards for the TPP that reflect the needs of the broadest cross-section of society.” TPP meetings are taking place in Lima Peru from 15 – 25 May 2013. Negotiators are hoping the meetings will “accelerate” the closed-door process. New reports indicate copyright provisions are a “challenging” issue for those behind the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. Between them, members of the Fair Deal coalition represent the interests of internet users, schools, universities, artists, libraries and archives, the visually impaired, consumers, information technology firms, internet businesses and those who believe in the power of open source software and the open internet as a driving force for innovation, development and socially responsible economic growth. Coalition members include industry groups, digital rights advocates, academics and human rights organisations. The coalition hopes that TPP negotiators will consider adopting a new approach that: Promotes access to knowledge, to innovation and to weightless economies, Respects for fundamental rights like due process, privacy and free speech, and Recognizes of the realities and opportunities of the internet. “Unrestricted access to the open internet is fundamental to participation in 21st century society,” says Steve Anderson, executive director of OpenMedia.org. “Trade agreements must not require termination of internet access for infringement of copyright or encourage ISPs to police internet use.” Executive officer for the Australian Digital Alliance, Ellen Broad, noted the need to make sure any copyright standards agreed to in the TPP could keep pace with digital change: “Countries around the world are currently looking at their own copyright regimes and asking, ‘are these working in the digital age?’ And the answer has been no. The internet has changed so much about the way we create, disseminate and access content: it’s essential the TPP not lock in 20th century copyright standards, but focus on a healthy internet future – for both creators and consumers, distributors and innovators.” Joy Liddicoat, coordinator for APC’s Internet Rights are Human Rights project says, “Governments are sacrificing citizens’ rights to freedom of information, freedom of expression and potentially endangering other human rights for the sake of corporations’ profits. What’s worse is that these policies will affect citizens globally, not just those in the negotiating countries.” The our Fair Deal Coalition invites citizens to join the campaign by signing onto a statement of principle at: http://ourfairdeal.org. Lindsey Pinto, OpenMedia, lindsey@openmedia.ca, +1 778 238 7710 Mallory Knodel, APC, mallory@apc.org, +1 514 451 5260 About the Association for Progressive Communications The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) is an international network and non-profit organisation founded in 1990 that wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve lives and create a more just world. http://www.apc.org About the Our Fair Deal International coalition Starting at first in New Zealand and then connecting with organizations and people internationally, a group of individuals from the fields of internet policy, art, information technology and law got together to discuss a TPP campaign with a copyright focus. What resulted was the idea of a fair deal, one that opens up trade opportunities for TPP member states but doesn’t force copyright and other IP-related changes on us that could damage our future. If you represent an organization that would like to join the Fair Deal coalition fill in the form here. Fair Deal CoalitionFounding members of the Fair Deal coalition include: Affinity Bridge, Australian Digital Alliance, Australian Library & Information Association, Association for Progressive Communications (APC), internet NZ, BCFIPA, The Canadian internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), Consumers International, Council of Canadians, Creative Freedom, Demand Progress, Derechos Digitales, Electronic Frontiers Australia, Electronic Frontiers Foundation (EFF), Fight for the Future, Gen Why Media, Hiperderecho, Library & Information Society of New Zealand, NZRise, NZOSS, OpenMedia.org, Public Citizen, Public Knowledge, Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind, Scoop, Tech Liberty NZ, TechDirt, Tuanz, TradeMe (END/2013) AttachmentSize Download the press release45.14 KB Español

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/8113

Attention Black America: Occupy Wall Street Is About You, Too Occupy Wall Street minority protesters say that African-Americans need more help than anyone. (Photo: REUTERS/Mike Segar) Occupy Wall Street has officially entered its fourth week and African-American supporters are saying that their communities, more than anyone, need to be showing their support. “If any other community needs a bailout, it’s the African-American community,” says hip hop artist Jasiri X, who has joined the protesters in Lower Manhattan. “Not only do we have a foreclosure crisis, but we have abandoned homes, we have poverty problems, we have young Black male unemployment.” Jasiri X traveled from Pittsburgh, which was recently named the poorest Black community in the country, to Occupy Wall Street, the movement that is demanding that the government support education, infrastructure and jobs, get rid of corporate tax loopholes, and strengthen democracy. He says that he’s in New York to make sure that the voices of the Black communities are heard. “I think that as African-Americans, the economic bailout on Wall Street and the foreclosure crisis has hit our community the worst. We’re like the 99 [percent] below the 99 in our communities, so I think that it’s important for us to be here and be counted and make sure that as we are holding Wall Street accountable,” he says. Jasiri X has previously composed and performed political hip hop, with songs about the Jena 6 and the Tea Party. But his new track “We the 99” has been live-streamed for the past few weeks on numerous sites covering the downtown protests. In it he speaks of the majority being deceived, of the economy collapsing and how it’s time for citizens to stand for what they believe is fair. He declares that African-Americans are the last to be helped and the most frequently overlooked, and he wants them to be more aware and more involved. “I think a lot of us are disconnected to what’s happening on a worldwide level because a lot of time in our communities we are working two to three jobs, taking care of our communities, just to make ends meet,” he says. Like Jasiri X, Caren Daley also wishes more Blacks would support. Daley, a mother, college graduate and breast cancer survivor, has been homeless for two years. “My children are asking me constantly, ‘Why are we living like this, mommy?' And I have to tell them America is suffering. The government is helping everybody else but is not helping the poor,” she says. Both Daley and Jasiri X say they’re there representing their communities, and they both hope that America listens to the cry of the people. “We need help. We need change,” Daley says. To contact or share story ideas with Danielle Wright, follow and tweet her at @DaniWrightTV. Written by Danielle Wright

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/8157

New Data Prove Obama Defying Immigration Laws by Wynton Hall15 Feb 20130 15 Feb, 2013 Federal law specifically states that any alien granted entry into the United States must be financially self-sufficient so as not to become a “public charge” dependent on welfare. But new data from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reveals that from 2005 to 2012, just 0.0084% of over 116 million immigration applicants were denied for lack of self-sufficiency. The Immigration and Nationality Act states that “An alien who…is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.” Yet the DHS under President Barack Obama has aggressively campaigned immigrants to sign up for taxpayer-funded welfare benefits, going so far as to even create a WelcomeToUSA.gov website that educates immigrants about all the welfare programs for which they may apply. Last year, an inquiry by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) revealed that U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack met with Mexican officials 30 times to discuss food stamp enrollment and other issues. A study by the Center for Immigration Services found that in 2010, one out of three (36%) immigrant-headed households received at least one welfare benefit. “Encouraging self-sufficiency must be a bedrock for our immigration policy, with the goal of reducing poverty, strengthening the family, and promoting our economic values,” says Sessions. “But Administration officials and their policies are working actively against this goal.” Big Government, Jeff Sessions, Senate, Tom Vilsack

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/8185

Current Edition Classifieds Vital Statistics Events Archive Published: June 28, 2013 State lawmakers back for weekend work HARRISBURG — Pennsylvania state lawmakers are returning today to the Capitol for a sixth-straight day as the Republican majority seeks to wrap up an on-time state budget and secure victories for Gov. Tom Corbett’s legislative agenda. But time is running short. The new fiscal year begins Monday, and House and Senate leaders have yet to strike agreements on major legislation to allow the private sale of wine and liquor and generate billions of dollars for roads, bridges and mass transit agencies primarily by increasing motor fuel taxes. The House and Senate were each scheduled to resume voting sessions at 1 p.m. In the House, a vote was possible on transportation legislation, but the chamber’s Republican leaders on Friday were still trying to cobble together at least half of the caucus to join Democrats in supporting a bill. Meanwhile, Senate Republicans were poised to advance a $28.3 billion budget bill after going into the early morning hours of Saturday to secure a key vote on a bill to privatize wine and liquor sales over the objections of Democrats. The bill still needs full House and Senate approval to reach Corbett’s desk. The two issues are indirectly linked: Senate Republicans have made a transportation bill a top priority while House GOP leaders helped lead efforts to privatize the state-controlled liquor and wine system.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/8193

Judge voids Wisconsin union-busting law May 27, 2011 | by Reuters Judge Maryann Sumi A Wisconsin judge on Thursday voided a controversial Republican-backed law restricting the collective bargaining rights of public sector unions in the state. Dane County Judge Maryann Sumi, who was appointed by a Republican governor, said Republican state lawmakers who passed the law in March had violated the state’s open meetings law in rushing the legislation through amid massive public protests at the state Capitol. But the ruling will not end the bitter battle over the measure, which also sent 14 state Senators into hiding in neighboring Illinois to prevent a caucus and later sparked the largest wave of legislator recall votes in state history. Sumi’s ruling shifts the battleground to the state Supreme Court, where the case is now scheduled to be heard on June 6. Meanwhile, the state’s Republican-controlled legislature may simply approve the bill again. They have had that option for months as the court considered the case but declined to act because they insist the bill was passed legally. The Wisconsin proposal, championed by newly elected Republican governor Scott Walker, eliminates most collective bargaining rights for public sector unions and requires them to pay more for pensions and health coverage. Walker’s office declined to comment on the ruling on Thursday, saying “it didn’t involve us” because the ruling was concerning an action by the legislature. Walker’s Republican allies in the legislature, who were named defendants in the case, expressed hope the high court would reverse Sumi. Mike Tate, chairman of the state’s Democratic Party which opposed the measure, hailed the ruling and said: “It should be looked at as an opportunity to work together to find common sense solutions to grow our economy and get our fiscal house in order, not to tear our state apart.” The anti-union measure at the center of the controversy has been the hallmark of Walker’s first five months in office — and was one of the first items on his agenda when he called the legislature into special session after his swearing in. It propelled Wisconsin to the forefront of a wider national fight as Republicans who took control of many statehouses in last fall’s midterm elections moved aggressively to shrink government and made reining in public unions a top priority. A flurry of measures targeting collective bargaining by public employees were introduced in Ohio, Indiana, Iowa and Michigan — though none were enacted in quite the same fashion as in Wisconsin and some fell short of passage. Walker defended the new rules for unions as a vital fiscal reform to help the state close a projected budget deficit. Critics saw the bill, which also eliminates automatic deduction of union dues, as a veiled Republican attack on long-held rights to collective bargaining and on a main source of political funding for the Democratic Party. As the state legislature debated the measure in late February and early March it triggered huge protests outside the state Capitol that on one occasion attracted nearly 100,000 demonstrators, with most opposed to the measure. Fourteen Democratic state senators fled to Illinois to deny Republicans the quorum needed for a vote on the measure. The lawsuit on which Sumi ruled essentially challenged the legislative maneuver Republican leaders used to pass the anti-union measure without the 14 Democrats in the chamber. The dispute over the measure has sharply divided Wisconsin, a state fairly evenly between Democrats and Republicans. On April 5, in a state supreme court election seen as a proxy for voter sentiment on the anti-union measure, an incumbent judge seen as conservative defeated a challenger backed by liberals by about 7,000 votes out of almost 1.5 million votes cast – after a recount was demanded. Following the legislative battle, recall petitions were filed against six Republicans and three Democrats. Special elections are expected to be held on July 12. Copyright © 2011 Reuters Comments BaseBallNut May 29, 2011 at 7:52 pm Sorry Carl, but the NLRA does not apply to public employees and because the Taft-Hartley Act functions within the NLRA, it, too does not apply to public employees. The states employ their own agencies and laws to govern their respective public employees. I have provided the following quotation directly from the Act. Sec. 2. [§152.] When used in this Act [subchapter]– … (2) The term “employer” includes any person acting as an agent of an employer, directly or indirectly, but shall not include the United States or any wholly owned Government corporation, or any Federal Reserve Bank, or any State or political subdivision thereof, or any person subject to the Railway Labor Act [45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.], as amended from time to time, or any labor organization (other than when acting as an employer), or anyone acting in the capacity of officer or agent of such labor organization. For further information or confirmation, please feel free to use the following link. http://www.nlrb.gov/ Carl Nemo May 31, 2011 at 1:32 am Thanks BaseBallNut for the clarification. I should have presumed such. Then too when Taft-Hartley was passed, I doubt if there any local, state or Federal based unions or professional employee associations to be had.. Most of them evolved post WWII into our not so ‘Brave New World’ paradigm. Anyway I stand corrected on this issue. : ) Carl Nemo **== woody188 May 27, 2011 at 4:33 pm When Wisconsin defaults Judge Sumi won’t get a check either. Paul May 30, 2011 at 2:12 am Then Judge sumi should be applauded, for not letting that cloud her judgement of the law. Carl Nemo May 27, 2011 at 12:28 pm It’s not only a violation of Wisconsin’s “open meetings law”, but also a violation of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 which governs both union and employer activities and relationships. State laws cannot supersede that of a Federal nature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act One aspect of Taft Hartley is expressly limiting an employers acitivites relative to union organizing etc. Employers have a right to oppose such organizing, but not to meddle in the bargaining process. Basically the passage of this law by the Republican controlled Wisconsin legislature constitutes both an overt threat and reprisal on the part fo their governor against unions and their right to organize and collectively bargain with their employer; ie., the state. Re: The following concerns employer relations with unions within the act. *** The amendments codified the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling that employers have a constitutional right to express their opposition to unions, so long as they did not threaten employees with reprisals for their union activities, or promise benefits as an inducement to refrain from them.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/8217

What's In A (Committee) Name? CBSNews.com producer David Miller takes note of some semantic spoils from the Democratic mid-term victory. (AP / CBS)Democrats, now officially in charge of Congress, are doing more in their first 100 hours than pursuing an ambitious legislative agenda — they're also trying to make it appear that the Republicans never ran the show in the first place.A look at the committee roster of the 110th Congress has a decidedly retro feel to it, thanks to several changes that restore the names of those panels to the ones they had the last time Democrats were in power, before the 1994 elections.Among the most noteworthy is the House Education and Labor Committee, which has been newly rechristened with its old name. When Republicans took control of the chamber in 1995, the word "labor" suddenly disappeared. Not surprising, since Big Labor was a key part of the political machine that had kept Democrats in control of the House for the previous 40 years. After a couple changes, the panel eventually wound up as the Committee on Education and the Workforce.Democrats weren't happy about the change, but could do little about it in the House, where the majority holds nearly absolute power. Now that they have control, the panel's new chairman, Rep. George Miller of California, and the Democratic leadership, have gone back to the old name."Congressman Miller viewed that change as a deliberate swipe at the labor movement in this country," spokesman Tom Kiley said regarding the 1995 switch. "In his opinion the labor movement has been very important for America's workers."Another change with a clear partisan bent comes from the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, headed by California Democrat Henry Waxman, who repeatedly accused his Republican counterparts of not acting as an appropriate check on the Bush administration, particularly regarding the war in Iraq.Under Republican control, the panel was simply the Government Reform Committee. Democrats not only added "oversight" but also moved it to the front, a semantic warning shot to the White House indicating more hearings and subpoenas may be ahead.Other changes seem more fueled by nostalgia. What was the International Relations Committee in the House is now the Foreign Affairs Committee, per the desires of incoming chairman Tom Lantos of California.In the Senate, a stronger resistance to change and a less partisan atmosphere has helped keep many committee names intact for years. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions — or HELP — committee has a name with an aura of 1960s liberalism. Yet it kept that moniker despite Republicans holding a Senate majority for most of the past 12 years. More Evening News Oregon cowboy corrals would-be bike thief The 28-year-old realized he couldn't catch the thief on foot, so he turned to his horse and lasso Iconic Olympic protesters saluted by Obama 48 years after taking a political stand, Tommie Smith and John Carlos attended an event honoring Olympians at the White House Rosetta's historic 12-year mission Shimon Peres dead at 93 Most memorable debate moments Black police recruit works to shatter perceptions Tweets from @CBSNews/evening-news

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/8292

Avoiding the Fiscal Cliff; Battle Over Raising Taxes; Hurdles to Compromise; Defending Main Street from Wall Street Aired November 11, 2012 - 13:00 ET ALI VELSHI, CNN ANCHOR: I have been warning you about it for months. Now that the election is over, the fiscal cliff is finally getting some love. It's an economic storm of our own making that could trigger another recession and kill up to a million jobs next year if Congress and the president don't act. I'm Ali Velshi. This is YOUR MONEY. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) VELSHI (voice-over): The elections are over. The American people have spoken. Now it's time for Washington to get to work. BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: You elected us to focus on your jobs, not ours. VELSHI: That's because nothing is more important to our economic recovery than creating jobs. President Obama says he'll add 12 million jobs over the next four years, but for his math to work, the pace of economic growth needs to pick up. With a crisis in Europe and a slowdown in Asia, an economic storm beyond our control stands ready to batter our shores. Still, two years of consistent job growth proved we're heading in the right direction. But the fiscal cliff is one storm that will be of our own making unless Washington acts, $7 trillion in across the board tax hikes and spending cuts over the next decade mandated to begin in January. It's the legislative equivalent of a slow motion train wreck that Washington can avoid. The question, will Congress and the president drive that train over a cliff? REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R), HOUSE SPEAKER: We won't solve the problem of our fiscal imbalance overnight. VELSHI: The elections are over. The threats to our economy are not. Time to get to work. (END VIDEOTAPE) VELSHI: And there is lots of work to be done. Starts with averting this disaster of our own making. I repeat that. The fiscal cliff. We've got it covered from all angles as only CNN can. Christine Romans is host of CNN's "YOUR BOTTOM LINE," Richard Quest, host of "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" on CNN International. David Walker spent a decade overseeing the federal government, how it spends your tax dollars, as the U.S. comptroller general. Today he's the CEO of Comeback America and he's an unapologetic deficit hawk. Mohammed El-Erian is the CEO of PIMCO. His firm is one of world's the largest investors in bonds and Stephen Moore is a conservative, the founder of the low tax advocacy group Club for Growth and an editorial writer at the "Wall Street Journal." I'm going to start with you, Stephen. My good friend. The fiscal cliff is the immediate threat both parties need to come together to fix it because not fixing it would set even conservative fiscal causes back, don't you agree? STEPHEN MOORE, EDITORIAL WRITER, WALL STREET JOURNAL: Yes. And I think most Republicans agree. They don't want to go off this fiscal cliff either, Ali. I think the one hang-up in negotiations, which will start on Tuesday, is the president says, look, I was re-elected to raise those tax rates on the rich. And you know what the Republicans are saying in the House, Ali? Well, you know what? We were elected not to raise those tax rates. I do think if the president takes the tax rate increases off the table, you can get an agreement on entitlement reform, on getting some more revenues and doing some kind of honest to goodness common sense things to get this deficit under control over the next 10 years. We're not that far apart. VELSHI: Right, and I can also grow a head of hair and look like Brad Pitt pretty soon. Stephen Moore, you hang on with that thought for a second. We'll come back to you. Let me bring Mohamed in. Mohamed El-Erian, in a letter to the president this week you called Congress dysfunctional and you wrote -- you wrote to the president. You can mobilize the nation to put proper and timely pressure on Congress to cooperate. How? MOHAMED EL-ERIAN, CEO, PIMCO: By being first very open about our outlook and the dangers for employment, for living standards, for income and equality if we don't deal with our underlying problems. And secondly by going forward. The fiscal cliff is a perfect example. Like you say, Ali, this was a problem of our own making. And if we're not careful, this will throw us into recession. That's the last thing we need. So the president can take a leadership role, I think, like Stephen said, they will find compromise. I'm not sure that they should exclude the top income. I think everybody should contribute to the solution. They will find a mini-bargain and then we're going to have to pivot to some really bigger issues that are key to this economy growing over time and getting fiscal sustainability over time. VELSHI: David, in its simplest terms, the fiscal cliff means $7 trillion. A combination of things expiring, taxes going up. Spending cuts. Over the course of a decade. I want to be serious about this without being fear-mongering about it but it is serious. That might sound like a dream scenario to a deficit hawk like you. Wow, we're going to get rid of $7 trillion over 10 years. Why don't you love this idea of going over the fiscal cliff? DAVID WALKER, FOUNDER AND CEO, COMEBACK AMERICA INSTITUTE: We must not go over the fiscal cliff because it would cause us to go back into recession, exacerbate our unemployment and underemployment problems, undercut confidence in government and potentially undercut the ability to be able to get a grand bargain. We need to do a down payment. VELSHI: Yes. WALKER: We need to extend most of the major tax provisions and spending reductions to set up a grand bargain in 2013. And the president needs to show extraordinary leadership and go directly to the people with the facts, the truth, and the tough choices. He should call Congress back and say no deal, no break. You don't get any days off other than weekends until we have a deal on the fiscal cliff. And we ought to do the same thing in 2014 for our fiscal grand bargaining. VELSHI: All right, Richard and Christine, that means we don't get days off either while they do it. But you know what, it'd be worth giving up days to fix this. Richard, what David is saying is -- and this is a guy -- David has been pressing for a very long time to be responsible about government spending. He is saying if we go over that fiscal cliff, it does start to look a little bit more Greece. You've got an economy that plunges. You've got GDP that plunges and you don't have a way to dig out of that. RICHARD QUEST, HOST, CNN'S QUEST MEANS BUSINESS: Yes, if you do go over the fiscal cliff, which I don't think anybody around this table or indeed on this program, thinks will happen. And so really, if you do go over the fiscal cliff, you will suffer the consequences. The world will suffer the consequences. There's no doubt. What worries me is a mini bargain that fudges the cliff for the moment, to mix the metaphors, but does nothing to fundamentally start to address the bigger problems. I -- (CROSSTALK) VELSHI: Why would you be worried about that? It's not like we ever do that. QUEST: Well, that's the problem because we are at crunch moment. I don't think getting back from the fiscal cliff is going to be that difficult. The moment the reality hits, everybody concerned, common sense will prevail. But what happens after that? VELSHI: Christine? CHRISTINE ROMANS, HOST, CNN'S YOUR BOTTOM LINE: Washington showed so -- such terrible leadership in this. It's really horrific. And, you know, we were just in Washington for the election. And you talk to people in Congress and the people around them, Ali, they say it's not going to happen. But they don't know how we're going to get there. And they also don't seem to get that even a few days off the fiscal cliff is enough to really hurt stock market sentiment, to really hurt business sentiment. I mean, there are people now on the left -- I mean, we've been talking so much about the right, how they will not give in on their taxes. There are now people in the left like Paul Krugman, saying let's go over it. Let's go over it. It's going to really hurt the Republican donors, the Republican interests. The president has caved twice. He cannot cave again. Even a few days off the fiscal cliff -- I'm not sure the politicians get that. Even a few days off the fiscal cliff could spark a financial crisis. VELSHI: Right. ROMANS: I mean you just don't play with that fire. VELSHI: Do you remember the day in 2008 -- ROMANS: Yes. VELSHI: -- when TARP failed in the -- ROMANS: Yes. VELSHI: -- House and the Dow plunged 777 points? ROMANS: They didn't get it then. And suddenly when the market was telling them, the world is looking at you, America, and saying, wow, you're a bunch of fools. Then they got it. VELSHI: Right. ROMANS: And then they spent the next four years denying that they ever bailed out the banks. But the point is -- the point is is that they don't get that it's not really up to them. It's up to them to make sure the rest of the world doesn't completely lose confidence. VELSHI: OK. So what this comes down to -- we all think it's not going to happen. We hope it doesn't happen. But it does come down to a very basic decision about who pays more taxes, who pays less tax, and what benefits stay and what go away. John Boehner, the speaker of the House, says Republicans will accept higher tax revenues but not higher taxes. Huh? More when we come back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) VELSHI: The stakes could not be higher. If the United States goes over the fiscal cliff, taxes will rise for nearly 88 percent of Americans next year. We're talking about an average increase of $3500 per household. At the same time, $100 billion in automatic across- the-board spending cuts will take effect. Half in defense, half in nondefense. And millions of jobs could be lost. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says unemployment will jump back to 9 percent next year and the U.S. economy could be plunged back into recession. Now avoiding the fiscal cliff will require compromise, something that's been in short supply in Washington over the last few years. Stephen Moore joins me again. John Boehner , Stephen, says Republicans will accept higher tax revenues but not higher tax rates. Explain that. MOORE: Well, you do that two-ways, Ali. It's no that complicated. First, you have to get the economy growing faster. We all agree the best way to bring this deficit down is to get the growth back up to 3 to 4 to 5 percent from the 1.5 percent we've had for the last year or so. That's number one. Number two, when I talk to Republicans, what they tell me, Ali, I had a discussion with Mitch McConnell on this a couple of days ago, he said look, we're willing to put these higher revenues on the table. We are willing to -- close the loopholes and the tax system, get rid of a lot of the carve-outs. And by the way, as you know, Ali, a lot of those carve-outs, the people who benefit from those, are rich people. So I think Republicans are willing to compromise on this. I have to say this. I'm frustrated with all of you on this because, yes, we have a fiscal cliff that's going to hit on January. But let's not forget the whole context of this. VELSHI: Right. MOORE: We are running $1.2 trillion deficits and we can't keep doing that -- VELSHI: OK. MOORE: -- year after year after year. We can't keep doing it. VELSHI: David -- MOORE: We have to come up with solutions. VELSHI: David Walker has been banging on this drum as well. MOORE: Right. WALKER: Well, the key is is we've got to avoid the fiscal cliff. But we also have to address the much bigger fiscal abyss. VELSHI: Right. WALKER: Those are the large and growing structural deficits due to known demographic trends, rising health care cost, and outdated tax system. Here's the good news. The people are way ahead of the politicians. I just came back from a 34-day, 10,000-mile tour. We got a minimum of 77 percent support for a range of reforms dealing with spending, social insurance programs, and taxes. Eighty-five percent believe it's going to take spending reductions and additional taxes heavily weighted towards the spending reductions. We just need leadership. VELSHI: Right. And it needs to be done in a responsible way. Let's bring Mohamed in for a second. Mohamed El-Erian, tell me how you see this. We've heard from John Boehner. We've heard from the president. We are as yet lacking details but it seems to me we're already further ahead in this conversation than we've been in the last six months. Where do you see this going as a guy who looks at the credit risk of everybody in the world? EL-ERIAN: So I would extrapolate, Ali, from our own experience here in California. We voted for higher taxes in order to fund better education. And I think people are recognizing that fiscal sustainability has a numerator and a denominator. The numerator is about debt containment and deficit containment. The denominators are about growth, making sure that you can grow living stands and pay off your debt. And I think the realization is coming in that we need to optimize both and I think that our politicians will slowly get that. It's not going to be a big jump. And I think Richard Quest is correct in reminding us that this is a long haul. And let's focus both on the numerator and the denominator. QUEST: The point Stephen has just made and Mohamed points out as well, you cannot have it both ways. MOORE: Right. QUEST: You cannot remind us on the one hand that there's a $1.8 trillion deficit. But then on the other hand immediately say we won't have tax revenues raised -- tax rate raised. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. ROMANS: This is America. We've been doing that for 25 years. QUEST: Yes, but that -- VELSHI: That's why we have increasing problems. (CROSSTALK) ROMANS: I know. QUEST: Yes, that's exactly the problem. You're going into the negotiations saying, ah, we've got to do something about it. But we won't raise tax rates. But we must deal with the deficit. But we won't. You can't do it. It's cake and eat it. ROMANS: Can I make a big point here about, OK, look, think about Simpson-Bowles. That's $4 trillion in cuts through the year 2020. Cuts and tax increases. VELSHI: Right. ROMANS: Simpson-Bowles, which didn't make it, right? You look at the fiscal cliff. That's $7 trillion, $7 trillion in 10 years with no thought, no nuance, no kind of strategy about what's the best for America. VELSHI: So it's a sledgehammer where you actually hit us -- (CROSSTALK) ROMANS: It's a big, dull hatchet when we need a scalpel and a bunch of surgeons. VELSHI: Right. ROMANS: And Congress is sitting there with a bloody scalpel. But a hatchet rather. And that's the problem here. They need -- going off the fiscal cliff, and it is popular now to say well, maybe we should go off for a while. VELSHI: Yes. ROMANS: That would be bad. VELSHI: Right. That is gaining in popularity. Stephen Moore, you have -- I mean, listen, you and David, you guys have really spent a lot of time on this. And your approaches to this are a little more certain. A lot more surgical. Isn't that problem though, Stephen? As David said, he went around the country and talked to people. And I found the same thing when I was on the CNN Express on that bus trip. People understand what this means. They understand that we have to cut back on our spending. That they are concerned about the lack of sophistication with which -- with which Washington is handling this. MOORE: Yes, but when? You know, look, I get so sick of this. You know, everybody says we have to cut spending. Even my good friend David Walker who I have so much respect for. David, when are we going to cut the spending? And the answer always seems to be, well, we'll do it tomorrow, next year, the year after. And what's I'm saying is maybe it's not such a bad thing if we start right now. I'm not so opposed to 10 percent across the board in the spending programs. And by the way, Mohamed, I have to say this. You know, you say the tax cuts aren't going to hurt the economy. My goodness, look at your state of California. The dingbats in California just raised the highest income tax rate to 13 percent. Every business and high-income person is going to move to Texas, which by the way is the fastest growing state in the country which has no income tax. So I think tax rates do matter. I think the evidence is strong on this. And I don't want to see the United States go down the route of California. Because California is the state that is looking like Greece right now. VELSHI: Hold on, everybody wants to respond to that. But we at CNN want to be fiscally responsible and pay the bills. So that's what we're going to do for the next two minutes. We're going to come back. We're going to hear from Mohamed about that and from David Walker. Stay with us. You're watching a very animated edition of YOUR MONEY. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) VELSHI: OK. I got the panel back. I want to get right into it. Stephen Moore points out, Mohamed El-Erian that California's a bad example because state tax rates are so high in order to pay for some of the investments they've made. Your response? EL-ERIAN: So I will say to Stephen, do the math. Just do the math. Everybody agrees that in order for us to improve our prospects, we need the following. We need tax reform. We need entitlement reform. MOORE: Right. EL-ERIAN: In order to close our gap, we also need certain tax rates to go up. And we need certain spending to be cut. MOORE: That's more than three. (CROSSTALK) EL-ERIAN: And finally, in order for this to be sustainable, we need to wrap it up with other issues and address our ability to grow. The labor market, credit, infrastructure. So I will tell you it's not about a partial solution, it's about a holistic solution that's going to involve a lot of steps, including a higher tax rate because that's what the math tells you. VELSHI: So, David, Stephen Moore says when are we going to deal with it? The issue with the fiscal cliff is less, when, and more how? WALKER: Right. On the fiscal cliff, for example, you cannot extend the payroll tax cut. That's over $100 billion. You can recognize that 99 weeks is enough for unemployment benefits. You can reach a compromise with regard to some defense and nondefense spending without doing the hatchet. And then what can you do is you can set up a bridge to a grand bargain to where we're focusing on getting debt to GDP, public debt, down to 60 percent within 10 to 12 years which will require everything we're talking about. Budget controls, social insurance reforms, comprehensive tax reforms, additional defense and spending reductions but in an intelligent way. You can do that. It's possible with leadership. VELSHI: But, David, you've been talking about this for so long when we weren't in a crisis. And nobody listened then. Not nobody listened. People listened. But decision makers in Washington didn't listen. I mean what -- will they listen this time? WALKER: I think they will listen this time because the number one issue for Americans was the economy, jobs, and fiscal responsibility. What we need to do, as I said, is that President Obama needs to take a page out of President Clinton's book. He needs to use the bully pulpit. We need a meaningful citizen education engagement campaign. We need to demonstrate to the far right and the far left. (CROSSTALK) VELSHI: Do you think President Obama is on the right of this side of this issue, though? I mean use the bully pulpit. WALKER: I mean he's wants a deal. VELSHI: Yes. WALKER: I think Boehner wants a deal. VELSHI: Stephen Moore, do you think President Obama wants a deal that you would be satisfied with? MOORE: I don't know. I honestly don't know. I think if Barack Obama will move a little bit to the middle. VELSHI: Yes. MOORE: Because in his first term he -- you know, he governed from the left. I think Republicans are -- look, we all are Americans first and foremost. We want to get these problems solved. VELSHI: Right. And let me put it this way. Let's say President Obama moves to this so-called middle, wherever that is, but still says that the top 2 percent pay higher income taxes. MOORE: The Republicans will not go along with those higher tax rates. That's World War III. If he's willing to say look, we can -- we can close loopholes, we can do other things but I just -- I think Republicans honestly believe, and I agree with them on this, that raising those tax rates is going to hurt the economy more than it's going to bring down the deficit. And you know you're the one who's always said, jobs is number one. VELSHI: Yes. MOORE: You're not going to create more jobs by putting higher taxes on businesses. VELSHI: Richard, you're scribbling furiously here. There isn't a test at the end of this. (LAUGHTER) ROMANS: Except no, no, no, no, no. That's what he wrote. MOORE: I'm not saying no, no, no, no, no. I'm just saying no to higher tax rates. QUEST: I'm saying, look, you have an advantage here in that you're trying to put this -- you're trying to put Humpty Dumpty together before he's fallen off the wall. What we've learned -- ROMANS: Metaphor number six of the program, by the way. QUEST: But what we learned from Europe is you don't want to wait for him to fall off the wall. The markets will do your job for you. EL-ERIAN: Right. QUEST: Austerity and -- now we may have overdone austerity in Europe. VELSHI: Really? We may have. QUEST: And we're paying the price for it in Greece and Spain is about to get hit and Italy is about to get hit. But you have the chance to do it with the warning beacon flashing. If you do not do it, if you do not deal with this deficit and the long term -- I agree with Stephen, you do need to deal with the trillion dollar plus deficit sooner rather than later, then somebody, i.e., the markets, i.e., investors, i.e. -- because that's the big difference, ladies and gentlemen. China is now a bigger player in the global economy than it was before. VELSHI: Right. QUEST: You're in new territory. VELSHI: Right. QUEST: Go on. ROMANS: Here here. QUEST: The rules of this game have changed. VELSHI: David? WALKER: We have to keep in mind if you use honest and comparable accounting, the total government debt as percentage of the economy today in the United States is worse than every country in Europe but one. And it's called Greece. And we don't want to follow their example. We've got to deal with these structural deficits. But we're not going to deal with them in a lame duck session. Let's do a down payment. Let's do a bridge to a grand bargain. We need to focus on debt to GDP. That's what matters. And after all, after World War II, we went from over 100 percent of debt to GDP down to the 30 percent (INAUDIBLE) range and we didn't pay off a dollar of debt because we constrained deficits and had fiscal responsibility and we grew the economy. That's what we need to do. VELSHI: Mohamed El-Erian, we continue to speculate here at CNN that someone might ask you to be a treasury secretary of the United States. You -- ROMANS: Have they already started this rumor? VELSHI: You continue to say that's not true. But we would like to hear your closing words on this because you are the guy who is going to -- you're going to lead the charge on deciding whether or not investing in the United States is a good bet or a bad bet. You're still on the good bet side? EL-ERIAN: Yes, I am. And we are because we expect the following to happen. So we talked a lot about what should happen during this program. Let's speak to what's likely to happen. And what's likely to happen is our politicians will come together. They will meet in the middle on some issues resulting not in a 4 to 5 percent fiscal contraction, that would send us into recession, and that will be awful, but in a 1.5 percent fiscal contraction. What David calls the down payment. The next step is the more difficult one. It's what Richard has spoken to which is to pivot, not just remove the headwind, but create tailwinds for our economy in terms of fiscal sustainability and growth. And that's going to require a lot of hard work. But we think it's feasible over time. In the meantime, let's remember that Europe is getting worse, not better. Let's remember that China is slowing. Let's remember that the Middle East is becoming less stable. And, therefore, we have no time to wait. We've got to move forward. VELSHI: Mohamed, excellent. Thank you so much for joining us. Mohamed El-Erian is the CEO of PIMPCO, Stephen Moore is an editorial writer with the "Wall Street Journal," David Walker is the founder and CEO of the Comeback America Initiative, Christine is the host of "YOUR BOTTOM LINE." Richard, stay where you are. Things are about to get much more interesting in Washington. Richard Quest and I will get into a very civilized argument about America's future next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) VELSHI: Time now for some Q&As. Same president, same congressional makeup, same challenges for the U.S. economy but the next four years and more importantly the next 2 1/2 months will be very different. The election was a turning point and now things get interesting. Joining me now in studio to debate this is Richard Quest, the host of "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS" on CNN International. He's the tall guy with the big ears. Richard, good to see new person. You're taller and you have bigger ears in real life. Now, Richard and I are old friends. This is what we do. The Q&A, this question and answer. QUEST: Right. VELSHI: Question Ali, this time it's more of a fill in the blank. So the election is over. Now it gets interesting because of what? Richard, you traveled all this way to join me in New York so you go first. Sixty seconds as you start it on the bell. QUEST: Sixty seconds on now it gets interesting because now, Ali, it gets interesting because nothing has changed. Just think about it for one moment. The fiscal cliff remains and the United States is getting ever closer to going over the edge. But worse than that, the European sovereign debt crisis continues. Greece still hasn't had its latest (INAUDIBLE) of money. The situation in Spain is deteriorating. China is slowing down. And as Carl Yonker said in Europe, everybody knows what needs to be done whether it's in Europe or the United States. Everybody knows what needs to be done. They just can't get re-elected if they do it. Worse than that, if they actually do it, they could find themselves to be in deep political trouble with their own party. So now it gets interesting because -- it gets interesting because the stakes are so high. Whether it's in Europe or the United States. Either side could have an accident, which would ultimately pull them over the edge. Now it gets interesting, Ali, why? VELSHI: Richard, now it gets interesting start right now. Now it gets interesting because everybody has got to grow up. President Obama, the second term, it's about legacy, nothing ruins a legacy like presiding over an economy that plunges into recession. But President Obama doesn't have to run for office again. The 435 members of the House of Representatives do along with about 33 senators in two years. So it's time now for the children to leave the room. And I say that at risk of insulting real children who tend to behave more responsibly than some of your elected officials have. Will Republicans, backed up by a ridiculous pledge to not raise taxes by a weakened Tea Party, and licking their wounds after a general repudiation of conservative fiscal policies, depart from that principle just long enough to achieve that so-called grand bargain? Well, Richard, that is anybody's guess. But if they do, things will really get interesting because despite what you say about things being exactly the same, the same makeup of Congress, the same president, I think they're very different. QUEST: Now it gets interesting. VELSHI: It absolutely does. And that's our wish list. But, of course, if you and I had any real influence, we wouldn't actually be here. So coming up next, you're going to want to stick around for this. I will introduce you to one of the most influential and I think dangerous men in Washington. He could ultimately be responsible for taking the U.S. over the fiscal cliff and he's not even elected. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) VELSHI: If the U.S. falls over the fiscal cliff, 88 percent of American households will see their taxes go up. So you would think that Republicans in Congress who signed this pledge to not raise taxes would be tripping over themselves to solve the problem but they can't. I'll go one-on-one with the biggest impediment to compromise in Washington back in 90 seconds. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) VELSHI: The most immediate threat facing the United States is the fiscal cliff and the election results did nothing to change the balance of power that we have seen in Washington in the last two years. A Democratic president now re-elected calling for taxes on the richest Americans to rise. A Republican controlled House of Representatives that opposes any increase in tax rates and a Democratic Senate caught in the middle. Now avoiding the fiscal cliff will require compromise. But there is no compromise possible when one side says they can't lose. Everything has to be on the table. To succeed all parties need to give something up for the greater good. But there is a problem. It's a big problem. Almost all the Republicans in Congress has signed a pledge, a pledge not to vote for any net tax increases under any circumstances. It is a pledge authored by Grover Norquist, the founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform. Let me read the pledge to you. I reads as follows, I blank pledge to the taxpayers of the blank district in the state of blank, and to the American people that I will, one, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rate for individuals and businesses and, two, oppose any net elimination of reduction or elimination of deductions and credits unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates. And the current Congress, the one in place until January, 238 representatives and 41 senators have signed. By the way, one Senate Democrat, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and two House Democrats, Robert Andrews of New Jersey and Ben Chandler of Kentucky have also signed it. Neither Nelson nor chandler will be in the new Congress but the people who won their seats have also signed the pledge. Interestingly, six House Republicans did not sign the pledge. All but one will be in the next Congress. Pennsylvania Congressman Todd Plat retired. He'll be replaced by Republican Scott Perry who also didn't sign the pledge. Seven Republican senators in the current Congress didn't sign the pledge either. Two of them won't be around for the next Congress, Indiana's Richard Lugar who lost his nomination battle to a Tea Party-supported candidate, and Maine's Olympia Snow, who's leaving the Senate. But the folks who won their seats also didn't sign the pledge. Joining me now is Grover Norquist, he's the author of the pledge and one of the most powerful fiscal conservatives in the country. Grover, welcome back to the show. Thank you for being here. First of all, I want to ask you, where does your group, Americans for Tax Reform, get its money? Who is behind this effort for this pledge? GROVER NORQUIST, PRESIDENT, AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM: Well, the pledge doesn't cost any money. But we have 100,000 donors if that's your question. But the pledge doesn't cost any resources. We share it with people. And they make that commitment to the American people. As you pointed out, we have a majority in the House that's committed to not raising taxes. The leadership of the House and the Senate Republicans have made this commitment -- VELSHI: Well, let me ask -- (CROSSTALK) NORQUIST: -- to the American people. VELSHI: Let me stop you for a second. If the pledge doesn't cost any money, then why did American Crossroads GPS Karl Rove super PAC give you $4.5 million? QUEST: Oh, well, they were supportive of our efforts in campaigns and so on, sure. VELSHI: So that's -- (CROSSTALK) QUEST: The pledge -- the pledge itself is not -- doesn't cost any money. VELSHI: I understand. Right. Right. I -- only photocopying costs, I guess. I guess my only question is what happens to people -- QUEST: Now we use e-mail. VELSHI: There you go. What happens to people who break the pledge? Those 238 in Congress? What happens if they break the pledge? Because you've got money behind you so you pile on and try and get them defeated in the next election? QUEST: Well, the best example of that is George Herbert Walker Bush who ran for election in 1988, signed the pledge, won the primary, said, read my lips, and signed the pledge, and won the general election. Then two years later he walked into a grand bargain with the Democrats who promised to cut spending if he would raise taxes. Taxes were raised. Spending was not cut. Spending increased. And he lost the next election. We didn't run any ads against Bush. The whole country knew that he had been taken to the cleaners. That he'd promised not to raise taxes and didn't keep his commitment. So these are self-enforcing. Why? Because the American people elect people who they want to reform government rather than raise taxes. VELSHI: I like to think it's that pure. But the fact is, you have a lot of money. So the money got to be used for something, right? You can't be getting $4.5 million from these guys and $100,000 here and $200,000 here for nothing. I mean it doesn't cost that much to get the pledge out. So clearly that money goes somewhere. What happens? How does the money get spent to defeat people who break the pledge? QUEST: Well, we've run ads to let people know who is taking the pledge and who doesn't. We'll do phones and to letting people know who's taken the pledge and hasn't. Now if liberals believe that being open to tax increases is a popular thing, then they should consider our advertising, letting them know that somebody's open to tax increases -- VELSHI: Got it. QUEST: -- to be a campaign contribution to them. They seem to know better than that, though. VELSHI: OK. So let's switch from the politics to the economics. Our GDP growth rate is 2 percent and yet we have the lowest tax rates in the United States that we've had for 30 years. So how do you connect the tissue on this? We've got -- we've got the lowest tax rates again in 30 years in America and yet we've only got a 2 percent growth rate. So how does that argue that yet lower tax rates will create more growth? QUEST: Well, first of all, we had a 28 percent top marginal tax rate in 1986 up in until 1990. So we actually have a top rate of 35 percent. We have a significantly higher tax rate than we had -- VELSHI: When our tax revenues are low? QUEST: -- during the Reagan years. Of course they are. VELSHI: Tax burden is lower. QUEST: The total tax burden is lower because if we had a growth rate like Reagan's. VELSHI: Right. QUEST: A recovery, a strong Reagan -- VELSHI: More -- greater than 4 percent? QUEST: There'd be 10 million Americans at work if we had Reagan's level of recovery. VELSHI: Right. Right. QUEST: Who aren't at work now. They'd be paying taxes. VELSHI: And as I've said to Stephen Moore, if I had a full head of hair, I can look like Brad Pitt. We don't. We have a 2 percent growth rate. It's not predicted to do better than 3 percent. So I guess -- QUEST: With a top tax rate that Obama wants to take to 43, 44 percent, with a tsunami of regulations and attack on energy, they've now announced they want an energy tax. Something they didn't mention during the campaign. So there's a whole series of damaging things. The market sees that this is not exactly a healthy plan for the economy. Of course you have a lousy growth rate as long as you have Democrats threatening to throw tax increases on the economy. VELSHI: Right. QUEST: In addition to the regulatory burden, you've got French rates of economic growth. VELSHI: All right. But let's say we let the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year and then Congress moved to increase tax rates, would that -- would that count? Would that violate your pledge? QUEST: That would clearly be -- look, you can't go to the American people and say we raised taxes $500 billion and then we cut it $400 billion. Please only look at the cut, not the overall rate. If you raise taxes $100 billion on the American people, they're going to notice it. It doesn't pass the laugh test. VELSHI: Grover, thanks for being us with again. QUEST: You got it. VELSHI: All right. Despite the Grover Norquist pledge, the talk in Congress does sound vaguely promising. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BOEHNER: Let's rise above the dysfunction and do the right thing together for our country. SEN. HARRY REID (D), MAJORITY LEADER: Compromise is not a dirty word. (END VIDEO CLIP) VELSHI: So will our leaders rise to the occasion and drag us over the fiscal cliff with them or will they compromise? We'll gain the odds of compromise next on YOUR MONEY. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) VELSHI: This year's debt ceiling debacle and this year's fiscal cliff has one thing in common, a failure to reach compromise in Washington is threatening to bring the country to the brink of financial ruin again. The world is watching whether America is willing to plunge itself into another financial crisis. There is a solution, though. It's one that University of Pennsylvania president Amy Gutmann writes about in her book, "The Spirit of Compromise: Why Governing Demands It and Campaigning Undermines It." I'll talk to her in a moment. But first, a quick history lesson to put the current insanity -- and that's what it is -- into context for you. In the book Gutmann writes about the successful bipartisan Tax Reform Compromise of 1986 in which she writes Republican president Ronald Reagan and the Democratic speaker of the House, on the right there, Tip O'Neill, were able to put their minds to governing rather than campaigning. She writes that it wasn't easy for them to do it but they did it. They got together and passed significant tax cuts that really benefited many Americans. Jump ahead to 2010, to the debate over Obamacare where the compromise in passing the Affordable Care Act occurred only between Democrats. Not a single Republican joined them in the vote. Amy Gutmann joins me now. Thanks for being us with again. Good to see you. In your book, you fault today's elected officials -- AMY GUTMANN, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: My pleasure. VELSHI: -- for spending most of their time campaigning rather than governing compared to 30 years ago. What's changed? Why are elected officials different now than they were 30 years ago? GUTMANN: Well, as our book foreshadows and I wrote the book with my Harvard colleague, Dennis Thompson. We have been overwhelmed by the permanent campaign where every day has been Election Day. And that's the bad news. It's been truly overwhelming and the good news is I think the American people have been underwhelmed by that. So I think there is a time for change. But what's changed is that the 24/7 media, the influx of unlimited money into politics, the fact that it is easy to stand on principle and demonize your opponents and that makes good coffee. All of that has made the campaigning overwhelmed the governing in our democracy. VELSHI: Paul Krugman wrote in an op-ed in the "New York Times" this week and he said the president shouldn't do anything about the fiscal cliff at the moment. I'll tell you what he wrote. He said, "Stand your ground, Mr. President. Don't give in to threats. No deal is better than a bad deal." That, Krugman says, by the way, would put extreme pressure on Republicans to make a deal as the economy tanks. Now we talk a lot about the Tea Party and some extreme views that they have on this, but what about pressure from liberals on the president to resist compromise? GUTMANN: So I said it before the election, and we say it in our book. You can blame one party more than the other but in the end both parties are going to have to compromise. And the victorious party is going to have to make the extreme ends of its party somewhat unhappy in order to make the party, the party of the common good, and also to basically rule in a way that helps the vast majority of the American people who are not on the extreme. So I read Paul Krugman's column, and it's fine for a pundit. It's fine for activists to want the president or the Congress to hold as much ground as possible. But it is misleading to the American people to think that staring the fiscal cliff in the face and saying let's go over it because we're not willing to compromise is a winning proposition. The president -- is running no longer for re-election. He's running for history. VELSHI: Right. GUTMANN: And he can be historic president if he makes a really good compromise and gets us over this fiscal cliff. VELSHI: Compromise, as you have written in your book, does actually mean all sides giving something up. So we will watch this carefully. Amy Gutmann, good to see you again on the show. Thanks for being with us. So are you ready for the next big shock to the financial system? My next guest oversaw TARP, the 2008 bank bailout. He says, no, we're actually worse off than before the crisis. So how do we prepare for the next financial meltdown if there is one? I'll tell you after the break. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) VELSHI: Americans have lost faith in their banks. A yearly Gallup poll shows confidence at an all-time low. Only 21 percent of respondents say they're actually feeling good about U.S. banks this year. Look at the trend going all the way back to 1980, from the mortgage meltdown and the subsequent bailout, scandals have battered the image of our financial institutions. Billions upon billions were lost by JPMorgan's infamous London whale trader on a risky bet. At MF Global, the commodity and derivatives trader, $1.6 billion of customer money vanished into thin air. HSBC was found guilty of extensive international money laundering practices and nearly every major bank is under suspicion after Barclay's was outed for its role in rigging LIBOR, the London interbank rate that affects everything from your home loans to your credit cards. Efforts have been made to restore confidence in the system. Dodd- Frank is the signature financial reform of President Obama's first term. It aims to put an end to too big to fail bailouts while monitoring threats to the consumers and the entire financial system. Some Dodd-Frank regulatory rules have yet to be written but President Obama vows not to go back on his efforts. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: After all we've been through, I don't believe that rolling back regulations on Wall Street will help the small businesswoman expand or the laid-off construction worker keep his home. (END VIDEO CLIP) VELSHI: There are plenty of critics out there who say Dodd-Frank, by the way, didn't go far enough and may have made big banks even more dangerous. One of those critics is Neal Barofsky. He was the special investigator general assigned to monitor TARP, the $700 billion bailout. He's since written, "Bailout: An Inside Account," of how Washington abandoned the main street while rescuing Wall Street. Neil, look at the political donations that the two sides got. Look at President Obama's back in in 2008. These are from finance, insurance, and real estate industries. In 2008, he got more than McCain did. Then 2012, it collapsed. That's the purpose of collapse for President Obama. He's not getting the support of Wall Street on regulating anymore. NEIL BAROFSKY, SENIOR FELLOW, NYU LAW SCHOOL: No, no. I mean, I think there's a couple reasons for this. One is that they looked at what Mitt Romney was offering, which was a complete teardown of Dodd- Frank. VELSHI: Right. BAROFSKY: And thought well, gee, that's -- that probably better for us than anything else. But the other thing, I think, very, very important for those numbers is the tax policy. And the fact that Barack Obama said that he was going to increase taxes on the wealthy which happen to be those big financial donors. VELSHI: Right. BAROFSKY: Whereas Romney was talking about lowering those taxes, so I think a lot of that is just people voting with their pocketbook. VELSHI: So we don't -- well, this is a good point. Because when people said why did people -- why does corporate America seem upset that Barack Obama won, it could just be that there are people who are investors who are upset because it's going to cost them money. BAROFSKY: Rich guys want to keep their money. VELSHI: Right. OK. So this may not be a sign of what it's going to do but let's talk about financial regulation. Americans still want to be safe from their financial institutions, and they don't fully feel that way. In fact they don't even partially feel safe. What's your sense? Are we -- are we able to withstand another financial crisis because while a lot of people say we won't go over that fiscal cliff, we're going to come close, we're going to come close again, with the debt limit again. Are we safe? BAROFSKY: No, we still have banks that are now bigger than they were before the financial crisis. They still don't have adequate capital, that is their own money to shield them from significant losses. And we have government policy which is not doing the required things to make them safe or smaller so that if we go off the fiscal cliff or we fall off the European cliff, that there is a danger of major capital hits that could very easily put us back into a spiral financial crisis. So there is that real danger out there. VELSHI: Dodd-Frank is a big, big piece of legislation. Mitt Romney was very clear, as you said, that he would get rid of it. Barack Obama is not clear on that. In fact he likes it. What's in there that keeps us safer and what needs to be fixed? BAROFSKY: Well, I think one thing that's good is the Consumer Protection Bureau. Elizabeth Warren, now Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren -- (CROSSTALK) VELSHI: Who would not have been running for office if the Senate Democrats -- the Senate Republicans had let her be nominated as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, so now they've got her in the Senate. I don't know which one is worse for them. BAROFSKY: You may have been right the first time with Senate Democrats because it was -- you know, Chris Dodd is the one who -- VELSHI: Right. BAROFSKY: -- publicly said that she was unconfirmable. Probably did more damage than what the Republicans did. But at any event, that bureau is something that's done some really good work, is protecting consumers and having Elizabeth Warren in the Senate now to defend that institution from attacks from congressional audits and dependence on its funding is going to be a very important thing to watch. And that's one of the really good things of Dodd-Frank that came out, is that we have an agency now solely dedicated as a consumer protection. So that's definitely one of the good things. VELSHI: Good to see you again, Neil. Thanks so much for being here. BAROFSKY: Thank you for having me. VELSHI: And thanks for joining the conversation this week on YOUR MONEY. We are here every Saturday 1:00 p.m. Eastern and Sunday 3:00 p.m. Find me on Facebook at Facebook.com/alivelshi. And tweet me, my handle is @AliVelshi. As you know, don't tweet me and ask me this because I do actually read every message, and I am ready to debate you. Have a great weekend.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/8304

Senate shoots down bill for sportsmen WASHINGTON – Legislation that would expand hunting and fishing access on federal land failed to advance in the Senate last week over a political battle on gun rights. WASHINGTON – Legislation that would expand hunting and fishing access on federal land failed to advance in the Senate last week over a political battle on gun rights.Action came to a halt after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to allow debate on several Republican amendments to ease restrictions on gun owners.Reid accused Republicans of wanting to offer controversial amendments that would kill the bill, while GOP senators said they wanted an "open and fair" amendment process. Reid also blocked gun control amendments that some Democrats hoped to offer.Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., the lead sponsor of the bill, said the Senate should have considered sportsmen-related amendments including those dealing with gun issues."I am disappointed that politics prevented us from reaching an agreement," she said.The underlying bill otherwise enjoyed wide bipartisan support with 46 co-sponsors stretching from Alaska to Florida. But it was tabled after a procedural vote fell 41-56, 19 votes short of the 60 needed to move forward.Sens. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and Bob Corker, R-Tenn., voted to block it.◆◆◆OMB and HUD nominees confirmedThe Senate last week confirmed Shaun Donovan as director of the White House Office of Management and Budget.Donovan was secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. He replaces Sylvia Mathews Burwell, who is now secretary of Health and Human Resources.The Senate voted 72-22 to confirm Donovan. Alexander and Corker voted for confirmation.The Senate also confirmed San Antonio Mayor Julián Castro as the new HUD secretary. The 39-year-old Texan was approved 71-26.Alexander and Corker voted for Castro.◆◆◆ House funds energy, environmental programsA $34 billion bill to fund the Energy Department, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency for the next fiscal year was approved in the House, where much of the week was spent debating dozens of amendments.The annual appropriations bill – the sixth that the House has now approved so far out of a dozen that cover the entire government – faces an uncertain future. The Senate has yet to act on its version.President Obama has also threatened a veto of the House bill over provisions to limit environmental regulations as well as spending on a shuttered Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository program in Nevada.The bill was approved 253-170.Rep. Scott DesJarlais, R-Tenn., did not vote.The Nevada delegation attempted to strip $150 million in nuclear waste funding targeted for the Yucca Mountain program from the bill but an amendment offered by Rep. Dina Titus, D-Nev., was rejected, 75-344.DesJarlais did not vote.Titus said more than $15 billion has been "squandered on this boondoggle" and Congress should pursue new strategy instead.But Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., argued the repository plan remains "the law of the land," and that President Barack Obama moved to halt it without approval from Congress.The House did approve an amendment to add $57 million to the Army Corps of Engineers budget for additional dredging at ports and harbors.Proponents argued the $57 million was collected from ports for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and should not have been diverted to other energy programs in the first place. A water bill recently signed into law requires 67 percent of the trust fund to be spent on harbor and port-related activities."That is money that our ports have paid for and they need," said Rep. Janice Hahn, D-Calif. She said she understood the Appropriations Committee that wrote the spending bill was challenged to balancing various programs, "but for our ports to remain competitive, they need this funding."Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, said the bill includes more than $1.1 billion for harbor maintenance, which represents a 20 percent increase over the Obama administration’s request for 2015."While I understand that there is almost always more work that can be done, we must balance several competing activities within the Energy and Water bill," he said.Hahn’s amendment was approved 281-137. DesJarlais voted against it.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/8310

Young Activists Furious With Clinton, Dodd Published on Friday, December 14, 2007byPoliticoYoung Activists Furious With Clinton, Dodd byBen AdlerMany youth activists are furious with the campaigns of Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) for suggesting that college students who did not grow up in Iowa should not caucus there in January - and they are delivering that message both publicly and privately. "It's terrible to have candidates making misleading statements about whether or not students can caucus," said Alexandra Acker, executive director of the Young Democrats of America. "I'm very worried about the caucus-day implications of this," Acker said, concerned that discouraging students from caucusing will make an existing problem worse. "Students are disenfranchised at higher rates to begin with." Young Voter PAC, another Democratic youth organization, has also responded aggressively. The political action committee, which works with Democratic candidates to engage young voters, founded the Facebook group "Hey Clinton, Stop Telling Young Voters to Stay Home." Rock the Vote issued a statement encouraging students from out of state to vote. Student PIRGs Young Voters Project put out a release from a number of its student leaders in Iowa saying, "We live here in Iowa for the majority of the year. ... To say that students who didn't grow up in Iowa, but who now live here, shouldn't have the choice to participate in the caucuses is blatant voter disenfranchisement." The argument centers on whether to encourage Iowa college students from out of state to caucus in Iowa - as the campaign of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is doing - or to frown at it, as the Clinton and Dodd campaigns have hinted at. Drawing an implicit contrast with the Obama campaign, Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee said, "We are not systematically trying to manipulate the Iowa caucuses with out-of-state people; we don't have literature recruiting out-of-state college students." And Dodd's Iowa state Director Julie Andreeff Jensen accused Obama of "scheming to evade either the spirit or the letter of the rules that guide the process." By last week, it seemed that youth activists like Acker had made some headway when both campaigns released statements saying that all eligible voters should caucus. But both candidates and their surrogates have continued to sound ambiguous notes since then. Dodd declared that students who did not grow up in Iowa should not caucus, saying, "If you're from Hartford, Conn., and you're going to school at the University of Iowa, and you're paying out-of-state tuition, you're [unfairly] casting yourself as an Iowan." David Yepsen, the influential Des Moines Register columnist, criticized the Obama campaign Dec. 1 for distributing a pamphlet informing student supporters that even if they are out of state on Jan. 3 they can return to Iowa and caucus at their school precinct. Yepsen wrote, "These are the Iowa caucuses. Asking people who are 'not from Iowa' to participate in them changes the nature of the event." Yepsen himself admits that it's legal for any student at a four-year college in Iowa to vote. The Iowa secretary of state posts information on how students can caucus from their campus address. But the Clinton and Dodd campaigns seized on the opening to appeal to older Iowans' potential resentment of Obama's support from young people by issuing statements echoing Yepsen's sentiments. And Sen. Joe Biden (Del.) said the Obama campaign was "tamper[ing] with the caucus." Then on Monday former President Bill Clinton waffled in response to a question at Grinnell College in Iowa about whether Sen. Clinton wanted Grinnell students from out of state to caucus for her. Clinton revealed the campaign's new line of attack on students from out of state by saying, "If this is your primary political identity then you should vote, but if it isn't and you're going to turn right back around and vote in a primary the next day then you shouldn't because it means that your primary identity is not in Iowa." The Hillary campaign has since issued a statement encouraging students to vote provided they don't fraudulently participate in both their home state primary and the caucuses. The Clinton campaign did not provide evidence that this has ever happened, or explain the cause of their sudden concern about it, when asked by Politico. Alec Schierenbeck, 20, is the president of College and Young Democrats of Iowa and said he intends to caucus, though he is undecided on a candidate. Schierenbeck, a junior at Grinnell who hails from Brooklyn, N.Y., was in the audience and said he was horrified by Clinton's answer. "This is a Republican tactic," said Schierenbeck, citing the campaign of Danny Carroll, the former Republican state representative for Grinnell's district. He sent a mailing in his 2004 reelection campaign that asked, "[W]hy would you let 1,000 east-coast liberal kids elect your representative?" in reference to Grinnell students. (In fact, less than half Grinnell's 1,400 students are from East Coast states.) Schierenbeck is hardly the only politically involved student from out of state in Iowa. As Politico has reported, the co-chair of Hillary Clinton's University of Iowa student chapter, Nikki Dziuban, is from Illinois. She intends to caucus for Clinton and will bring other Iowa students from Illinois back to school over winter break with her. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's campaign has drawn criticism from other campaigns for refusing to sign a pledge saying that campaign workers who moved to Iowa to work for him will not caucus. But the Richardson camp has also said that it will not encourage student supporters who grew up out of state to come back for the caucuses. Richardson's spokesman Tom Reynolds suggests that doing so violates "the spirit of the law." Obama, meanwhile, has not backed down. Campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki told Politico in an e-mail, "We should be encouraging young people to participate in the political process - not looking for ways to shut them out." Schierenbeck agreed. "We don't have a student over-engagement problem in this country, we have an under-engagement problem. Every elected official should take every opportunity to encourage young people to vote." EDITOR'S NOTE: This article was updated on Dec. 13 to note that Bill Clinton's comments did include a remark specifying that he was talking about caucusing in Iowa and voting in another state's primary election. It was also updated to clarify details about the question posed to President Clinton. The question was not asked by a Clinton-supporting student from Minnesota, but by a student from Nebraska who does not support Clinton. The confusion arose because his question was about a friend of his from Minnesota who received an invitation to the event from the Clinton campaign. © 2007 Politico.com

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/8335

Opinion Op-Eds Higher Minimum Wage Benefits Workers, Businesses WERNER OYANADEL | OP-EDThe Hartford Courant Perception often lags behind reality, particularly when it comes to the minimum wage in Connecticut and the country. Because of the unfortunate — but not unusual — time lag in recognizing facts on the ground, much of the resistance to the proposed incremental increase to a $10.10 hourly wage, now before the General Assembly, is misplaced. It relies on what people think they know to be true, but isn't.It begins with minimum wage workers. They are not your grandfather's part-time workers, flipping burgers to make a few extra bucks. Today, the average age of minimum wage workers is 35. These are people seeking desperately to get an economic foothold and to provide for themselves and their families. Among those who would be affected by an increased minimum wage nationally, about 54 percent work full time, about 69 percent come from families with income less than $60,000 and more than a quarter have children. Many are women. The average minimum wage worker earns half of his or her family's total income, according to the Economic Policy Institute.The Connecticut Department of Labor estimates as many as 90,000 workers earn the minimum wage here. Research by Connecticut Voices for Children indicates that although Latinos comprise only 12.84 percent of the workforce, we make up a disproportionate share, 17.1 percent, of those who would be affected by an increase.In 1979, less than 25 percent of low wage workers had any college experience, and most had not finished high school. Today, nearly a third have been to college, and another 10 percent have graduated. Nonetheless, their advanced education hasn't led to better paying jobs.That, in part, is because many middle income jobs have disappeared. Low wage workers are virtually locked on what previously was the first-rung of the economic ladder. The middle rung jobs, which brought advancement to the middle class, have been obliterated by recession or technology, or both. Minimum wage workers — especially those in the Latino and other minority communities — have fewer choices and fewer chances to advance.Providing a realistic living wage would not only help these families and workers, it would help all of us. It is not drastic or dramatic. It is overdue.From the mid-1960s until the early 1980s, minimum wage workers earned a wage equal to roughly half that of the typical American worker. Today's minimum wage is equal to only 36 percent. Raising the minimum hourly wage to $10.10 would return it to about half. A correction is badly needed, lest the disparity continue its misguided trajectory.Today's misaligned minimum is not due to economic necessity. Over the past 45 years, the U.S. economy expanded, and productivity more than doubled. Yet the minimum wage was left behind, and with it much of the American workforce, as costs continued to climb.It is not a choice between being pro-worker and pro-family or being pro-business. Small businesses are vital to the Latino community and state. Small business drives our economy — and no community better exemplifies the link between family and business.Paying workers a minimum wage that helps them meet basic expenses means they'll have a few more dollars to spend on essentials each payday. That money that will go into business coffers. Although a minimum wage increase may cost small business slightly more in payroll, the return on that investment will be more customers.Research over the past two decades has shown that modest increases in the minimum wage have little to no negative effect on jobs, the Economic Policy Institute reports, and the National Employment Law Project found that two-thirds of low-wage employees work for companies with more than 100 employees.Evidence suggests that when costs increase, for whatever reason, employees are the last place that small employers make cuts. Budgets are carefully trimmed to ensure that employees — who are vital to customer service, the linchpin of any successful business — can be kept on the job. The incremental nature of the minimum wage proposal both at the federal and the state level provides businesses time to plan, adjust and prepare.The peace of mind in knowing that one can provide adequately for a family's needs can't be underestimated — and can't help but boost employees' productivity. President Barack Obama, said during his recent stop in Connecticut, "Nobody who works full time should ever have to raise a family in poverty. That violates a basic sense of who we are. That's why it's time to give America a raise." Fairness goes a long way. What is good for American families — be they Latino or otherwise — is good for business.Werner Oyanadel is executive director of the Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission. Connecticut Voices for Children

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/8364

UN Security Council condemns recruitment of child soldiers In this March 27, 2013 photo, young soldiers from the Seleka rebel alliance pose for a photo as they stand amidst their fellow soldiers at the Ledger Plaza Bangui hotel, in Bangui, Central African Republic. (AP Photo) Peter James Spielmann, The Associated Press Published Friday, March 7, 2014 1:35PM EST The Security Council on Friday condemned the recruitment of child soldiers into military forces, guerrilla movements and Islamic militias around the world and demanded an end to attacks on schools and hospitals in conflict zones. The council unanimously approved a resolution with those demands after hearing testimony from a former child soldier from Sierra Leone, which became notorious for guerrilla groups that amputated the limbs, ears and lips of civilians to leave them as living emblems of fear. In 2001, when he was 14, Alhaji Babah Sawaneh became the first ex-child soldier to speak before the council, and he spoke again Friday as a campaigner against the practice. He told the council that he was "one of the children that were forcefully abducted and conscripted into an armed group at the age of 10." "My childhood was robbed by the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) for two years. It was one of the most brutish and turbulent civil wars in the history of armed conflict," he said. "The children and young people in countries affected by armed conflict need a future, we need education and jobs. Today I am standing here again, by the grace of God, and I am asking again for your help," he said. Sawaneh said he went on to find a foster family, finished his university degree two years ago and now is an anti-child conscription campaigner in Sierra Leone. In his last report on child soldiers, released in 2013, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon cited government forces in Afghanistan, Chad, South Sudan, Myanmar, Somalia, Congo, Syria, Yemen and Sudan for recruiting minors. Other offenders are Islamic movements in Somalia, Mali, Iraq, Afghanistan, several al-Qaida groups, and combatants in Colombia, the Philippines, Syria, Myanmar and Central African Republic, including the Lord's Resistance Army. On Friday, Ban pointed to Syria as one of the most egregious conflicts affecting children today. He said more than 2.25 million Syrian children are out of school, and "one of five schools has been damaged or occupied by families made homeless by the conflict." Ban's latest report on child soldiers, filed in 2013, cited government forces in Afghanistan, Chad, South Sudan, Myanmar, Somalia, Congo, Syria, Yemen and Sudan for recruiting children. However, over the last three years the United Nations has signed action plans to phase out child recruitment with the governments of Afghanistan, Chad, South Sudan, Myanmar, Somalia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Yemen and Sudan's governments and Myanmar guerrilla movements have also expressed their commitment to child-free security forces and are in talks with the United Nations. War orphans: Children hard hit by South Sudan fighting Advocates call for Canadian government to act on Pickton inquiry recommendations

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/8383

Prepared for the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations in association with the Fairness Project If your email program has difficulty viewing this page, see web version: jcpa.org/daily To contact the Presidents Conference: info@prescon.org In-Depth Issue: How Saddam Plundered the UN Oil for Food Program - Mark Hosenball (Newsweek) Saddam Hussein has been plundering the Oil for Food program for years, netting a huge cash windfall that the CIA believes the Iraqi dictator has used to finance his weapons programs. U.S. government figures estimate that Iraq has received at least $2.3 billion in oil-contract kickbacks since 1997. �The United Nations is, in these matters, 50 percent corrupt and 50 percent incompetent,� says Richard Perle, a top adviser to the Pentagon on Iraqi policy. "The end result is, they cannot enforce a serious set of sanctions, and they�ll do no better conducting weapons inspections." Iran�s President Khatami On His Way Out - Michael Ledeen (National Review) Last Wednesday two leading members of the Iranian parliament, including an outspoken opponent of the regime, were killed when their automobile went off the road into a ravine north of Tehran. Ayatollah Taheri, the cleric who recently resigned as the religious leader of Isfahan, announced they had been executed by the regime. Well-informed Iranians believe the "accident" was an explicit warning to Iran's enfeebled president, Mohammad Khatami: If you dare challenge us further, you will end up the same way. Israeli Officer Disciplined for Death of Palestinian Youth (IDF Spokesperson) According to an inquiry presented to the IDF Chief of Staff, a Palestinian boy was wounded and later died of his wounds while standing on the balcony of his home during stone throwing and disturbances in the Samarian village of Nazlat Zid on October 4, 2002. The deputy battalion commander on the scene has been dismissed from his post and will not be reinstated to a command post for at least three years - a decision that emphasizes the severity with which the IDF views the harming, even unintentionally, of innocent civilians during operational activity. Key Links News Resources - North America and Europe: U.S. Elections 2002: Congress Remains Pro-Israel A predominance of pro-Israel lawmakers retained their seats, and several new faces emerged, many of whom pro-Israel officials called promising. A senior pro-Israel official said he expected the 108th Congress to be even more supportive of Israel than the outgoing body. (JTA) Report: Iraq Has Scuds Ready for War A U.S. intelligence assessment indicates that Iraq has as many as two dozen old Scud missiles from the 1991 Gulf War which it might be able to fire at Israel or other regional states in any U.S.-led war against Baghdad, U.S. officials said on Wednesday. The officials said Israel had been quietly helping the Pentagon prepare for any conflict with Iraq, confirming reports that Israel had sent military scout teams into remote Western Iraq. (Reuters) U.S. Raid Foils Plot to Send Arms to Al Qaeda U.S. law enforcement officials have broken up a major drug operation aimed at furnishing weapons to al Qaeda. In San Diego, two Pakistanis and an American, Ilyas Ali, were charged with plotting to trade heroin and hashish for four Stinger antiaircraft missiles they were planning to sell to al Qaeda. (New York Times) May I Have My Bomb Back? Ian Rimell, a 52-year-old Brit, is an explosive-ordnance-disposal expert working with a Scandinavian-funded de-mining team that has cleared thousands of "improvised terrorist devices" from Jenin. "We found 4668 items, of which 804 were live," Ian says. Ian's team gets called all the time by "people who are not happy about things...like two-meter-long pipe bombs planted in the road near their houses." "And there were instances when guys with guns would show up and demand their bombs back," says Ian. (Village Voice) Iran Bans Advertising for U.S. Goods Iran has banned advertising for American goods at the recommendation of the Society for Defending Palestine, the state TV announced Thursday. The ban came just as advertising for American products was on the increase, in defiance of calls for a boycott by hardline clerics. (ABC News) News Resources - Israel and Mideast: IDF Crimps Hamas Bomb-Making During military operations in Jenin on November 5, the IDF uncovered a warehouse filled with hundreds of kilograms of fertilizer, a banned chemical substance used for making explosives [like the bomb in Oklahoma City]. In an interview in the Jordanian A-Sabil (Oct. 14, 2002), a member of Hamas' military wing admitted that Israeli restrictions on the import of raw materials used in explosives have hurt Hamas' ability to manufacture bombs, forcing the group to search for new routes to obtain such materials. (IDF Spokesperson) Ex-Mossad Head Envisions Regional Change Efraim Halevy, who just stepped down after 4 1/2 years as head of the Mossad, envisions the following changes in the region: Within a year, plus or minus, Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein are expected to disappear from the horizon. In the next 2 or 3 years change is expected in Iran; part of the Iranian leadership does not support the official line that calls for the destruction of Israel, and nearly 70% of the elected representatives in parliament oppose Iran's militant line. (Maariv) Israel-PA Trade Almost Halved Officially reported trade between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) has fallen since 2000 from NIS 10.4 billion at 2002 prices to a projected NIS 5.8 billion in 2002, a 44% decrease. Unreported trade (illegal trade along the seam line) fell by an estimated NIS 2 billion, according to the IDF coordination command for government activities in the territories. Lt. Col. Isaac Gurvich estimated the losses to the Palestinian economy since September 2000 at $4.5 billion. Unemployment in the territories is estimated at 36% in the West Bank and 56% in Gaza. Some 58% in the West Bank and 85% in Gaza live below the poverty line, defined as $2.10 per day. Annual Palestinian per capita GDP has declined from $1,900 before the violence started to $1,300 at the end of 2001, and is expected to fall below $1,000 at the end of 2002. (Globes) Global Commentary and Think-Tank Analysis (Best of U.S., UK, and Israel): The Beginning of Robotic Warfare - Daniel McGrory, Michael Evans, and Elaine Monaghan When the CIA used a remote-controlled, unmanned aircraft to fire Hellfire missiles at a top al Qaeda terrorist in the Yemeni desert, America was pursuing a revolutionary new form of warfare in which no terrorist will be safe anywhere in the world. The person who launched the missile could have been at a military base in Yemen, across the Red Sea in Djibouti, or at U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Florida. According to Clifford Beal, editor of Jane's Defence Weekly: "To use a remote-controlled drone that engages and kills people, that is quite a threshold to cross. This is the beginning of robotic warfare....They were taken out Israeli-style." (London Times) See also CIA Missile Team Stalked al Qaeda Terrorist for Months (Telegraph - UK) The Binational Option - Meron Benvenisti A growing number of articles and analyses by Palestinians and their supporters are warning that the "two states for two peoples" option is fading, and the goal of a Palestinian state should be exchanged for the establishment of a binational state - a plan that would mean full Israeli annexation of the territories. (Ha'aretz) Work for Peace by Riding the Buses - Gerald M. Steinberg The images of peace campaigners getting on and off the buses in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and other places, and taking the same risks that Israelis take every day, will send a powerful message to the bombers and their supporters. By visibly riding the buses, international peace advocates can also contribute to saving lives. (International Herald Tribune) Talking Points: The Case of the Missing Reform Movement - Barry Rubin (Jerusalem Post) Yasser Arafat has killed off the Palestinian reform movement with the greatest of ease. The Palestinian legislature's much-touted refusal to approve his cabinet collapsed the moment he made tiny changes in its composition. As much as they might grumble, the secondary leaders will not try to replace him no matter how many catastrophes he leads them into. Activists in both Hamas and Fatah still believe in the prospect of victory over Israel through the systematic use of terrorism. They think that attacking its civilians will make Israel withdraw from the West Bank unilaterally or bring international intervention to hand them a state without any compromise on their part. The extent of Palestinian human or material losses is made to seem irrelevant to them. Steadfastness will bring victory, Other Palestinian leaders, and the general public, dare not speak out because Arafat and the radicals still dominate their world view and set the permissible options. The PLO, Fatah, the media, the educational system, and other Palestinian institutions - all controlled by Arafat and his lieutenants - still overwhelmingly preach a hard line. From every direction Palestinians are told that Israel does not want peace and that the U.S. is their enemy. To subscribe to the Daily Alert, please send a blank email message to: daily-subscribe@jcpa.org To unsubscribe to the Daily Alert, please send a blank email message to: daily-unsubscribe@jcpa.org

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/8387

Barack Obama, Mitt Romney clash on economy in first presidential debate (videos) President Barack Obama, left, and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney participate in the first presidential debate at the University of Denver on Wednesday. Seated at center is debate moderator Jim Lehrer. (AP photo) By KASIE HUNT DENVER (AP) -- Little more than a month from Election Day, Republican Mitt Romney is barreling out of the first presidential debate energized by a solid performance that telegraphed his determination to take it to President Barack Obama with gusto. The president, intent on keeping his momentum from stalling, is warning Americans that his GOP rival's policy prescriptions for a fragile economy are more fantasy than reality. Standing toe-to-toe with the president for the first time in the campaign, Romney held his own and more at a time when there already were signs that the race is tightening in some of the battleground states where Obama has enjoyed an advantage. Obama kept his cool and signaled that he won't let up on his message that Romney's plans on taxes, health care, the deficit and more just don't add up. "It's fun," Romney declared well into Wednesday night's 90-minute faceoff, clearly relishing the back-and-forth. "It's arithmetic," said Obama, hammering at Romney's conspicuous lack of details with far less enthusiasm. After a few days of relative calm as the candidates prepared for the first of their three debates, the campaign now bursts out of Colorado in all directions, with an itinerary that touches down in some of the most hotly contested battleground states over the next few days: Obama campaigns in Colorado and Wisconsin, then on to Virginia and Ohio. Romney and running mate Paul Ryan are off to Virginia on Thursday, then Romney spends more time in Virginia before moving on to Florida. Vice President Joe Biden is bound for Iowa. With a 13-day break before their next debate, Obama and Romney have time to hone their arguments while their campaigns continuing to bombard the most hotly contested states with negative ads that go far beyond the more restrained jibes the candidates leveled from their respective podiums. Obama made no mention, for example, of Romney's caught-on-tape remark that he's not worried about the 47 percent of Americans who don't pay taxes. Democratic ads, though, have been making hay with the comment. In next few weeks, Romney is expected to give a number of policy speeches filling in details as he tries to sharpen the contrast with Obama while answering criticism that he hasn't clearly outlined his plans. The Republican challenger begins with a foreign policy speech in Virginia on Monday. Subsequent speeches are expected to focus on his plans for job creation, debt and spending. Romney has promised to balance the budget in eight years to 10 years, but hasn't explained just how he'll do it. Instead, he's promised a set of principles, some of which -- like increasing Pentagon spending and restoring more than $700 billion in cuts to Medicare over the coming decade -- work against that goal. He also has said he will not consider tax increases. Obama argued that it's all too much. "At some point, I think the American people have to ask themselves, is the reason that Governor Romney is keeping all these plans to replace secret because they're too good?" he said. "Is it because that somehow middle-class families are going to benefit too much from them? No." The president went on to say the nation faces tough problems that defy simple solutions and said his own choices were "benefiting middle-class families all across the country." Romney maintained it was Obama who was crushing the middle class and getting the numbers wrong, telling him, "Mr. President, you're entitled to your own airplane and your own house, but not your own facts." The two candidates planted themselves behind wooden lecterns and faced off before about a crowd of fewer than 1,000 people at the University of Denver. But their policy-heavy debate really was aimed at the tens of millions of television viewers who tuned in, particularly those who are undecided or soft in their support for a candidate. Just the sort of voters who may be less partisan and more interested in hearing specifics. Karl Amelchenko, an Obama supporter who watched the debate at a storefront art gallery in Raleigh, N.C., thought Romney did himself some good. "I think he won, unfortunately," Amelchenko said. "I think he might change some minds." But some voters still aren't ready to commit one way or the other. Cynthia Gerst, a state worker in Ohio who attended a nonpartisan debate watch party in downtown Columbus, confessed she's "been under a rock, but now I'm ready" to pay attention. She leans Democratic, but hasn't made up her mind. "I couldn't distinguish who was in the right," she said after the debate. Both candidates came into the debate with distinct missions, and largely achieved them: Romney needed to project leadership and dispel the image of an out-of-touch elitist. Obama needed to avoid making any major mistakes and press the case that he still has more to offer. The GOP nominee began his charm offensive from the outset, offering 20th wedding anniversary wishes to the Obamas and joking that the debate hall was quite the romantic setting. And then he quickly segued to the campaign's central issue -- jobs -- and called it "a very tender topic." Obama sketched out his familiar agenda of improving schools, expanding energy sources, increasing tax fairness and paying down the debt, then made a simple but all-encompassing promise: "All of this is possible." Each candidate wielded studies and experts to buttress his arguments, and each hauled out anecdotes about ordinary Americans to connect with voters. Romney spoke of the woman in Ohio who grabbed his arm and told him she's been out of work since May. Obama recalled the teacher he met in Las Vegas who had students sitting on the floor and using 10-year-old textbooks. Biden and Ryan were probably two of the most attentive viewers: Their own debate is up next, on Oct. 11 at Centre College in Danville, Ky. Their rival rehearsals, with stand-ins for their opponents, already are well under way. Obama and Romney go back at it on Oct. 16, in a town hall-style format at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y. Their final faceoff, on foreign affairs, is Oct. 22 at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla. Benac reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Allen Breed in Raleigh, N.C., Julie Pace in Denver, Andrew Welsh-Huggins in Columbus, Ohio, and Steve Peoples in Washington contributed to this report.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/8436

Sovereignty with Strings Attached By Richard A. Stitt One of the definitions of sovereignty is "freedom from external control." George W. Bush's hypocrisy is all the more blatant when he tells the American people that our military fought and are still fighting in Iraq because we want to give the Iraqi people freedom and democracy. In fact, he is now demanding that the Iraqis can only have partial democracy and basically no sovereignty over their own country until he says so. Sovereignty, he says, will be handed over to the Iraqis on June 30. This ill-fated policy will be a recipe for disaster as soon as the Iraqi citizens see how once again Bush has deceived them. Before the war, the sole reason Bush gave for invading Iraq was that Saddam Hussein was poised to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States. However, now that no WMD have been found, even after a full year of U.S. military occupation and the deaths of nearly 700 soldiers and upwards of 15,000 Iraqi men, women and children, we are now being given a far different and revised version: Now the reason Bush invaded Iraq, we are being told, was to bring them freedom and democracy. But with strings attached. Add onto this policy of deception Bush's need to divert $700 million in funds away from fighting al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and hunting down Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, in order to invade Iraq. Now Bush's puppet leader in Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, is little more than the Mayor of Kabul. Afghanistan is officially named the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, meaning that it is morphing more each month into a Taliban lookalike theocracy. In the meantime, because of a U.S. military presence of only about 15,000 troops, Afghanistan is once again the world's leading producer and exporter of opium, a cash crop that is financing the renaissance of the Taliban and al-Qaeda operations. Bush alone bears total responsibility for permitting the revival of the terrorists while he diverted money, troops and resources in order to pursue his preemptive war of choice in Iraq. He got his much-coveted war and, as Colin Powell personally told him in the White House Oval Office, once you go down that road, "you will own that country." Bush now owns that country, only now he doesn't really know what to do with it. Add to this hypocrisy the statement that Bush is fond of making, "You're either with us or with the terrorists," while he disdains and criticizes democratic elections such as the one recently held in Spain where 90% of the Spanish population opposed Bush's war policies and the consequences in the aftermath of the Iraq War which have led to more violence and bloodshed. But Bush has no problem embracing the repressive monarchies of Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia as well as supporting Pakistan's dictator, Pervez Musharraf. So far, his Faustian deal with Pakistan has cost the American taxpayers over $2 billion with more billions on the way as long as Bush can continue to bribe Musharraf to join in the "coalition of the willing" nations. Will Mr. Bush and his war hawks now begin their anti-government screechings against Honduras, the Dominican Republic and possibly Poland since these countries, following Spain's lead, are indicating they will pull their troops out of Iraq? According to Bush/Cheney and their acolytes, the Spanish election was won by the terrorists, not the people, in spite of the 76% voter turnout and the desire to distance themselves from the pro-war Jose Aznar and his pro-Bush government. If the same fractured logic and reasoning that the Bush administration is now applying towards Spain is applied to these other countries, or other countries which opt out of the Iraq coalition, it follows then that the only elections or governments that will be supported by the U.S. are those that agree unequivocally and completely with the Bush war agenda. How many more threats and lies can Bush get away with before the American people catch on? If we are to believe most of the major polls which have appeared in the last week, the worse the attacks against our forces are in Iraq, the more Bush lies concerning revelations that his administration had ample warnings of terrorist attacks before 9/11, the more U.S. military and civilian deaths mount in Iraq, the higher Bush's approval ratings seem to go. The Karl Rove-crafted tautology still holds. "War forever, fear and crises keep Bush's poll numbers high; therefore, war, crises and fear are good." If the attention-getting "War Forever" mantra has worked so well in the past, it now seems to be working more effectively than ever. But will it continue to work that well up until November? That Bush is offering "partial democracy and sovereignty" for Iraq leads me to ask the question whether in fact Iraq may be a testing ground to see how well "partial democracy and partial freedom" could work in America if Bush prevails for another four years in the White House. Judging by the acquiescence and willingness of the American people to accept the USA Patriot Act and its companion, Patriot Act II, and judging by the recent polls, the United States Constitution and guarantees of civil liberties are well on their way to becoming footnotes of history. When Bob Woodward asked Bush in a recent interview, "Well, how is history likely to judge your Iraq war?" Bush answered this way: "'History,' and then he took his hands out of his pocket and kind of shrugged and extended his hands as if this is a way off. And then he said, 'History, we don't know. We'll all be dead.'" Apparently, Bush never heard of the Nixon era which climaxed in the Watergate investigations and Nixon's eventual resignation. But then again, maybe Bush doesn't need to fear being accountable to the people. After all, he has five right-wing activist Republican lackeys on the U.S. Supreme Court reinforced by the gutless, compliant, rubber stamp Republican-contolled Congress to do his bidding. Maybe it's time to change the final words of the Pledge of Allegiance to read, "With Partial Liberty and Partial Justice for some." Perhaps the mainstream media can conduct a poll on that subject - that is, if the First Amendment hasn't been rewritten before they get the opportunity. Printer-friendly version Tell a friend about this article

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/8508

Published on Welcome to Ekklesia (http://www.ekklesia.co.uk) Home > Blogs > Symon Hill's blog > UKIP show their true colours UKIP show their true colours By Symon Hill Any remaining doubts I had about the nature of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) were dispelled today when they published their general election manifesto [1]. UKIP have now firmly positioned themselves on the extreme right of British politics, with economic policies that will clearly benefit the richest members of society at the expense of the rest of us. When I wrote an article in The Samosa [2] last month comparing UKIP and the British National Party, I received an angry response from UKIP supporters for suggesting that on many issues the policies of these two parties are largely indistinguishable. But the similarity was confirmed today by UKIP's manifesto, which is anti-immigration, anti-Muslim and anti-civil liberties. In addition to withdrawal from the European Union, UKIP want an immediate five-year freeze on migrants settling in Britain and would ban the niqab (or Muslim face veil) in certain private buildings as well as public ones. In previous elections, UKIP have focused on emotional appeals to British identity and patriotism. This time, they have prioritised economic issues and the result is far more frightening. The gap between richest and poorest is at highest for decades, but UKIP want to take even more money from the poor and give it to the rich. Their policies include scrapping the top rate of tax, replacing it with a uniform 31% flat rate that would see many people on middle incomes paying much more. Employers would cash in (and public services lose out) from the total abolition of national insurance. Further privatisation would see thousands of staff transferred from the public to the private sector. The most vulnerable groups would suffer most from UKIP policies, with no more free television licences for older people or student loan subsidies for those on low incomes. On economic issues, UKIP clearly differ from the BNP, whose neo-fascist agenda includes a broadly statist approach to economics. But UKIP's extremist free-marketism is no less right-wing, while their hatred of multiculturalism, immigration and free expression is as virulent as the BNP's own. Amongst the messages I received after my article comparing UKIP to the BNP, most were concerned to defend UKIP policies rather than to deny that it was a far-right party. With unintended irony, some made sweeping generalisations about Muslims and/or ethnic groups in a way that only served to give a negative impression of UKIP supporters and thereby reinforce my original argument. However, one UKIP candidate emailed me to say that he objected to being called a racist. In reality, I had acknowledged that UKIP do not share the BNP's obsession with skin colour. Non-white people would undoubtedly fare worse under a BNP government than a UKIP one. But there is no chance of either of them forming a government in the immediate future. There is a chance that one (or both) of them could win a seat in the Commons. And on most issues, a UKIP MP would vote the same way as a BNP MP. Before today, I had been inclined to assume that if UKIP win a seat, this would not be quite as bad as if the BNP win one. But today I have realised clearly that, while the BNP are more extreme on ethnicity, UKIP are more extreme in attacking the poorest members of society and defending the richest. I am therefore driven to the conclusion that a UKIP MP would be just as dangerous as a BNP MP. Despite Nick Griffin's attempts to give the BNP a clean image, I suspect that most voters still regard BNP candidates as “thugs in suits” (to use Iain Duncan-Smith's memorable phrase). Most UKIP candidates have middle class accents and their leader sits in the House of Lords. This should not make them any more acceptable. Also on Ekklesia: 'UKIP and the BNP – What's the Difference?' by Symon Hill http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/11611 [3] Although the views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of Ekklesia, the article may reflect Ekklesia's values. If you use Ekklesia's news briefings please consider making a donation to sponsor Ekklesia's work here [4]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 England & Wales License. Source URL: http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/11818 Links:[1] http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/11808 [2] http://www.thesamosa.co.uk/index.php/comment-and-analysis/politics/291-election-2010-the-bnp-and-ukip-whats-the-difference.html [3] http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/11611 [4] http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/about/donate

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/8555

The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan called for the division of British-controlled Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state, but it set aside Jerusalem as an independent enclave under international administration. During the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, however, the city was divided. West Jerusalem fell under Israeli control, and East Jerusalem – including the ancient Old City – was occupied by the Kingdom of Jordan. The division endured until the Six-Day War in 1967, when Israel rebuffed an attack by Jordan on the headquarters of the UN observers in West Jerusalem, and then invaded the rest of the city, along with the entire West Bank. After the war, Israel declared united Jerusalem as its capital, annexing more than 30 Arab villages to the municipality. Both halves of the city have since remained under Israeli control, but neither has been internationally recognized as being legally part of the Jewish state. And no country acknowledges Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Not a single embassy sits within the city limits; even the United States maintains its embassy in Tel Aviv. Similarly, no matter how loudly Israel proclaims that the city is united, it is anything but so. With the exception of the Old City, Israelis, even city residents, rarely venture into East Jerusalem, where most of the signs are in Arabic. The Palestinian half of the city suffers from a lack of infrastructure, including roads, sewage, and schools. Nearly 85% of its children live below the poverty line. Fewer than 2% of East Jerusalem’s residents vote in municipal elections, as most believe that participating would lend legitimacy to the Israeli occupation. Thus although Palestinians comprise 37% of Jerusalem’s population, not a single Palestinian sits on the city council. Meanwhile, approximately 3,000 Israeli extremists have bought houses in East Jerusalem, where they are protected by security forces and have their children transported to school in armored vehicles – part of services provided to the settlers that cost the Israeli government more than 100 million shekels ($25 million) in 2014. The settlers’ presence, usually marked by giant Israeli flags, is viewed by most Palestinians as a provocation and is a source of constant tension. The two sides of the city are united only in mutual economic dependence – the result of a policy that encouraged bringing Palestinian workers into Israel in the hope that jobs – and the fear of losing them – would make them reluctant to rebel. Decades later, the dependence has become mutual. Some 3,500 of the 5,500 employees in Jerusalem’s hotel industry are Palestinians, as are approximately half of public bus drivers (a short strike by Arab drivers in November wreaked havoc on the city’s transportation network). Jerusalem’s contested status has implications for the entire region, and has been one of the main obstacles in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. While early proposals for a settlement called for Jerusalem to be made independent, as per the UN Partition Plan, more recently a consensus on the broad outlines of a peace agreement has emerged. Most proposals for Jerusalem (including the so-called Clinton Parameters in 2000, which the Israeli government approved) share many common features. The most important is the principle that Palestinian neighborhoods (in which 99% of the Palestinian population lives) will be under Palestinian control, and Israeli neighborhoods (in which 99% of the Israeli population lives) will remain under Israeli control. Responsibility for the city’s holy places will remain unchanged, with the Church of the Holy Sepulchre under Christian management, the Islamic Waqf administering the Temple Mount, and a rabbi in charge of the Western Wall. And yet efforts to finalize an agreement have been repeatedly postponed. Details regarding the management of the Old City, the administration of Jerusalem as a whole, and the relocation of settlers have been considered too sensitive to tackle, and would-be peacemakers have thought it better first to build trust by starting with easier topics. That approach has proved to be a failure, and in the intervening years the city’s divide has continued to fester. A new approach is needed. The pretense that Jerusalem is united can no longer be used to mask discrimination. Palestinians must be given control over their lives, so that the safety of all of Jerusalem’s residents, both in their homes and in public spaces, can be guaranteed. Israel’s immediate neighbors and other regional powers should make settling the status of Jerusalem a priority, before security in the city deteriorates further. This is important not only for the sake of Jerusalem’s residents; settlement of the city’s status would also provide momentum for addressing other issues. Indeed, anyone interested in bringing calm to the region should focus on Jerusalem. Only by separating the two Jerusalems now, before things get any bloodier, will we maintain the possibility of one day reuniting it once again – as the international beacon of peace it was meant to be. Laura Wharton, a Jerusalem city councilor, teaches political science at Hebrew University. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2016. www.project-syndicate.org This article is brought to you by Project Syndicate that is a not for profit organization. Project Syndicate brings original, engaging, and thought-provoking commentaries by esteemed leaders and thinkers from around the world to readers everywhere. By offering incisive perspectives on our changing world from those who are shaping its economics, politics, science, and culture, Project Syndicate has created an unrivalled venue for informed public debate. Please see: www.project-syndicate.org. Should you want to support Project Syndicate you can do it by using the PayPal icon below. Your donation is paid to Project Syndicate in full after PayPal has deducted its transaction fee. Facts & Arts neither receives information about your donation nor a commission.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/8615

Putin: U.N. Sanctions Shouldn't Be Lifted Without Confirming Elimination of WMD Print MOSCOW – President Vladimir Putin said Tuesday that sanctions against Iraq should not be lifted until the threat of weapons of mass destruction is clearly eliminated. After nearly two hours of talks with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Putin said the U.S.-led coalition based its war in Iraq on the belief that Baghdad had such weapons and said the issue must be clarified before sanctions can end. The United States wants to quickly lift the sanctions imposed on Iraq after its 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Putin noted that Saddam Hussein's fate is unknown. "Where is Saddam? Where are these arsenals, if they were really there, and what is happening with them?" Putin asked. "Maybe Saddam is sitting somewhere in a secret bunker and plans to blow all this stuff up soon at the last second, threatening hundreds of human lives." "We don't know anything. These questions must be answered," the Russian president said. Putin set the stage for a confrontation with Washington, emphasizing the need for a key United Nations role in postwar Iraq. "After the end of the war, the central role of the United Nations must be not only restored but strengthened," he said. Blair, a key U.S. ally in the war, said the United Nations would have a "vital role" in reconstructing Iraq, but added that there are "many details to be worked as to exactly what that role contains." He laid out a passionate case for Russian cooperation with the U.S.-led coalition in postwar Iraq, saying agreement over the U.N. role is a test of the most powerful nations' ability to overcome disagreement about the war and cooperate against global threats. Blair also said the coalition must be prepared to accept a significant U.N. role while Security Council members who opposed the war must understand the coalition will not easily surrender control of rebuilding a country where its soldiers shed blood. Putin agreed the world powers must cooperate against common threats, but reiterated Russia's concern about American dominance. "If this whole community is called upon to serve the interests of just one member of the world community, that is hardly acceptable," Putin said. He also warned that a postwar system created without strong input from the United Nations "is hardly likely to be long-lasting, effective or fair." Also Tuesday, Putin said Russia is willing to consider restructuring debts contracted by Saddam's regime, while Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin stressed that Russia opposed a complete write-off. Russian officials initially bristled at suggestions by U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz that Russia should write off the Iraqi debt to help with reconstruction. However, Putin said Moscow was willing to consider the proposal. Putin said debt negotiations would have to be handled through the Paris Club, an informal group of creditor nations that seeks ways for debtor nations to make good on their payments. The 19 members of the Paris Club are owed an estimated $26 billion by Iraq. That amount includes only principal, not interest that has gone unpaid on most of the debt since the 1970s. Iraq owes more than $8 billion to Russia. Advertisement

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/8619

World Powers Lobbying Security Council for Iran Sanctions Print UNITED NATIONS – Six powers seeking new sanctions against Iran hoped to persuade all 15 nations on the U.N. Security Council to back the proposed punitive measures. France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said that "a large majority" of the nations support the resolution drawn up by the United States and its European allies — Britain, France and Germany — along with Russia and China. "I think we will be in a position to make some concrete proposals and changes in order to reach a unanimous Security Council," he said after talks late Wednesday in New York. The full council was scheduled to meet again late Thursday. Full agreement is important because it would give the vote more weight. The six nations fear Tehran wants enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons and have demanded it cease production. Iran has ignored them, despite the Security Council's first set of sanctions in December. Iran's top leader said Wednesday that his country will respond with "illegal actions" if the council imposes still more sanctions. "Until today, what we have done has been in accordance with international regulations," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said. "But if they take illegal actions, we too can take illegal actions and will do so." He did not elaborate on what those actions might be, but Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty under which U.N. nuclear officials inspect its facilities. Some lawmakers and clerics have urged the government to respond to sanctions by withdrawing from the treaty. Iran says it will never give up its right under the treaty to enrich uranium, insisting it needs alternative energy sources for when its oil reserves run out. The process can produce fuel for a reactor or fissile material for a nuclear warhead. "If they want to treat us with threats and enforcement of coercion and violence, undoubtedly they must know that the Iranian nation and authorities will use all their capacities to strike enemies that attack," Khamenei said in a speech marking the start of the Persian New Year. The latest sanctions would ban Iranian arms exports and freeze the assets of 28 additional individuals and organizations involved in the country's nuclear and missile programs. The package also calls for travel restrictions on people subject to sanctions, on arms sales to Iran, and on new financial assistance or loans to the Iranian government. The existing sanctions ban countries from providing Iran with materials and technology that could contribute to its nuclear and missile programs, and freeze assets of 10 key Iranian companies and 12 individuals related to those programs. The U.S., Britain and France are hoping for a vote by the end of the week, but that could be difficult. South Africa, which holds the rotating Security Council presidency, wants extensive changes — including eliminating the arms embargo — and a 90-day hiatus on all sanctions. The U.S. and its allies made clear Wednesday they would not agree to South Africa's proposed "time-out," a suggestion Britain's U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry called "totally perverse." Acting U.S. Ambassador Alejandro Wolff indicated Washington also would reject a request by Indonesia and Qatar for the resolution to call for a nuclear-free Middle East, as that implicates Israel. But Russia's U.N. envoy, Vitaly Churkin, said Moscow regarded the Indonesian and Qatar proposals "positively." "I think there is general understanding in the Security Council that unanimity is going to be very important," Churkin said. In a related development, European and U.S. officials who declined to be named said Tuesday that Moscow has told Tehran it would not ship fuel for the Russian-built Bushehr nuclear power plant in southern Iran until Tehran freezes uranium enrichment. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov denied that Wednesday. "It's not the first time that we are seeing such an unscrupulous approach aimed at driving a wedge between us and Iran," he told lawmakers in the lower house of parliament. Russia has said plans to supply fuel for Bushehr this month were called off because of the failure of Iran to make its payments. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has asked to speak to the Security Council just before it votes. In his own New Year's address, he accused world's powers of waging "psychological warfare ... to block our nation's progress." Iran has offered to provide guarantees that its nuclear program won't be diverted toward weapons. Advertisement

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/8624

Iraq will not be launchpad for Iran war, says Maliki Facing Shiite domestic pressure and the influence of neighbouring Iran, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has baulked at agreement with US over future military bases in Iraq. Maliki traveled to Iran on Sunday to meet with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was in Iran on Sunday in a bid to reassure its leaders over a proposed US defence pact but the Shiite premier faces domestic opposition too to the mooted deal. Iran's concerns that it is the likely target of the US drive for an abiding military presence in its western neighbour are shared by many in Iraq who do not want to see their country used as a launchpad for a new war in the region. Many of Iraq's leading Shiite politicians found asylum in Iran when Saddam Hussein's Sunni-dominated regime held power in Baghdad, and Iraq's Shiite majority has close religious and cultural links with its Shiite co-religionists across the border. Iraq's Shiite spiritual leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, whose opinions are closely adhered to, has indicated his opposition to any agreement with Washington that limits Iraqi sovereignty. On Friday, his spokesman Abdel Mahdi Karbalai welcomed "the determination of (Iraq's) political parties to defend nationalist principles." He encouraged them to "preserve the higher interests of the nation and not allow the violation of the sovereignty of the country in all fields, political, economic and cultural." In a clear allusion to Iran, Karbalai said Iraq should not allow the interests of neighbouring countries to be put at risk. Washington and Baghdad are in negotiations aimed at reaching a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) by the end of July to cover the presence of foreign troops beyond 2008 when the current UN mandate expires. Iraqi media reports have suggested the United States is seeking to keep as many as 50 bases indefinitely, control the nation's air space, and grant both its troops and private contractors continuing immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law. More than five years after the March 2003 invasion, there are still around 150,000 US troops deployed in Iraq, even after the drawdown of the additional personnel sent out under the surge policy announced in February last year. American diplomats and military officials have vehemently denied that Washington wants to create "permanent" bases, but Iraqi politicians -- supporters and opponents of Maliki alike -- remain unconvinced. "Washington is in clear contradiction with the principle of sovereignty," said Jalal al-Din al-Sagir, a member of parliament for the Supreme Islamic Council of Iraq, an influential Shiite member of Maliki's governing coalition. Supporters of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, a fierce opponent of both the US military presence and Maliki's government, called for a popular mobilisation against the defence pact. "The agreement with the Americans is synonymous with an act of war against the Iraqi people", Sadr supporter Sattah al-Batat told worshippers in Baghdad on Friday. Faced with the huge domestic pressure from within his own Shiite community, Maliki has toughened his position since reaching an agreement in principle with US President George W. Bush last November to sign a deal by July 31. Iraq now says it has a "different vision" from the United States and has "has reaffirmed its willingness to... consider all options to preserve the sovereignty and interests of the country." The change of tone has not escaped Washington which has been quick to blame Iranian meddling. "There has been a lot of debate (inside Iraq)," US ambassador Ryan Crocker acknowledged on Thursday. "In terms of criticism from the neighbours, Iran in particular, I think this is deliberately intended to make the negotiations difficult," he said.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/8719

U.S. Mulls Peres Plan for Palestinian State With Interim Borders Sources: Netanyahu won't accept plan that requires withdrawal from most of West Bank as first step. The American administration is said to be studying President Shimon Peres' plan for the establishment in the near future of a Palestinian state with temporary borders, with guarantees and a timetable for a permanent agreement that will include solutions on all core issues. Peres presented the plan to U.S. envoy George Mitchell as well as senior Palestinian officials and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. He also discussed it with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and with opposition leader MK Tzipi Livni. Sources close to Peres' initiative told Haaretz there is some skepticism both in Washington and in the Prime Minister's Bureau as to the probability that both the Palestinians and the Netanyahu government will embrace the plan. Sources close to Netanyahu said there was no chance he would accept a plan which required withdrawal from most of the West Bank as a first step. The Obama administration also fears that the split between Hamas in Gaza and Fatah in the West Bank would make such an agreement impossible to implement. Due to Palestinian concerns that temporary borders could become permanent, the United States will seek assurances from Israel that if the borders function successfully, Israel will enter expedited negotiations to solve the problems of Jerusalem and the Palestinian refugees. The American administration has recently discussed Peres' ideas in preparation for a return to negotiations, assuming a solution to the settlements can be found. The main obstacle is construction in East Jerusalem, which Netanyahu says Israel will not freeze. The United States may address this obstacle in the near future by announcing that there is a disagreement with Israel on this issue and that it reserves the right to comment on expanded Jewish construction in East Jerusalem as it sees fit. Akiva Eldar

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/8781

Stratfor: The Nagorno-Karabakh Dispute: Then and Now - Հորիզոն շաբաթաթերթ - Horizon Weekly ԼուրերԳաղութայինՅօդուածներՄարզականՅաւելուածներԳրականՄանկապատանեկան News Spain's Marbella recognizes Armenian Genocide - PanARMENIAN - The city council of Marbella in Spainhas adopted an institutional declaration officially recognizing and condemning t... Armenian Genocide and a forgotten American hero: Emma Darling Cushman's courage - (Cjonline.com) - Last November, a group of talented Royal Valley middle school students in Mayetta, Kansas, Coli... Erdogan Criticizes Lausanne Treaty - (The Greek Reporter) - Treaty of Lausanne signed on July 24, 1923, has been criticized by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan for limiting ... Regional council of Italy’s Basilicata recognizes Armenian Genocide - PanARMENIAN - The regional council of Basilicata, Italyon Tuesday, September 27 recognized the Armenian... His Holiness Aram I awards ANCA Exec. Director Aram Hamparian the “Knight of Cilicia” award for the ANCA’s tireless advocacy for the Armenian Cause Bestows “Knight of Cilicia” Medal on Execu... Organizers and attendees of the divine liturgy in Manila, Philippines dedicated to the victims of the Armenian Genocide. (Photo: mfa.am) YEREVAN (Armenpress)—A divine liturgy was delivered on Septem... Գրական Sebdemper2016.pdf Okosdos2016.pdf Houlis2016.pdf Մանկապատանեկան September-2016.pdf May-2016.pdf April-2016.pdf July 15, 2014 Stratfor: The Nagorno-Karabakh Dispute: Then and Now Stratfor: The Nagorno-Karabakh Dispute: Then and Now - There has been a burst of diplomatic activity in recent months over the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, which Armenia and Azerbaijan have disputed for decades. Russia, the strongest power in the Caucasus, has become more engaged in the issue in light of Azerbaijan's growing leverage in the region, raising the possibility of a shift in this conflict. It is the changing positions of larger regional players such as Russia, Turkey, Iran and the United States, more so than Azerbaijan and Armenia themselves, that will drive the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in the months and years to come. As Russia and the West continue their confrontation over Ukraine, there is a subtler yet potentially equally significant competition occurring in the Caucasus. While Georgia attempts to move closer to the West and Armenia strengthens ties with Russia, Azerbaijan has attempted to maintain a careful balance between the two sides. Azerbaijan thus serves as the pivot of the Caucasus, and the dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh is a crucial aspect in shaping Baku's role. The Historical Backdrop for the Conflict Nagorno-Karabakh is a small yet strategic piece of territory located in the center of the South Caucasus region. Despite its small size (4,400 square kilometers, or about 1,700 square miles) and population (fewer than 150,000 people), Nagorno-Karabakh historically has been an ethnically and religiously mixed region because of its mountainous terrain and location at a crossroads between continents, although the population now is over 95 percent Armenian. Nagorno-Karabakh, along with much of the rest of the Caucasus, was contested by the Ottoman Turks and Persians for hundreds of years. The emergence of the Russian Empire as a major player in the Caucasus during the 18th century culminated in Russia's annexation of the region, including Nagorno-Karabakh, in the early 19th century. The Russian Empire would be the dominant power in the region until the Russian Revolution of 1905 weakened the empire and the subsequent revolution of 1917 brought about its collapse. Both of these periods marked significant turbulence in the Caucasus culminating in a war over control of Nagorno-Karabakh and the wider region in the midst of a vacuum created by Russian weakness and distraction. By 1921, the Bolsheviks had taken over the entire region, and the Caucasus was incorporated into the Soviet Union as the Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic in 1922. The Soviet republic was then reorganized in 1923 into three separate republics: Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. Nagorno-Karabakh was placed under the jurisdiction of the Azerbaijani Soviet Republic by then-Soviet Nationalities Commissioner Josef Stalin. This redrawing of borders and territorial lines, which were designed to create territorial disputes among the republics in order to keep them weak, set in motion the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. With the introduction of the glasnost and perestroika movements in the late Soviet period and the easing of public discourse and political participation, Nagorno-Karabakh became one of the first and highest profile issues to come under dispute. Starting in February 1988, numerous public demonstrations were held in the Armenian capital of Yerevan supporting the incorporation of the majority-Armenian Nagorno-Karabakh into the Soviet Republic of Armenia. Next, the Nagorno-Karabakh Oblast Committee of the Communist Party held an unprecedented unofficial referendum to rejoin Armenia. Azerbaijan appealed to Moscow to condemn such actions, but when Moscow's response was slow and not to Baku's liking, ethnic violence erupted against Armenians in Azerbaijan and against Azerbaijanis in Armenia. This violence quickly spread into a full-scale military confrontation in which all Azerbaijanis were expelled from Nagorno-Karabakh, leading to the territory's current Armenian-dominated ethnic balance. Armenian forces decisively defeated Azerbaijan in the conflict, leading to the de facto independence of Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenian control of several provinces abutting Nagorno-Karabakh as a corridor into the region. After mediation by numerous external players including Russia, Turkey and Iran, a cease-fire was reached to end the conflict in 1994. Geopolitical Alignments and the Elusiveness of Peace With an end to the war, a formal peace process was launched by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe in 1994, with Russia, the United States and France serving as co-chairs along with Armenia and Azerbaijan. However, 20 years and countless meetings and summits later, there has been no substantial progress made on a diplomatic solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. There are fundamental geopolitical drivers for why this is the case. First and foremost is the participation and influence of regional power players in the conflict. Russia, Turkey and Iran have competed in the Caucasus for centuries, and this continues to be the case. The participation of these countries, with their entrenched and often competing strategic interests, has been a significant component to the protracted dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh. During the war in the 1980s, each country played complicated and sometimes contradictory roles. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan employed mercenaries during the Nagorno-Karabakh war, with fighters from Russia (including Chechnya), Turkey and Iran participating on both sides of the conflict. These countries also become involved in a more official capacity, with Turkey and Iran supplying personnel for training the Azerbaijani military, while Russia provided weapons, supplies and training for both sides. Notably, the war began while the Soviet Union was still nominally intact, putting Moscow in a very complex position. Soviet leaders initially responded to the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan in a law enforcement capacity as a means of restoring order, but the Soviet Union's internal weaknesses and divisions prevented definitive action from being taken to ameliorate tensions or overwhelmingly support either side. The result was sporadic Soviet assistance to both sides, whether weapons for Armenia or tactical training for Azerbaijani soldiers. However, Moscow's support of Armenia grew once the Soviet Union had officially ceased to exist and the Russian Federation emerged. Moscow's support of Yerevan intensified further as the Armenian side gained the upper hand in the conflict. In the meantime, Turkey and Iran increased their assistance to Azerbaijan. Turkey closed its border with Armenia, and Iran created a protection zone within its borders for tens of thousands of displaced Azerbaijanis. Once Armenia captured Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding provinces, Yerevan came under increasing pressure from Turkey and Iran. Russia helped negotiate the cease-fire in 1994, but by then Armenia had decisively won the war. Since then, the conflict has shifted to the diplomatic realm, with the Organization for Security and Co-operation's Minsk Group providing the official framework for political negotiations over Nagorno-Karabakh between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The United States became involved in the negotiations, and the best chance for a settlement emerged in the early post-Soviet period, when Russia was still weak and ties between Moscow and Washington were relatively warm. Indeed, Armenian President Levon Ter-Petrosian endorsed the Organization for Security and Co-operation talks, which advocated a phased approach to the settlement, including staged land swaps for political and economic concessions, in 1997. However, this was an unpopular move within Armenia and eventually led to Ter-Petrosian's resignation in an illustration of the degree of political polarization over Nagorno-Karabakh. Since then, attitudes within Armenia and Azerbaijan have only grown stronger. Armenia's last two presidents hailed from Nagorno-Karabakh and participated in the war. For the next 12 years, negotiations continued over Nagorno-Karabakh, but very little progress was made. Sporadic attacks continued on the line of contact between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and the two sides could not agree on even basic conditions for fruitful talks. However, the regional climate changed in 2009, when Turkey attempted to normalize ties with Armenia in exchange for an agreement between Yerevan and Baku over the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. But because Turkey did not seek to establish an agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan before talks on opening the Turkish-Armenian border began, Turkey's move strained ties between Ankara and Baku. This benefited Russia, whose position improved as a result of the increased tensions between Azerbaijan and Turkey and because Armenia strengthened its ties with Moscow once the Turkish rapprochement failed. Meanwhile, Iran saw tensions rise with Azerbaijan due to Baku's growing relationship with Israel. Iran has maintained a working relationship with Armenia, though Tehran has been relegated to a background role in the Nagorno-Karabakh issue because its primary interests are in the Middle Eastern theater. Despite Moscow's leading role in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace talks, it has long been in Russia's interest to maintain the status quo of hostilities between the two countries. Since the war concluded, Russia has been in a strategic alignment with Armenia, including the presence of 5,000 Russian troops in Armenian territory. Russia also has a military presence in neighboring Georgia in the breakaway territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The one country in the Caucasus that has remained outside Russia's orbit has been Azerbaijan, which has been able to use its sizable energy resources and diplomatic maneuvering within the region to create a balance-of-power strategy. But Russia's support of Armenia, including its de facto support of Yerevan's position on Nagorno-Karabakh, has kept Azerbaijan in check. Despite Azerbaijan's claims of being able to forcibly retake Nagorno-Karabakh and Baku's security buildup in this regard, Azerbaijan does not have the capability to confront Russia militarily over the territory. The Future of the Dispute This is not to say that the current state of the dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh will last forever. As history has shown, Nagorno-Karabakh has tended to flare up at times of major upheaval in the wider region, particularly during periods of Russian weakness. This aspect is worth considering, especially as Russia is again experiencing major challenges in the former Soviet periphery, as can be seen in the crisis in Ukraine. Though Russia is on the defensive when it comes to Ukraine, this by no means marks an impending collapse of the Russian Federation. Moscow retains significant economic, political and energy leverage over Ukraine -- and the same can be said for other former Soviet countries being contested by the West, including Moldova and Georgia. Russia also still boasts a network of loyal allies within the former Soviet space, including Belarus, Kazakhstan and Armenia. However, Russia does face serious long-term challenges to retaining its powerful position in the former Soviet Union, particularly compared to its period of re-emergence as a regional power over the past few years. One country that could pose a particularly substantial challenge for Russia is Azerbaijan, which has positioned itself as a significant alternative energy provider to Europe via the strategic Southern Corridor route. Azerbaijan has also expanded political and security ties with the likes of Turkey, Israel and (still in a nascent form) the United States, increasing Baku's leverage in its dealings with Russia. It is in this context that Russia has become more engaged on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue than it has in years, with Russian officials holding numerous meetings with officials from Azerbaijan and Armenia on the issue in recent months, indicating a possible shift in Moscow's position. But in order for Moscow to truly change its stance on Nagorno-Karabakh, Russia would need to weaken considerably, or Azerbaijan would need to become so vital to Russian interests that Moscow would change allegiances and confront Armenia, an unlikely prospect at this point. However, the fate of Nagorno-Karabakh does not solely depend on Russia. Turkey's role is also important, especially as Ankara continues to court Baku into an informal alliance while continuing efforts to normalize ties with Armenia in a bid to boost its standing in the region. Turkey is not in as strong a position as Russia, but the United States' backing of Ankara's efforts could reshape regional dynamics. The extent to which Turkey's relationship with Azerbaijan grows, and to which both countries are supported by the United States, could change the way Nagorno-Karabakh is addressed, at least on a political level. In a similar vein, the ongoing nuclear and broader political negotiations between the United States and Iran could give Tehran a freer and stronger hand to engage in the region. Iran has been the least influential of the regional players in the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute over the past few years, but this could change if the current adversarial relationship between Tehran and Washington improves. Certainly with the changes occurring in the Middle East, this is not out of the realm of possibility. Stratfor Strategic Forecasting, Inc., more commonly known as Stratfor, is an American global intelligence company founded in 1996 in Austin, Texas, by George Friedman, who is the company's chairman. Գաղութային Մարզական Յօդուածներ Place your advertizement here.Contact us for more info. Menu | Մեր մասին | Յօդուածներ | Մարզական | Յաւելուածներ | Գրական | Մանկապատանեկան 2014 © Horizon. All Rights Reserved. Developed by Montreal WDB

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/8792

War Of 1812 Bicentennial: Tories Spending Big To Become Party Of Patriotism CP | By Jennifer Ditchburn, The Canadian Press Posted: 10/12/2011 5:37 pm EDT Updated: 12/12/2011 5:12 am EST Share OTTAWA - The public's knowledge of the War of 1812 might be a bit sketchy, but Canadians might not easily forget who's banging the drum for the bicentennial.Parliamentary secretary Pierre Poilievre was marched in to a news conference Wednesday at the Canadian War Museum by a piper and percussionist in period costume during. He was just one of seven Conservative ministers and MPs who fanned out across the country to re-announce what the Heritage Minister had already done with much fanfare at southern Ontario's Fort George a day earlier.The attention and resources devoted to the conflict's bicentennial — at least $28 million in spending according to the last budget — is part of a particular brand of Canadian nationalism that political observers say Prime Minister Stephen Harper has embraced and tried to sell during his time in power.Tom Flanagan, who served as Harper's chief of staff until 2004, said the patriotic themes pressed by the prime minister diverge from those favoured by the Liberals — multiculturalism, bilingualism, and peacekeeping for example."I remember him saying years ago that the Conservative party in any country ought to be the party of patriotism, that the Liberals in Canada had appropriated that role, and that the Conservatives had to win it back," said Flanagan, a professor at the University of Calgary."But the Canadian version of patriotism, in distinction to the Liberals, emphasizes our British heritage. All sorts of things, both great and small, fit into the strategy."The military, the monarchy, the North, Canadian history, and sports are some of the touchstones that come up repeatedly in the Conservative government's policy decisions, addresses, Speeches from the Throne and photo opportunities."In 2011, Canada marked some important milestones — our combat mission in Afghanistan came to an end, Parks Canada...celebrated 100 years and their royal highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge made their very first visit to Canada," Poilievre said."Next year will mark the 200th anniversary of the Selkirk settlement, the 60th anniversary of her Majesty's ascension to the throne and the 100th anniversary of the Grey Cup. In the next few years leading up to the 150th anniversary of Confederation in 2017 we will celebrate many other significant anniversaries, events that define our country's great history and who we are as Canadians."The Conservative government has also made direct policy changes to reflect their vision of what's worth celebrating and highlighting as part of the Canadian identity.This summer, Canadian missions abroad were directed to display portraits of the Queen, and a "Sovereign's Wall" was designated inside the Department of Foreign Affairs. The Navy and Air Force had the "Royal" designation restored to their names. Earlier this month, the heritage minister backed a private member's bill that would make it illegal to prevent the flying of the flag.Bob Plamondon, an author of books on the Conservative party and Canadian prime ministers, said a penchant for the past is not necessarily unique to Harper or even to Conservatives.He points out that John Diefenbaker slept in Sir John A. Macdonald's bed and took his caucus on regular visits to the first PM's grave site. Brian Mulroney was a great student of Canadian Conservative history, often quoting Macdonald and Diefenbaker. And Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien was a open admirer of Sir Wilfrid Laurier.Plamondon adds that the Liberals took plenty of action over their years in power to put their stamp on history — Toronto's Pearson airport and Montreal's Trudeau airport as just two examples."(History) is part of nation building, it's part of national unity, a sense of ourselves," said Plamondon. "In the context of a multicultural society, it's still important to remind Canadians of the origins of the country, the battles that were fought...and what that says about Canada today."How a particular history or nationalism is framed could be difficult to navigate. Reverence for the Queen leaves many Quebecers cold. The government has dubbed the 1812 bicentennial, "The fight for Canada," and has argued without the result of the war, "Quebec's French-speaking identity would not exist."Michel Sarra-Bournet, history professor at the University of Montreal, said the statements leave the impression that the British had the best interests of francophones at heart."That's a good one," said Sarra-Bournet."In 1840, the Act of Union eliminated French in institutions. The British Empire had a vague desire for assimilation. On that point, London has nothing to teach the Americans." Pierre Poilievre bicentennial spending canada bicentennial plans canada heritage canada patriotism fort geirge Canada Conservatives nationalism in canada canada bicentennial conservatives canada Canada brings out big guns to mark War of 1812 bicentennial Government trumpeting anniversary plans for War of 1812 War of 1812 groups line up for cash funding Orders of the Day: Affix your bonnets and load your muskets, ladies and ... The fog of war, 200 years later Suggested For You

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/8802

Eurozone Crisis: Greece's Syriza Proves Unfit To Govern Marco Vicenzino Director, Global Strategy Project As Alexis Tsipras' five-month game of brinksmanship with European and international creditors reaches a tipping point, the time for responsible decision-making has finally arrived. Despite all his bluffing, Europe has not blinked. After Tsipras' most recent concessions, there was an increasing sense of optimism that a deal may be at hand. However, the battle in the Greek parliament, and beyond, is already under way. Whether or not Tsipras signs an agreement, the survival of his government is at stake. If no deal is reached with Europe, chaos will reign. Although Tsipras came to power on an anti-austerity mandate, he clearly has no mandate for a Greek exit from the Eurozone. If a deal is reached, it threatens to split the current government asunder with potential spillover into civil unrest as public debate intensifies. Recent clashes in central Athens may just be the start. Furthermore, releasing funds may take time. Last-minute jockeying by Tsipras and company may still prove too little, too late. Furthermore, a new deal would completely violate Tsipras' campaign promises by extracting approximately 8 billion euros from Greek citizens over 2015 and 2016. Constituting one-third of Syriza, the hardline Left Platform claims it is engaged in an ideological struggle for the soul of Europe against neo-liberalism. Accordingly, it would vote against a deal and deny the government a parliamentary majority. Tsipras could still secure parliamentary approval with opposition votes. However, it would render his position somewhat untenable and amount to a vote of no confidence. Technically, Tsipras should resign as prime minister. Like 2012, a temporary technocratic government of national unity should be formed in preparation for new elections. However, Tsipras' determination to continue as prime minister must not be underestimated. Should his government collapse, he may attempt to reshuffle his governing coalition with elements of Greece's center-left. After all, Tsipras is proving a mainstream politician: say whatever it takes to get into power and do whatever it takes to stay in power. Instead of defusing social tensions at home, the Tsipras government's inflammatory and provocative rhetoric fuels an increasingly polarized environment which breeds further hostility and confrontation. In Europe, it has also reopened old wounds dating back to the Second World War. Five-months of experimental game-theory and practice by the Tsipras government has yielded no benefits. It overplayed its hand, wasted precious time and inflicted enormous damage on Greece which is clearly worse off now than it was five months ago. In fact, Greece is paying an even higher price economically, politically and diplomatically. A simple cost-benefit analysis says it all. In 2015, Greece's economy is contracting by 0.5 per cent. In 2014, the Greek economy grew by over 3 per cent. Tsipras' bluffing with creditors contributed to the political uncertainty resulting in commercial paralysis and further economic stagnation. Greece's ever-shrinking private sector has been decimated. Furthermore, Tsipras' archaic state-centric solutions to Greece's current ills are actually the same original policies partly responsible for the status quo. With a population of ten million, Greece's current debt stands at over $350 billion which roughly leaves each Greek citizen with a bill of over $30,000. The numbers are simply staggering and unsustainable. Some forms of debt restructuring, relief, cancellation and reduction is inevitable at some future stage. However, before releasing any additional funds, creditors demand solid commitments and assurances of structural reform in line with other European Union member states. The Tsipras government has also managed a remarkably unusual achievement: uniting all of Europe - unfortunately, and unanimously, against Greece. Its approach risks further diplomatic isolation and reducing Greece to rogue status in Europe and beyond. It squandered whatever goodwill it had in Europe upon assuming power in January 2015. The antics of Greece's egomaniacal finance minister, Yanis Varoufakis, burned bridges with peers. Tsipras' Jeckyll-and-Hyde approach with European leaders marked by diplomacy abroad and vilification at home galvanized his base but soured relations across the continent. In fact, some E.U. member states in central and eastern Europe have become more vociferous than Germany in criticizing Greece. At the recent G-7 summit, even U.S. President Barack Obama broke with protocol and actively called on the Tsipras government to get serious about negotiations. The head of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde, invoked the need for an adult presence in negotiations with Greece. On the geopolitical front, Tsipras constantly alludes to closer relations with Russia to the detriment of western interests. Implied is the threat to break with Europe and NATO, some form of alliance with Russia and further instability in the Balkans. This obviously causes concern for the U.S. and allies in light of renewed East-West, post-Cold War tensions and fallout of conflict in eastern Ukraine. The Russia card may have ideological appeal to Tsipras and far-leftist acolytes. However, greater dependence on Russia to the exclusion of the west provides no viable future to Greece's long-term national interests. Becoming a conduit for Russian energy supplies into Europe is best achieved as a part of Europe, not outside of it. Furthermore, East-West hostilities would only increase with Greece outside of Europe. For the past five months, the Tsipras government has presided over economic contraction, commercial paralysis, political polarization at home, diplomatic deadlock abroad and billions in withdrawals from Greek banks. Its inept posturing and reckless brinksmanship has backfired. Furthermore, it has failed to keep its anti-austerity campaign promises. Overall, this amounts to a vote of no confidence. Tsipras and company have simply proven unfit to govern. Follow Marco Vicenzino on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@marcovicenzino Greece Alexis Tsipras Greek Crisis Greek Debt Crisis Greece Bailout

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/8812

International Commission on Missing Persons Inquiry Center Report a Missing Person Englishbosanski/hrvatski/srpskiالعربيةFrançaisEspañol Libya's Minister for Missing Persons Discusses ICMP Assistance Posted on May 24, 2012 Posted on Press Releases Libya's Minister for Missing Persons in ICMP's Identification Coordination Division (ICD) in Tuzla, Bosnia The Libyan Minister for the Affairs of Families of Martyrs and of Missing Persons, Naser Jibril Hamed engaged in a weeklong visit to the International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP). The arrival of Minister Naser Jibril Hamed and six members of the Libyan Ministry is a part of an ongoing process of cooperation and consultations on the issue of missing persons between ICMP and the Libyan Government. According to Libyan authorities thousands of people are reported missing in Libya from the recent conflict, as well as from wars in the 1970’s and 1980’s with Egypt, Uganda and Chad. In addition, 1,272 persons are reported missing from the 1996 massacre at the Abu Salim prison in Tripoli. “The focal point of the visit and our discussions was to ensure that Libya develops its own sustainable capacity to address this issue. In this regard, ICMP proposed the creation of a Libyan Identification Center,” said Kathryne Bomberger, Director-General of ICMP. “The creation of the Libyan Identification Center would provide the first, important step in enabling Libya to develop a sustainable process to work on the issue of missing persons.” “The Center would allow Libyan authorities to coordinate the domestic process, as well as international assistance. It would also allow for the development of a DNA laboratory system, starting with a facility to collect and store biological samples for DNA identity testing and culminating in the creation of a high throughput DNA laboratory. In addition, the Center would serve as a training and education center allowing for long-term training in forensic anthropology, archeology, pathology, DNA identity testing, scene of crime management, use of ICMP’s Forensic Science Database Management System (fDMS), as well as a center for educating the families of the missing regarding their rights and the missing persons process, including the forensic process. The LIC could also act as a focal point for outreach campaigns, meetings and other events,” Ms. Bomberger added. “Libya is today faced with a huge problem, and that is to find, identify and return to the families the mortal remains of their missing relatives. We believe that ICMP’s proposal for a Libyan Identification Center is a good one, which we would like to pursue,” said Minister Naser Jibril Hamed during his visit. “We are very impressed with ICMP’s work and with the success that Bosnia and Herzegovina has had in accounting for its missing persons, which has provided a very good model for us,” he added. During his visit the Libyan minister met with ICMP experts from different fields relevant to the search and identification process, including forensic archeologists, anthropologists, IT specialists and geneticists. Minister Naser Jibril Hamed also had a chance to discuss Bosnia’s experience regarding the missing persons issue with the BiH Minister of Human Rights Damir Ljubic, Ombudsperson for BiH Jasminka Dzumhur, Minister of Security Sadik Ahmetovic, as well as members of the Board of Directors of the Missing Persons Institute (MPI) and other relevant individuals. The delegation also spoke with families of missing persons in Bosnia and heard their personal stories. ICMP seeks to secure the co-operation of governments and other authorities in locating and identifying persons missing as a result of armed conflicts, other hostilities or violations of human rights and to assist them in doing so. ICMP pioneered the use of DNA technology to identify large numbers of missing persons. Today ICMP has helped scientifically identify 18,000 persons and its database houses 150,000 genetic samples. ICMP maintains the highest throughput capability for DNA-based identifications in the world and as such it has become a center for global assistance, not only in cases of human rights violations, but also in disaster situations. It has also developed a unique software platform called the fDMS to manage the complex data, which it makes available to governments. Post on Twitter About ICMP ICMP endeavors to secure the co-operation of governments and other authorities in locating and identifying persons missing as a result of armed conflicts, human rights abuses, disasters and other causes and to assist them in doing so. ICMP also supports the work of other organizations in their efforts, encourages public involvement in its activities and contributes to the development of appropriate expressions of commemoration and tribute to the missing. icmp@icmp.int ICMP HeadquartersKoninginnegracht 12 2514 AA The Hague Sarajevo Office Alipašina 45a © 2016 ICMP

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/8886

Commission to lay foundation for NPT review by Jun Hongo Aug 26, 2008 Article history The world faces a pressing need to monitor civilian use of nuclear technology and maintain strong discipline in the face of weapons proliferation, former Foreign Minister Yoriko Kawaguchi said Monday in Tokyo. Kawaguchi, announcing the creation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament Commission, said Japan has a huge role to play in nuclear issues. “As the only country in the world to have been victimized by nuclear weapons, it is essential that we contribute to this process,” Kawaguchi told a news conference. Japan and Australia, which boasts the world’s largest uranium reserves, agreed to cochair and set up the commission during a June summit between Prime Ministers Yasuo Fukuda and Kevin Rudd. The commission is aiming to hold its first meeting in October after identifying about 15 appropriate members to invite to the talks. It will look to lay the foundation for the 2010 review conference of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, or NPT, and strengthen the treaty’s cause. While India and Pakistan declared themselves nuclear powers a decade ago and the NPT has shown signs of erosion, Australian Foreign Minister Gareth Evans, who will cochair the commission with Kawaguchi, said Japan and Australia can give the agreement new meaning. There is an “opportunity to add real value” for the commission in the face of challenges, he said, as climate change issues have spurred debate on the use of civil nuclear energy and recent calls for nuclear disarmament in the United States, led by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, could advance nonproliferation. The two met with Fukuda in the morning, with Fukuda pledging full support, Kawaguchi said. He and Evans agreed that the recent U.S.-India civil nuclear deal poses a “big challenge.” It would allow India to buy fuel and nuclear technology from the Nuclear Suppliers Group. India must strike a deal with the NSG, an organization of nuclear material-exporting countries that includes Japan and Australia, before the pact is sent to the U.S. Congress. “This is a complex issue which could undermine the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty,” Kawaguchi said, adding that the commission will keep a close watch and continue to study the case.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/8923

Source: No breakthrough in effort to save peace talks, but sides agree to meet again A meeting between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators came to an end on Thursday with no apparent agreement to extend faltering peace talks.According to a source knowledgeable with the discussions, there has been no breakthrough in the negotiations. The source said that the sides were still stuck and not out of the crisis, but are continuing to talk to see if it is possible to break the impasse. Be the first to know - Join our Facebook page. The sides agreed to hold an additional round of talks, though no date for the meeting was given.The source said he did not know of a decision to extend talks beyond the April 29 deadline.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/8924

Kerry's Boston-Marmara comparison blasted By JERUSALEM POST STAFF \ Kerry: US asked Erdogan to delay Gaza trip Kerry compares Boston and Mavi Marmara victims RJC executive-director slams comparison of "loss of life resulting from self-defense to the results of cold-blooded murder." Boston blasts people 370. (photo credit:Reuters) The Republican Jewish Coalition strongly objected to US Secretary of State John Kerry’s remarks likening some Turks’ anger over the 2010 Mavi Marmara incident to Americans’ outrage over last week’s terrorist attack at the Boston Marathon.At a press conference in Istanbul on Sunday, Kerry compared the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing to the nine Turkish activists killed by the IDF as they tried to break Gaza’s naval blockade. Be the first to know - Join our Facebook page. “I know it’s an emotional issue with some people,” Kerry said of the Mavi Marmara deaths. “I particularly say to the families of people who were lost in the incident: We understand these tragedies completely and we sympathize with them.” He then added, “And nobody – I mean, I have just been through the week of Boston and I have deep feelings for what happens when you have violence and something happens and you lose people that are near and dear to you. It affects a community, it affects a country,” Kerry said. “We’re very sensitive to that.”Republican Jewish Coalition executive director Matt Brooks said Kerry should retract his remarks as soon as possible.“It’s unconscionable to compare the loss of life resulting from an act of self-defense to the results of cold-blooded, premeditated murder by terrorists,” Brooks said. “We understand that Secretary Kerry has reason to be deeply worried by the disappointing results to date from the president’s push to end the rift between Israel and Turkey. But he needs to correct the record so that our allies and critics around the world don’t get the idea that the world’s most powerful democracy has lost its moral bearings.”The National Council of Young Israel called on Kerry to clarify his recent comments.“As a resident of Massachusetts and a former constituent of Senator Kerry, I was deeply troubled by the Secretary of State’s comments,” said David Gebler, associate vice president of the National Council of Young Israel. “Massachusetts residents, as well as all Americans, watched in horror as the tranquility of Boston and its suburbs was shattered by the deadly bombings that claimed the lives of several innocent victims and caused serious injuries to countless others.“We experienced a sense of profound grief and acute anxiety as the perpetrators of this senseless act of violence brought the city of Boston to a virtual standstill as this terrifying drama unfolded,” he continued. “The National Council of Young Israel strenuously objects to the implied moral equivalence conveyed by Secretary of State Kerry regarding the terrorist act in Boston and a legitimate defensive measure carried out by the Israel Defense Forces on the Mavi Marmara.”

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/8925

Iranian Threat Netanyahu to WWII vets: We are much more powerful today, but Iran is still a threat White House says it has 'wide range of options' if Iran talks fail Iranian official suggests Israel attempting to torpedo nuclear deal As Iranian nuclear talks are set to get underway, PM commends veteran soldiers for their efforts to bring down the Nazis. PM Binyamin Netanyahu at the 69th anniversary ceremony for the Red Army's victory over the Nazis.. (photo credit:PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE) Hours after a former head of Israel’s Atomic Energy Commission was quoted as saying that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was exploiting the Iranian nuclear threat for political gains, Netanyahu reiterated that Iran must be deprived of any capacity to make nuclear arms. Be the first to know - Join our Facebook page. Speaking a day after he met US National Security Adviser Susan Rice about the upcoming round of talks between the world powers and Iran regarding a final nuclear agreement, Netanyahu said “we know that the best defense against nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran is no nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran.”His words came at a ceremony in Netanya, with the participation of World War II veterans, commemorating the Russian victory over Nazi Germany.“The most important thing is that Iran does not have nuclear weapons capabilities, and that needs to be the supreme and most important goal of the present efforts in talks with Iran – to prevent Iran from the capability to manufacture nuclear arms,” he said.“What do they need thousands of centrifuges for?” he continued. “For what do they need the tons of enriched uranium? Only to produce nuclear weapons. This capability needs to be denied them.”His words came shortly after Yediot Aharonot published excerpts of an interview to run Friday with Uzi Eilam, who headed the IAEC from 1976-1985. He said Iran’s nuclear program was a decade away from being operational, and he did not know whether Tehran even wanted a bomb.“Words and threats about attacking Iran were harsh words that did not help,” Eilam said. “We do not need to be at the forefront on this.”Eilam said that from a practical point of view, Iran’s nuclear installations were spread out and buried under tons of earth, concrete and steel. An attack on Iran’s nuclear installations, he said, was not a matter of a single blow, but rather of “starting a war.”Eilam was a central figure in Israel’s missile and nuclear developmental programs.“Netanyahu uses the Iranian threat for all kinds of political goals,” he said. “These declarations – in the final result – only needlessly worry Israeli citizens.One official in the Prime Minister’s Office responded by saying that Netanyahu’s speech to the World War II veterans was his response to Eilam’s criticism.Eilam has voiced similar criticism in the past. In a January 2009 Sunday Times article he was quoted as saying Israel’s “intelligence community are spreading frightening voices about Iran.”He was quoted as saying that the “defense establishment is sending out false alarms in order to grab a bigger budget,” while politicians were using Iran to divert attention from domestic problems.“Those who say that Iran will obtain a bomb within a year’s time, on what basis did they say so?” he asked at the time. “Where is the evidence?” Eilam, in a memoir he published, said he opposed the Israeli attack on Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981. At the time he was the head of the IAEC.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/9073

Scott Brown and the 'Massachusetts Miracle' Scott Coen AP PhotoScott Browns "regular guy" approach has struck a cord with Massachusetts voters Senator Scott Brown. It has a nice ring to it doesn't it. It's also something that three months ago seemed an impossibility, but three days from now could be our new reality. When Ted Kennedy passed away last summer, the Democratic Party in our state began a series of maneuvers to set up a 'Special Election' for Kennedy's vacant Senate Seat. Without getting into the minutia of the situation, state Democrats did everything in their power to ensure Massachusetts would continue to be represented by a Democrat in Washington until the 'Special Election' was held. They were criticized for their political wrangling, but won things their way. From the outset, the race for Kennedy's Senate Seat appeared to be a slam dunk for Martha Coakley. That is until Scott Brown showed up. A Senate race that Coakley once led by 30 points is now a dead heat. There are some polls, actually more than a few polls, that have Brown ahead by a point or more. AP PhotoScott Brown spent the weekend campaigning in Eastern Massachusetts And the reason Brown leads the race for U.S. Senate is because he worked harder, has what the voters perceive as a better more refreshing message, and people like him. Brown is an everyman, while I've read that Martha Coakley has been referred to as the candidate with the personality of frumpy substitute teacher. In our last Presidential race Barack Obama rode a certain cult of personality to the White House. And now, here we are, about to send Scott Brown to Washington, a candidate with fresh ideas and a nice smile. If and when Scott Brown gets to Washington, he'll find that out just as quickly as our President did, that it takes more than a nice smile and a firm handshake to keep the voters on your side. So who is this Scott Brown guy anyway. On the surface you could argue that he's basically Stanley Rosenberg,D-Amherst, Steve Buoniconti, D-West Springfield, and Mike Knapik, R-Chicopee, with a better haircut of course. But seriously, Scott Brown is more or less your run of the mill State Senator from Wrenthem. Scott Brown's career in the State House can be reasonably summed up as unremarkable. He hasn't been at the forefront of any controversial lawmaking. He hasn't been a champion of any great cause. I mean when you get right down to it, he voted for the Massachusetts Health Care Bill. A measure that many of his current supporters would argue is costing them far too many of their tax dollars. Now all of a sudden Scott Brown is against wasteful health care spending. I hope this issue hasn't been lost on to many of you. I find it to be a bit of an anomaly, but maybe that's just me. What Scott Brown does offer the voters of Massachusetts is a change from the norm in our great state. There's that word again ... 'Change'. Seems I've heard that word before. But in this case, in this race, it is all about change. Scott Brown is just enough of a Liberal to appeal to Democrats and Independents. And lets face it, a Massachusetts Republican isn't the same as a Missouri Republican. We do have our conservatives here in Massachusetts, but it's conservatism with a twist. And while Scott Brown has done his best to be everything to everyone, Martha Coakley and her campaign, has been an unmitigated disaster. Coakley entered this campaign with better credentials, more of a state wide profile, and with the Democratic machine behind her. But Coakley didn't and hasn't connected with the voters like Scott Brown has. AP PhotoMartha Coakleys failure to connect with voters may cost her Tuesday's election There was a great quote I found that summed up Martha Coakley's ineptitude on the campaign trail. Someone asked her why she continued to attend fundraisers, and meetings with party officials, rather than press the flesh with voters. She responded "As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?" Yes Martha that's exactly what we expect of you. It was and continues to be obvious that Martha Coakley is no Scott Brown, and the polls confirm that. Robert Kennedy on the campaign trail '1968' As a boy growing up in an Irish Catholic household, the Kennedy's were king. I grew up idolizing Robert Kennedy. I was 10 years old when he ran for President, and I remember watching television, and reading the Daily News my Dad would bring home on the bus from New York every day. Kennedy was all the rage during the 1968 Presidential campaign, and I was mesmerized by him. Bobby Kennedy appealed to an electorate longing for a change in the norm. Lyndon Johnson was old and tired, Bobby Kennedy was young and fresh. And believe me it takes a lot for me to even attempt to compare Scott Brown to Robert Kennedy. He certainly doesn't possess his depth of character or his political convictions, but Scott Brown has the same type of message and brings out the same emotions in people that RFK did. These days it's not about issues, or convictions, as much as it's about our emotions. Do we like you, do you touch us below the surface, can you lead us where we hope to go. Scott Brown has made that connection with voters, Martha has not. And that's why on Tuesday, unless Martha Coakley pulls off her Massachusetts Miracle, Mr. Brown is going to Washington.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/9128

Blood Business Jean Oppenheimer By Jean Oppenheimer When the pressure gets too much for us, we bite In his 1961 farewell address, President Eisenhower warned Americans an insidious new force was taking hold in the country. He called it the "military-industrial complex." Born of necessity during World War II, this once valuable conjunction of the military, the federal government, and the armaments industry was suddenly taking on a life of its own — and threatening to spin out of control.Why We Fight, the sobering documentary from Eugene Jarecki (The Trials of Henry Kissinger), examines the rise of this behemoth and the perils it holds for our democratic way of life. Nowhere near as polemical as Jarecki's earlier indictment of Kissinger, the film is not a broadside against the Bush administration. It stresses that Democrats and Republicans alike are responsible for where we find ourselves today, though it also charts how the situation has intensified during the past five years.Jarecki's film, which walked off with the Grand Jury Prize at Sundance in 2005, takes its title from a series of World War II-era propaganda films Frank Capra made at the behest of the U.S. government. Those films were intended to rouse the American public to stand up and fight for democracy. Jarecki's goal is similar, but rather than concentrating on dangers from abroad, he is concerned with threats from within — specifically how the symbiotic relationship that has developed between the government, the military, and the defense industry jeopardizes the very principles upon which the country was founded. War has become big business in the United States, driven by powerful forces whose livelihoods depend on maintaining a permanent state of armed conflict. Former CIA consultant and noted political scientist Chalmers Johnson points to how all parties have a financial and/or strategic interest in expanding the government's arms budget. "When war becomes that profitable, you see more war." Upcoming Events Chasing Rainbows: A Tribute to Judy Garland Sat., Jan. 7, 8:00pm Tue., Feb. 7, 7:00pm Tue., Mar. 7, 7:00pm Sweet Bean Tue., Apr. 4, 7:00pm Rather than placing controls on this mutually beneficial alliance, many in Congress have joined it, relying on campaign contributions from interest groups that have enormous stakes in maintaining the status quo. "[Today's] priorities are set by what benefits corporations, not our country," says Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain.A variety of political perspectives are offered in the documentary, including those of well-known neoconservatives such as William Kristol and Richard Perle, and dyed-in-the-wool liberal Gore Vidal. The majority of those interviewed, however, are former government and/or military officials with no political ax to grind; many of them are sympathetic to Bush's aims but not his methods.It should be noted that Why We Fight was made with the cooperation of the Department of Defense, which helped facilitate many of the interviews, including the two air force pilots who conducted the first stealth bomber strikes on Baghdad. Also adding their voices to the debate are Secretary of the Air Force James G. Roche and retired Brigadier General John S.D. Eisenhower, a military historian and son of the late President.The film's most poignant moments belong to retired New York City Police Ofcr. Wilton Sekzer, a Vietnam vet whose son died when the World Trade Center was struck. If Why We Fight can be said to have a main character, it is Sekzer, who, upon hearing President Bush suggest Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, lent his unequivocal support to the invasion of Iraq. He spent months appealing to Congress and the Pentagon to paint his son's name on the side of one of the bombs that would be dropped on Iraq. When Bush, months later, tried to say he had never made a Saddam9/11 connection, Sekzer was devastated.The other, most personable individual is retired air force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, who was in the Pentagon when it was hit on 9/11. A twenty-year military veteran, she resigned her commission when Bush decided to take action against Iraq. Privy to all the intelligence that was gathered on Saddam Hussein, she states unequivocally that "the war in Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terrorism."An even more damning indictment may be her comment that, in light of the direction our country has taken during the past three years, "I will not allow my own kids to join the military." The power of that simple sentence cannot be overstated, nor can the effect of seeing President Eisenhower's actual farewell address. Adding to the film's underlying sense of urgency and unease is composer Robert Miller's haunting score, reminiscent of Philip Glass's music for The Fog of War.One statement above all others sends a chill through the audience. It is a remembrance by Susan Eisenhower, granddaughter of the late President and an expert, in her own right, on international security and arms control. She quotes her grandfather as having remarked, "God help this country when somebody sits at this desk who doesn't know as much about the military as I do."God help us indeed. Contact: Jean Oppenheimer What Disney's Horrible Tween Shows Taught Me About Parenting — and... Netflix's The Get Down Makes You Wonder How It Keeps from... Tue., Nov. 1, 7:00pm Our Little Sister Tue., Jan. 3, 7:00pm A Ugandan Grandmaster Emerges in Mira Nair's Disney Charmer... Allison Janney Talks Tallulah, Mom and Motherhood

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/9143

News Opinions Sports Features Special Sections Hometown Home Market Senior Scene Olympics 2016 Ads Jobs Classifieds Crosswords Community Columnists / Community Columnists « Finding strength in numbers... Seeing more than two options...» Think like a quarterback Save | Last column I mentioned our human tendency to narrow things down to two alternatives, usually a clear for-against division. So it's refreshing and heartening when some public figure does more than unthinkingly follow the party line, especially when their religious beliefs are a main reason for their independent course. Who would have thought one such person would be John Kasich, governor of Ohio? Not me. He seemed as anti-public worker, anti-pension, anti-welfare and pro-Wall Street as the governor of my home state of Wisconsin, Scott Walker. Both are staunch Republicans, elected with Tea Party backing. Both are Christians. Both say their religion is important in shaping their political vision. In Kasich's case this is true. He is walking the talk. During his governorship, taxes have been cut and a deficit turned into a surplus. Yet, as reported in the Wall Street Journal, "this is just a prelude to a larger mission, one his Christian faith has called him to shoulder: 'helping the poor, the beleaguered and the downtrodden, and trying to heal them and lift them up.'" "More than any other leading Republican, Gov. Kasich is using his perch to promote a blend of conservative orthodoxy leavened with liberal policies meant to help the poor, the mentally ill and the uninsured." He is one of only five Republican governors (out of 30) who have signed on to expanding Medicaid. He has been outspoken about this including in crowds of Republicans strongly against this move. At a conference in California hosted by the conservative Koch brothers, he wouldn't apologize for his Medicaid policy. "I know this is going to upset a lot of you guys, but we have to use government to reach out to people living in the shadows." At a packed Medicaid rally in the Ohio statehouse, he directly confronted those who question the motivations of the poor: "As Americans we need to beat back this notion that when somebody's poor, somehow they are lazy. It is unbelievable that we live in America and there are people who don't have health insurance." Tea Party folks are, of course, not pleased. A prominent conservative leader in Ohio, Tom Zawistowski, who campaigned for Kasich in 2010, vows help "un-elect" him next year. The governor seems undeterred. He sees himself as following in the footsteps of Jack Kemp, the late Buffalo Bills quarterback who was a US congressman and 1996 vice-presidential nominee and who once described himself as a "bleeding heart conservative." Driving back to Ohio recently from a family East Coast vacation, Kasich stopped in Buffalo, N.Y., for lunch. He asked a few people if they'd ever met Kemp. "It was Jack, over and over again, about hopes and dreams. Jack had a profound impact on the conservative moment. Maybe I have a chance to do that, too." Reading this reminded me of watching Evans and Novak on their old TV show, interviewing Kemp. They were surprised that he disagreed with their proposal to cut Social Security benefits for the mentally disabled, unemployment compensation, and other welfare programs. Kemp politely but firmly objected to their seeing needy people, like those in his Buffalo area whose jobs had been shipped overseas, as somehow being undeserving. He also mentioned how those troubled by mental and emotional disorders deserve our help through government programs. Kemp didn't preach, but he spoke up for the people he represented. This interview may have been when he came out as a bleeding heart conservative and when he began building "a reputation as a Republican who focused on urban minorities and the poor." Kasich, of course, never played in the NFL. But he thinks like a good quarterback, surveying the entire field, the bigger picture, seeing more than two narrow and opposite options. On the football field, and certainly in our complex economy and society, a narrow and inflexible focus is insufficient. Just look at our political gridlock. It won't be solved without more leaders who observe, listen, consider, even pray and meditate, before acting. Unthinkingly following party lines won't do it. (James Lein is a community columnist for The Minot Daily News) Save | Subscribe to Minot Daily News I am looking for:

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/9163

More Making Canada’s immigration system betterThe Gazette 12.16.2011ShareAdjustCommentPrintAs the federal government set about retooling the country’s immigration system this fall, it identified two important goals.It wants, first, to admit a larger number of skilled workers, and second, to whittle down the seven-year backlog in its family-reunification program. This week, it added a third objective: protecting live-in caregivers from possible exploitation by the families they live with.In a surprise move, the government announced that the waiting period for live-in caregivers to apply for an open work permit will now be shorter by 18 months. Open work permits allow caregivers to look for another job, in any field, once their two-year live-in-caregiver contract is complete.This is a timely and sensible change. The Live-In Caregiver Program has proven to be a resounding success as Canadian families struggle to find care for children and elderly parents. Parents who can’t find child care can’t work. The same is true of adult children with aging parents in need of care. Here in Quebec, we’ve read too many exposés of old-age homes where the elderly are underfed and poorly cared for to want to depend exclusively on institutional care.As welcome as this additional protection for live-in caregivers is, however, there are legitimate fears that this new third objective could leave Canada with a caregiver shortage – a concern given our rapidly aging population. Earlier this fall, the government said it would begin admitting no more than 8,000 to 9,000 live-in caregivers a year, down from the current 10,500 to 12,500. It would have been a good idea for the government to keep the numbers at their current level, at least for now, until we see the effects of open-work-permit liberalization. It may be we will need to increase the numbers in the future.It bears remembering that when we talk about Canada being a country built on immigration, the builders have always included domestic workers. A century ago, Canada took in people willing to work as farmers, lumberjacks, railway builders, store-owners – but also people who worked in private homes.This is not to say skilled workers should not be the cornerstone of the country’s immigration program. They remain a good bet in terms of immigrants’ ability to settle in and start contributing. Government research shows that skilled workers fare well, earning on average $79,200 three years after arriving. Last year, Canada granted 280,681 people permanent-resident status, of whom 67 per cent, or 188,056, were skilled workers and entrepreneurs.In his enthusiasm for the skilled-worker and entrepreneur categories, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said he intends to cut back on the number of people Canada lets in through the family-reunification program. He is right to be embarrassed by the seven-year waiting list in that program, with a backlog running into the hundreds of thousands. This leaves people waiting interminably in the often unrealistic hope of moving permanently to Canada.In addition, Canadian taxpayers may not be convinced that opening the doors to the elderly parents or even grandparents of immigrants is a good investment. Elderly people who have not contributed to the country’s health or social services will, if they are admitted, be able to draw on these services in the final years of their lives, possibly even competing with people who have paid for them.But there are other choices when it comes to family reunification. Longer visitors’ visas – five to 10 years in length and requiring the family to provide health insurance and social care – would leave families and their aged relatives with reasonable options and answer taxpayers’ concerns. Currently the only options are a short visit or permanent residency.In the global competition for top-level talent, being able to bring along families can prove a deciding factor for potential immigrants. And those families tend to have the same drive and energy that characterizes the main breadwinner. Canada did not get to be an economic powerhouse on the strength of its relatively small population. It has succeeded because it let in people who wanted to make a better life for themselves and their children – all kinds of people, the live-in caregiver and the telecommunications engineer alike. xShareMaking Canada’s immigration system better

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/9245

Kathy Sullivan: Where are the Republicans willing to challenge NH's top Democrats? | New Hampshire Contact us Kathy Sullivan: Where are the Republicans willing to challenge NH's top Democrats? John DiStaso's Granite Status: Guinta moves toward 3rd run for 1st CD seat; in 2nd CD, Lambert hires staffer, O'Brien parts ways with his EXECUTIVE COUNCILOR Chris Sununu's decision to run for re-election rather than another office such as governor or U.S. senator was a serious blow to the New Hampshire Republican Party's 2014 recruitment efforts. Any time a Sununu runs for office in New Hampshire, money gushes into the campaign like snow melting in the spring. Combined with John E. Sununu's forgoing a race for the U.S. Senate, one wonders whether the family has decided that 2014 just is not going to be a good year for Republicans...Chris Sununu's decision not to run against Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan was smart. Gov. Hassan has grown in popularity since her election in 2012. In April, Public Policy Polling showed her with a net 15 percent approval rating. Also in April, UNH showed the governor with a 38 percent favorable rating among independent voters, the bloc that determines election winners...Gov. Hassan's first term accomplished much of her agenda. The budget restored investments in both the Community College System and the University System of New Hampshire. Scholarship aid was increased at public and private institutions of higher learning. On the business side, the research and development tax credit was doubled. More money was provided to the stressed mental health system. The capital budget finally provides funding for a badly needed women's prison...Gov. Hassan's appointments also have been met with praise. Showing bipartisanship, she appointed Republican Jeff Rose to lead the Department of Resources and Economic Development. Naming Jim Craig as head of the Department of Labor gives that agency an experienced leader who understands the Legislature, as Craig is a former Democratic leader in the New Hampshire House. The appointment of the talented Joe Foster as attorney general was well received by all...The Foster appointment caused embarrassment for New Hampshire Republican Party chair Jennifer Horn. She had attacked Gov. Hassan's legal counsel, Lucy Hodder, mistakenly believing press speculation that Hodder might be the nominee. She wasn't, and Horn's attacks only succeeded in making Horn look silly while angering high-profile Republicans who have worked with Hodder...Gov. Hassan did not win every vote. The plan for a single high-end casino did not pass. But the people support the governor, not the House of Representatives, on this issue. The vast majority of New Hampshire residents understands there is a need to pay for badly needed infrastructure repair and other investments to move New Hampshire forward. And they agree that the sensible way of doing so is to expand legalized gambling. While Medicaid expansion did not take effect, expectations are that a study commission will produce a road map acceptable to a legislative majority...Gov. Hassan also is well-liked on a personal level. She is following in the Lynch tradition of attending openings, touring businesses and just generally being out in the public to meet with Granite Staters and promote the state...Currently, the only Republican seriously considering challenging Gov. Hassan is state Sen. Andy Sanborn, who is sabotaging his own candidacy. In May, he called Gov. Hassan "Haggie" on Twitter. Sanborn apologized, saying that he mistakenly combined "Maggie" and "Hassan," begging the question: If you do not know enough to proofread Twitter posts, should you really be running for governor?..More recently, he laughingly compared health care reform to the San Francisco plane crash, adding bad taste to his resume. Sanborn semi-apologized, saying "if I offended anyone, I am sorry," thus joining the club of elected officials who cannot admit to messing up. Instead, they vaguely insinuate that there must be something wrong with the people who are offended...Filing is less than a year away. While John Lynch made a successful late entry in 2004, there is no Republican John Lynch, and Maggie Hassan, unlike Craig Benson, is popular both with her party and the public at large...The New Hampshire GOP's candidate problems extend to other races. State Sen. Jeb Bradley is mentioned as a U.S. Senate candidate, but he appears reluctant to commit to challenging the popular Jeanne Shaheen. No Republican candidate for Congress has emerged in the 1st District. National Republicans are promoting former congressman Frank Guinta, but Guinta knows the perils of running with a weak ticket. Since another loss would be detrimental to his long-term political health, he may pass on this cycle rather than run on a ticket led by Sanborn. Meanwhile, in the 2nd District, candidate Bill O'Brien is still the same Bill O'Brien who led House Republicans to minority status...The Republicans have trumpeted the news that Mitt Romney and some possible presidential aspirants will be helping with a couple of fundraisers. Unless there is progress on the candidate front, however, there may be no one to support with the proceeds...Kathy Sullivan is a Manchester attorney and member of the Democratic National Committee. She was chairman of the state Democratic Party from 1999-2007...

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/9246

Thomas Sowell: Who shut down the government? | New Hampshire Contact us Thomas Sowell: Who shut down the government? Even when it comes to something as basic, and apparently as simple and straightforward, as the question of who shut down the federal government, there are diametrically opposite answers, depending on whether you talk to Democrats or to Republicans...There is really nothing complicated about the facts. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the money required to keep all government activities going — except for Obamacare.This is not a matter of opinion. You can check the Congressional Record...As for the House of Representatives' right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity...Whether Obamacare is good, bad or indifferent is a matter of opinion. But it is a matter of fact that members of the House of Representatives have a right to make spending decisions based on their opinion...Obamacare is indeed "the law of the land," as its supporters keep saying, and the Supreme Court has upheld its constitutionality.But the whole point of having a division of powers within the federal government is that each branch can decide independently what it wants to do or not do, regardless of what the other branches do, when exercising the powers specifically granted to that branch by the Constitution...The hundreds of thousands of government workers who have been laid off are not idle because the House of Representatives did not vote enough money to pay their salaries or the other expenses of their agencies — unless they are in an agency that would administer Obamacare...Since we cannot read minds, we cannot say who — if anybody — "wants to shut down the government." But we do know who had the option to keep the government running and chose not to. The money voted by the House of Representatives covered everything that the government does, except for Obamacare...The Senate chose not to vote to authorize that money to be spent, because it did not include money for Obamacare. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that he wants a "clean" bill from the House of Representatives, and some in the media keep repeating the word "clean" like a mantra. But what is unclean about not giving Harry Reid everything he wants?..If Sen. Reid and President Obama refuse to accept the money required to run the government because it leaves out the money they want to run Obamacare, that is their right. But that is also their responsibility...You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want. And it is a fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did vote, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the government...When Barack Obama keeps claiming that it is some new outrage for those who control the money to try to change government policy by granting or withholding money, that is simply a bald-faced lie. You can check the history of other examples of "legislation by appropriation" as it used to be called...Whether legislation by appropriation is a good idea or a bad idea is a matter of opinion. But whether it is both legal and not unprecedented is a matter of fact.Perhaps the biggest of the big lies is that the government will not be able to pay what it owes on the national debt, creating a danger of default. Tax money keeps coming into the Treasury during the shutdown, and it vastly exceeds the interest that has to be paid on the national debt...Even if the debt ceiling is not lifted, that only means that government is not allowed to run up new debt. But that does not mean that it is unable to pay the interest on existing debt.None of this is rocket science. But unless the Republicans get their side of the story out — and articulation has never been their strong suit — the lies will win. More important, the whole country will lose...Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. His website is www.tsowell.com...

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/9251

Jonah Goldberg: America's selective Libertarianism | New Hampshire Contact us August 16. 2014 10:00PM Jonah Goldberg: America's selective Libertarianism THERE'S AN OLD rule in journalism: All you need are three good examples to prove a trend.And by that measure, writer Robert Draper had more than he needed to declare a new "libertarian moment" in American politics. In a New York Times Magazine cover story, Draper made exactly that case. His chief evidence: Young people are more libertarian today, and libertarian ideas are having a renaissance on the right. Also, self-described "libertarian-ish" Sen. Rand Paul's star is on the rise, thanks in part to national exhaustion with foreign interventions. Plus: recent victories for legalized weed and gay marriage...All of these things are largely true, but Draper is still wrong, or at least not quite as right as he (or for that matter, I) would like.As liberal writer Jonathan Chait notes, much of the polling showing that young people are libertarian has been done by organizations eager to find that result. So while it is true that young people are more "libertarian" on social issues and foreign policy, they are also more progressive on the role of government. Pew finds that 53 percent of millennials favor "bigger government." Meanwhile, Chait writes, "older Americans oppose 'bigger government' in the abstract by a margin of some 40 percentage points. That young voters actually favor 'bigger government' in the abstract is a sea change in generational opinion, not to mention conclusive evidence against their alleged libertarianism."..Chait's right.On the other hand, it's also true that young people are more libertarian than ever before. How can that be? Lots of reasons. I'll give you three. First, as The Federalist's Ben Domenech points out, the millennials are the biggest generation in American history. Ideologically, it contains multitudes. It can be collectively more socialist while still containing more libertarians than ever before...Second, it's the most diverse generation in history, and non-whites (young and old) favor bigger government by wide margins. A slim majority (53 percent) of white millennials want less government, according to Pew, but a huge majority of non-white millennials (71 percent) want more government. Make of that what you will...Last, not only is the millennial generation collectively inconsistent, most individual young Americans are inconsistent, too - just like everyone else.Everyone considers themselves libertarian on the issues they are libertarian about. If you think government shouldn't collect your email and phone logs, you're libertarian on national security issues. If you think you have a right to carry a firearm, you're libertarian about guns. And so it goes with drugs, property rights, free speech, health care, etc. Conservatives are very libertarian about some things and very conservative about others. Ditto liberals and most socialists...Ideologically consistent libertarians - i.e., people who want freedom across the board - are very vocal, but they are far from legion. And even among the faithful there is still considerable disagreement about issues like abortion or drug legalization beyond marijuana. In principle most Americans simply want government to do good where it can and do no harm anywhere else...Moreover, people want to maximize freedom in the abstract, but they are loath to pay much of a price for it in their own lives (hence the famous 1964 finding by social psychologists Lloyd Free and Hadley Cantril that Americans are operationally liberal but ideologically conservative)...I wish it were otherwise, but people tend to be libertarian only after it's demonstrated to them that the government can't deliver the results they want.And that, I think, is the elephant in the room Draper largely misses. Example is the school of mankind and they will learn at no other, Edmund Burke observed. What he meant was that you can't just tell people X won't work; they have to see and experience the failure of X on their own. Noam Chomsky didn't suddenly become more persuasive during the Bush years. The reality of the Iraq war turned people off military interventions...To the extent that libertarian ideas are gaining new currency outside the GOP, it's because of government's failures. Particularly for young people - especially more affluent young people - the yawning chasm between the efficiency of the private sector and the haplessness of the public sector is poisonous to faith in government. The VA scandal, the clownish rollout of the Obamacare website and the near wholesale inability of Barack Obama to deliver on his economic promises have done more to breathe new life into libertarianism than a thousand lectures about Friedrich Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" ever could...Jonah Goldberg is the editor for the Nation Review Online...

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/9305

Syrian rebels storm regime complex, free prisoners By BARBARA SURK Associated Press BEIRUT (AP) — Syrian rebels stormed a government intelligence complex in the oil-rich east of the country on Tuesday, freeing at least 11 people held in a prison at the facility, activists said. After five days of heavy clashes around the intelligence compound in the city of Deir el-Zour, rebels finally overran the complex early Tuesday following intense fighting overnight, the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said. Opposition figures were reportedly being held at the jail on the complex's grounds, but it was not immediately clear whether those freed Tuesday are fighters or activists. Government forces responded to the rebel advance by unleashing a series of airstrikes on the compound, trying to push the opposition fighters from the facility. Deir el-Zour has been the scene of heavy fighting since the uprising against Syrian President Bashar Assad began in March 2011. The province, which goes by the same name as the city, is located along Syria's border with Iraq and includes several oil installations that the rebels have repeatedly targeted. The aid group Doctors Without Borders said last month that government forces are shelling and bombing Deir el-Zour almost daily. It said tens of thousands of Syrians, many of them wounded, remain trapped in the city. Also Tuesday, regime warplanes also carried several airstrikes on rebel positions in restive towns and villages around Damascus, including eastern Ghouta and Yalda, and hit other suburbs with artillery, the Observatory said. The group relies on the reports from activists on the ground. After capturing several major army bases and government outposts, the rebels control large swathes of land in northeastern Syria. Assad's troops, however, continue to hold a tight grip on the capital after nearly two years of conflict. The areas on the capital's doorstep have been rebel strongholds since early on in the revolt. In recent months, the rebels have used them as a base from which they have been trying to push into central Damascus, the seat of Assad's power. Tags: Inside NorthJersey.com

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/9414

Equality for AllRecent Headlines Fair and Just CourtsRecent HeadlinesThe Numbers Don't Lie--GOP Obstruction Efforts Unprecedented in Senate Campaign to Restore Justice Fighting the RightRecent Headlines Right Wing Organizations Right Wing Watch In Focus Freedom of SpeechRecent Headlines Religious LibertyRecent Headlines The Right to VoteRecent Headlines Restore My Vote Citizens United and Money in PoliticsWhat Is Citizens United? Beyond Citizens United: Bennett, McCutcheon, and Other Ominous Signs for the Future Amending the Constitution to Overturn Citizens United: Why an Amendment is Necessary Marriage EqualityAnti-Gay Leaders: Fasting and Massive Mobilization Will Bring Prop 8 Victory AARA Chairs and Bios Get InvolvedTake Action!True Stories of Activism PublicationsFeatured Reports Reports: Equality For All Reports: Fair and Just Courts Reports: Fighting the Right Reports: Freedom of Speech Reports: Right Wing Watch In Focus Archive Reports: Religious Liberty Reports: The Right to Vote About UsMissionFounding Mission Statement Patricia Millett What Senator Toomey Left Out of His Re-Election Speech Mon, 09/14/2015 - 5:55pm — Paul On judicial confirmations, Pat Toomey has not been a moderate reaching across the aisle. PFAW Read more Fair and Just Courts C4 Chuck Grassley Cornelia Pillard Luis Felipe Restrepo Nina Pillard Pat Toomey Patricia Ann Millett Patricia Millett Robert Wilkins Pennsylvania DC Circuit judicial nominations Lower Federal Courts Obstruction Obstructionism Third Circuit Court of Appeals PFAW Applauds Senate Progress on DC Circuit Confirmations WASHINGTON – The Senate today voted to confirm Patricia Millett to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Millett is the first of President Obama’s three nominees to the court to receive a yes-or-no vote following the change in Senate filibuster rules in response to unprecedented Republican obstruction. Marge Baker, executive vice president of People For the American Way, responded with the following statement: “Finally, we are seeing progress in filling the three vacancies on the D.C. Circuit. There is no doubt that Patricia Millett and the other two nominees to this court -- Nina Pillard and Robert Wilkins -- are eminently qualified. The Republican opposition to these nominees has not been about their merits, but simply about keeping the president from filling these seats with any nominees. Millett will fill a seat that has been vacant since Chief Justice John Roberts was elevated to the Supreme Court in 2005. It’s about time this blockade was broken. “We look forward to the Senate’s prompt confirmation of Pillard and Wilkins as well. Relentless Republican obstruction has for too long been crippling our federal courts. Confirming these nominees will be an important step toward getting the Senate, and our courts, working again.” FRC Attacks Judicial Nominee For Saying There Should Be Women On The Supreme Court The Family Research Council’s attempts to paint President Obama’s female nominees to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals as “radical feminists” aren’t going so well. First, the FRC attacked Nina Pillard for quoting something the late Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote about the importance of the Family and Medical Leave Act. Now, the FRC seems to think it’s found a winning argument against Patricia Millett, the other woman in the slate of three D.C. Circuit nominees: She thinks there should be women on the Supreme Court. In his daily email on Friday, FRC’s Tony Perkins wrote: As it stands right now, the D.C. Circuit is evenly divided between Democrat and Republican appointed judges -- but that's about to change. Using the nuclear option, the Senate moved forward with reconsidering Patricia Millett, the first of three previously blocked nominees the President will be employing to pack the court in his favor. Millett has shown an activist tendency in how she views the court, believing it's more important it look a certain way than judge a certain way. When President Bush nominated Samuel Alito to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Millett bemoaned that O'Connor wasn't being replaced by another woman, as if gender impacts who's most qualified to apply the Constitution to the facts in a case or that our highest court should be seen as a representative body. She sees the redefinition of marriage turning on her own definition of fairness and not the law. FRC seems to have picked up this line of attack from a talking points document put together by the right-wing Judicial Action Group, which claims that Millett's comment in a 2009 interview that “there was a lot of upset over the failure to put a woman on to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor” shows that she would have a poor "judicial temperament.” Yes, this is actually the argument that FRC is using against an accomplished woman’s judicial nomination in 2013. Here’s what Millett actually said, in a 2009 interview about whom President Obama might choose to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court. At the time, there was just one woman on the court and Millett stressed that there were “many qualified women” who would make President Obama’s short-list, even if gender was not considered: There was a lot of upset over the failure to put a woman on to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and…it would be extraordinary to have no women on the Supreme Court in this day and age. But even to only have one is, I think, a sorry statement about the appointment process thus far, and where it’s gotten in the last eight years. So, I think the pressure to have a Supreme Court that looks in many ways – and gender is just one way – that is reflective of the public it serves, would require that a woman gets serious consideration. And there’s no doubt that there are many, many qualified women who – entirely apart from their gender, if nobody even considers about their gender –would be short-listed for the Supreme Court in any event, so it makes that easy. By the way, in case you were wondering about FRC’s claim that Millett “sees the redefinition of marriage turning on her own definition of fairness and not the law,” that also comes from JAG's talking points. JAG points to an interview Millett gave previewing the Supreme Court’s hearing of the DOMA case, in which she referred to the question before the Court – whether DOMA’s unequal treatment of same-sex and opposite-sex marriage’s violated the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause – as the “fundamental fairness question before the Court.” That is, she was accurately describing the issue the Court was asked to consider; she never implies that the issue is “turning on her own definition of fairness and not the law.” Miranda Blue's blog The Nullification Strategy: How Senate Republicans Abuse the Filibuster to Undermine the Courts, Executive Agencies, and American Voters To: Interested Parties From: Marge Baker, Executive Vice President, People For the American Way Re: The Nullification Strategy: How Senate Republicans Abuse the Filibuster to Undermine the Courts, Executive Agencies, and American Voters Earlier this month, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the Dean of the Senate and one of the most steadfast protectors of its traditions, announced that for the first time in his decades-long Senate career he was considering supporting a change to the Senate’s filibuster rules. Leahy’s reluctant change of heart is a sign of the extent to which Senate Republicans have abused the rules of the Senate not only to oppose legislation and nominees with whom they disagree, but to change the rules of government, using obstruction to nullify laws and agencies that they lack the electoral mandate to overturn or eliminate through legitimate means. Senate Republicans under President Obama have turned the Constitution's command of "advice and consent" into a prerogative to obstruct and nullify -- a violation of the Constitution's spirit that ignores the will of American voters and threatens to undermine the functioning of all three branches of government. Using what Sen. Tim Kaine has called the "decapitation strategy," Senate Republicans routinely deny confirmation votes to qualified, widely respected nominees simply because the GOP wants to cripple the agency or court to which the individual was nominated. This strategy will reach a new low today if Senate Republicans succeed in blocking an up-or-down vote on the nomination of Nina Pillard to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, as they have indicated that they intend to do. How the Nullification Strategy Works In June, President Obama nominated three highly qualified individuals to fill the three vacancies on the D.C. Circuit Court. On Oct. 31, Republicans blocked a vote on the nomination of Patricia Millett. Today, they are expected to deny cloture on the nomination of Nina Pillard. And they have indicated that they will do the same to President Obama's third nominee to the court, Robert Wilkins. Senate Republicans have made clear that they are blocking votes on these nominees simply because they do not want President Obama to be able to fill vacancies on this particular court. In fact, the Senate’s GOP leadership signaled their intention to stonewall all three nominees before they even knew who they would be – a clear sign that their obstruction has nothing to do with the nominees’ records or qualifications. Similarly, Republicans blocked President Obama’s nominees to the National Labor Relations Board, preventing the agency from achieving a quorum; in so doing, they successfully sabotaged enforcement of the National Labor Relations Act without actually amending the law. They refused for a full two years to confirm a head to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which prevented it from exercising some of its most important authorities; they admitted they had no problem with the nominee (Richard Cordray) but instead wanted to force Democrats to change the law and weaken the newly-created agency. And of course, President Obama's nominee to head the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Rep. Mel Watt of North Carolina, is in the same position after Senate Republicans blocked a vote on his nomination, making him the first sitting member of Congress to be blocked from confirmation to an Administration position since before the Civil War. Notably, a large number of the nominees who have faced politically-motivated blockades have been women and people of color. The blocked D.C. Circuit nominees are two women and an African-American man. Several months ago, Republicans blocked another woman, Caitlin Halligan, from a seat on the court, which will make Pillard the third woman this year that Republicans have blocked from the D.C. Circuit. Why Republicans Have Targeted the D.C. Circuit There is a reason that Senate Republicans have chosen the D.C. Circuit as an object of their obstruction: The court, which regularly reviews decisions by federal agencies on a broad range of issues important to the public at large, is currently dominated by Republican-nominated jurists who routinely undercut the ability of federal agencies to protect workers and consumers. Although the court's eight active judges are divided evenly between Democratic and Republican nominees, five of the court’s six senior judges are Republican appointees. These senior judges sit on the three-judge panels that do most of the court’s work, and maintain a strong influence over the court. So when you draw a three-judge panel, there’s a high likelihood that it will have a conservative majority because Republican nominees outnumber Democratic ones 9-5, a nearly 2-1 ratio. In fact, 15 of the last 19 judges confirmed to the court were nominated by Republican presidents. That includes four George W. Bush nominees, three George H.W. Bush nominees, and eight Ronald Reagan nominees. By contrast, the Senate has confirmed just one of President Obama's nominees to the D.C. Circuit, Sri Srinivasan. The conservative judges who currently dominate the D.C. Circuit have pushed an anti-regulatory, pro-corporate ideological agenda that clearly appeals to Senate Republicans. In just the past few years, Republican-nominated judges on the court have blocked EPA efforts to limit cross-state air pollution, defeated cigarette labeling requirements, and used severely flawed reasoning to declare that requiring employers to post a notice informing employees of their right to unionize violates the free speech rights of the employers. The D.C. Circuit has also aided Senate Republicans in their agenda of obstruction, voiding the president’s appointments of NRLB Members whom the president had been forced to recess-appoint after the GOP had refused to let the agency reach a quorum. After he voted to block Millett’s nomination, Republican Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois admitted that preserving the DC Circuit’s rightward slant was the reason for his party’s obstruction. "We're worried about that court being a significant bastion for administrative law cases on Obamacare,” he told the Huffington Post. President Obama's nominees to fill the three vacancies on the D.C. Circuit are all impeccably qualified. Judge Wilkins is already a federal judge, serving on the US District Court for the District of Columbia, and has an impressive background in civil rights and financial law. Professor Pillard is a widely respected attorney who has personally argued and briefed key Supreme Court cases – including key women’s equality cases -- brought or defended by government lawyers from Republican administrations, and Republican-appointed justices often authored the majority opinions in her favor. She co-directs a universally admired nonpartisan institute that prepares attorneys to argue before the Supreme Court. Millett is one of the most respected appellate attorneys in the nation, and has argued dozens of cases before the Supreme Court. Yet all three are facing filibusters simply because they were nominated by President Obama. Stunningly, Senate Republicans have attempted to turn the tables on the president, accusing him of "court-packing" for attempting to fill congressionally-designated judicial vacancies with qualified nominees. This argument is laughably transparent: President Obama has nominated qualified individuals to seats that have been filled by all of his recent predecessors, even when the court's caseload was lower than it is today. The Constitution mandates that the president name and the Senate fairly review nominees to federal judgeships created by Congress. President Obama has done his job by nominating three extraordinarily qualified nominees to the D.C. Circuit. But the Senate GOP is refusing to fulfill its duty of "advice and consent,” and is instead attempting to nullify the law and pretend the court has only eight seats. This is the same strategy that House Republicans used when they shut down the federal government and threatened a default on the country’s debt in an attempt to bring down a law that had been enacted by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court. Unable to achieve their preferred policies by winning elections, Republicans are attempting to nullify the results of those elections through extreme obstruction. This abuse of the filibuster has now led even one of the Senate's most fervent institutionalists to consider eliminating the minority's ability to block nominees -- a fundamental change to an institution that less than ten years ago agreed to use the filibuster only under "extraordinary circumstances." Senate Republicans must reconsider their nullification strategy, or risk harming not only the courts and executive agencies they are targeting, but the institution of the Senate itself. Sen. Whitehouse Briefs PFAW Members on DC Circuit Fight Thu, 11/07/2013 - 5:58pm — Paul Sen. Whitehouse shared his perspectives and answered members' questions about the fight over the DC Circuit. PFAW Read more Fair and Just Courts C4 Cornelia Pillard Nina Pillard Patricia Ann Millett Patricia Millett Robert Leon Wilkins Robert Wilkins sheldon whitehouse DC Circuit DC Circuit Court of Appeals judges Lower Federal Courts Obstruction Obstructionism PFAW: Shameful Senate Vote on DC Circuit Shows GOP Scorched-Earth Politics At Its Worst WASHINGTON – The Senate today failed to overcome a GOP filibuster of the nomination of Patricia Millett to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Millett is the first of President Obama’s three nominees to fill vacancies on the court; Professor Nina Pillard and Judge Robert Wilkins have both been approved by the Judiciary Committee and are awaiting floor votes. Every Republican senator except for Senators Collins and Murkowski voted to continue the filibuster of Millett’s nomination, although none presented any objection to her qualifications or character. Immediately before rejecting cloture on Millett’s nomination, Senate Republicans also blocked the nomination of Rep. Mel Watt to head the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The following statement can be attributed to Marge Baker, Executive Vice President, People For the American Way: Today, we saw Republican scorched-earth politics at its worst. Patricia Millett is an extraordinarily qualified nominee for an extremely important court, yet Senate Republicans are denying her a confirmation vote simply because she was nominated by President Obama. The GOP’s unprincipled blockade of D.C. Circuit nominees is unprecedented, and it’s shameful. Instead of giving Patricia Millett, Nina Pillard and Robert Wilkins fair hearings and yes-or-no votes, Republicans are blocking all three just to keep President Obama from fulfilling his Constitutional obligation to fill existing vacancies on the critically important federal courts. This is the kind of reckless tactic that led to this month’s government shutdown. Unable to win national elections, Republicans are instead attempting to legislate through obstruction. First, they put hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work and threatened to disrupt the world economy in a futile attempt to eliminate a duly enacted law. Now, they’re refusing to fill vacancies on the federal courts because they don’t like the president who’s nominating judges. Americans see these partisan obstruction tactics for what they are. This is the kind of behavior that has sent public approval of the Republican Party into the gutter, and it is not the kind of move that Americans will forget. We will continue to fight for the confirmation of all three of these highly qualified nominees to this important court. Share this page: Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Copyright & Disclaimer | RSS

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/9436

INTERVIEW: After my year in chains I am rejoining the Tories Adam Lake, PinkNews 20th May 2008, 4:18 PM Mr Cranfield-Adams has decided to rejoin the Conservative party The first openly gay mayor of Richmond ends his term in office this week. Over lunch Adam Lake asked him what it is like being the first gay mayor in London, the “viper’s nest” that is local government, and what the future holds in store for him. I meet with Marc in his last full week as Mayor of Richmond. Wearing a dark suit I instantly notice a rainbow coloured wrist band poking out of his sleeve, “ I wear it in support of the Metropolitan Police campaign against homophobic bullying,” he tells me. Cranfield-Adams certainly knows what he is talking about when it comes to supporting gay rights, something that has attracted both praise and criticism by councillors and the local press. “I experienced anti-gay sentiment before I even started,” he explains. “To mark my appointment, I wanted the Council press release to state that I was to become the first openly gay mayor of the Borough. “I was told by the press office that it was inappropriate and they tried to convince me that I shouldn’t say anything. “I even had one councillor tell me that she would only support my campaign if I didn’t mention ‘the gay thing‘.” The ‘gay thing’ has made the Mayor a controversial figure amongst some of the boroughs councillors, ironically from the Liberal Democrat benches: “People think I shouldn’t mention it as if it’s something to be ashamed of. “It’s not something that needed mentioning at all, but I think that if you have it put in the open from day one it just makes life easier for everyone and it gave the local gay community some profile and visibility.” Pledging to support diversity and inclusiveness Cranfield-Adams has used his position to further the issues around equalities in Richmond, “I feel that being the Mayor allows you to open doors for people, that‘s one of the best parts of the job.” I comment that Richmond was not a place that you would immediately associate for being liberal, he disagrees “I think that the people of Richmond are liberal, but they are very understated, they don’t like to talk about these sorts of things.” Joining the Conservative party in 1978 he caused quite a stir when in 2004 he left the party and joined the Liberal Democrats. “I think that I was going through a mid-life crisis” he tells me. “The then Conservative leader of Richmond Council treated me badly because for some reason he thought that politically I was hugely ambitious- which I am not. I was having a really bad time and I thought that I would have a lot in common with the Lib Dems.” After four years working with the Liberal Democrat Council, Marc decided to rejoin the Conservative Party. “David Cameron has done a lot to move the party back to the centre ground and I think that they really represent what I believe in. People get the impression that the Conservatives are the nasty party and this is no longer fair.” “Twenty years ago we all (gay Tories) had to be secretive and run around behind closed doors, now the Conservative Party is full of openly gay people and I’m proud to be a part of that.” “The Liberals Democrats in Richmond have shown themselves up as being a bunch of bullies. When I announced I had returned to the Tories the front bench cheered- it just showed them up and several of their backbenchers have since distanced themselves from such tasteless behaviour.” Cranfield-Adams continues to have a stormy relationship with the Leader of the Council and hints that he may address this at his valedictory speech this week. “Do I look like someone who likes to stir trouble?” he asks with a cheeky look on his face. “The Leader of the Council refutes that the council is homophobic in it’s attitude but they have been tremendously ambivalent and that is almost as bad.” But it’s not all been arguments and opposition for the Mayor. Last summer Cranfield-Adams visited Richmond in the American state of Virginia as the guest speaker at Gay Pride Virginia. “I had an amazing time, everyone was so generous and hospitable to me; I really enjoyed myself.” “It showed me how lucky we are in the UK in terms of gay rights. In the States people think it’s odd that we have laws to protect gay people. “The UK is way ahead legally and I hope that the US goes that way too.” So what’s next of the Mayor? “The first thing I want to do is get my life back!” he tells me. “I look forward to having my evenings and weekends again, and I‘m very excited about going on holiday later this year.” Marc Cranfield-Adams has a passion for Richmond and is obviously proud of the Borough that he has been working for. He may be handing over the chains of office this week but I think that we haven’t heard the last of the man who told Brian Paddick last month, “You may want to be the first gay mayor of London ,well let me tell you that I AM the only gay mayor IN London!” His passion for Richmond and his determination to support the gay community both in and out of the borough make him an example of how one man can make a difference. “Whether I have made a difference is not for me to judge,” he concludes. Publicity is vital claims Russian gay activist Next story Pop Idol helps Blackpool show its Pride More: ST Test

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/9470

Personal, strategic motivations for Obama in Asia A woman takes a photo of a wall painting created by Myanmar graffiti artists to welcome U.S. President Barack Obama on a street in Yangon, Myanmar, Saturday, Nov. 17, 2012. Obama will visit Myanmar on Monday, in a first for a sitting U.S. president. White House officials on Thursday said he will use his visit "to lock down progress and to push on areas where progress is urgently needed" � most notably freeing political prisoners and ending ethnic tensions in the western state of Rakhine and the northern state of Kachin. Obama's stop in Myanmar, scheduled to last about six hours, is the centerpiece of his first foreign tour since winning re-election. (AP Photo) By Julie Pace, Associated Press BANGKOK � For President Barack Obama, expanding U.S. influence in Asia is more than just countering China or opening up new markets to American businesses. It�s also about building his legacy. Fresh off re-election, Obama will make a significant investment in that effort during a quick run through Southeast Asia that begins Sunday. In addition to stops in Thailand and Cambodia, the president will make a historic visit to Myanmar, where his administration has led efforts to ease the once pariah nation out of international isolation. The trip marks Obama�s fourth visit to Asia in as many years. He kicks off his schedule in Bangkok. With a second term now guaranteed, aides say Obama will be a regular visitor to the region over the next four years as well. �Continuing to fill in our pivot to Asia will be a critical part of the president�s second term and ultimately his foreign policy legacy,� said Ben Rhodes, Obama�s deputy national security adviser. The president�s motivations in Asia are both personal and strategic. Obama, who was born in Hawaii and lived in Indonesia as a child, has called himself America�s first �Pacific president.� The region gives him an opportunity to open up new markets for U.S. companies, promote democracy and ease fears of China�s rise by boosting U.S. military presence in area. The president, like many of his predecessors, had hoped to cement his foreign policy legacy in the Middle East. He visited two major allies in the region, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, on one of his first overseas trips as president and attempted to revive peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. But those talks stalled, and fresh outbursts of violence between Israel and the Palestinians make the prospects of a peace accord appear increasingly slim. The Obama-backed Arab Spring democracy push has had mixed results so far, with Islamists taking power in Egypt and progress in Libya tainted by the deadly attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. Obama hasn�t been back to the region since 2009. In Asia, however, Obama will be viewed as something of an elder statesman when he returns less than two weeks after winning re-election. The region is undergoing significant leadership changes, most notably in China, where the Communist Party tapped new leaders last week. Japan and South Korea will both hold new elections soon. �Most of the leaders he�ll meet with will not have a tenure as long as he will as president,� said Michael Green, an Asia scholar at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. �So he�ll go into this in a very strong position.� The centerpiece of Obama�s whirlwind Asia tour is his visit to Myanmar. It will be the first time a U.S. president has visited the former pariah state. Myanmar has become something of a pet project for Obama and his national security aides, who have cheered the country�s significant strides toward democracy. Obama lifted some U.S. penalties on Myanmar, appointed a permanent U.S. ambassador and hosted democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi at the White House this year. Many of the same strategic motivations behind Obama�s larger focus on Asia are at play in Myanmar, which is known by the U.S. as Burma. The country long has oriented itself toward China, but the easing of sanctions gives American businesses a chance to gain a foothold there. It�s also an opportunity for the Obama administration to show other nations in the region, and elsewhere in the world, that there are benefits to aligning with the U.S. Still, there�s little denying that history has been a draw for Obama�s team when it comes to its dealings with Myanmar. That�s led to criticism from some human rights groups that say Obama�s visit is premature given that the country continues to hold political prisoners and has been unable to stem some ethnic violence. �This trip risks being an ill-timed presidential pat on the back for a regime that has looked the other way as violence rages, destroying villages and communities just in the last few weeks,� said Suzanne Nossel, the U.S.-based director of Amnesty International. But the White House believes that �if we want to promote human rights and promote American values, we intend to do so through engagement,� Rhodes said Saturday as Obama flew to Asia. He said it was important for Obama to convey the message about �the type of action we�d like to see locked in, in Burma as it relates to political reform, as it relates to economic reform, and national reconciliation.� Obama�s other stops in the region also underscore the potential pitfalls of going all-in in Asia. Thailand�s 2006 coup, which led to the ouster of the prime minister, strained relations with the U.S. and raised questions in Washington about the stability of its longtime regional ally. Cambodia, where Obama�s visit also marks the first by a U.S. president, has a dismal human rights record. White House officials have emphasized that Obama is visiting Cambodia because it is hosting the East Asia Summit, an annual meeting the U.S. now attends. Aides say the president will voice his human rights concerns during his meeting with Hun Sen, Cambodia�s long-serving prime minister. Still, human rights groups fear Obama�s visit will be seen within Cambodia as an affirmation of the prime minister and a sign to opposition groups that the U.S. stands with the government, not with them. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was also traveling to Thailand where she was going to join Obama. Clinton then was to fly to Myanmar with Obama on Air Force One. It will be the last joint trip for the president and his secretary of state, the once presidential rival who went on to become Obama�s peripatetic chief diplomat. Clinton is planning on leaving the administration.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/9481

(1 of ) Robin Swinth, right, was sworn in to the Santa Rosa City Council by city clerk Terri Griffin at Santa Rosa City Hall, Tuesday, February 5, 2013. (Crista Jeremiason / The Press Democrat) Robin Swinth takes seat on Santa Rosa council MARTIN ESPINOZA THE PRESS DEMOCRAT | February 5, 2013 Robin Swinth, a former member of the city Board of Public Utilities, received a brief standing ovation Tuesday afternoon as she was sworn in Tuesday as the newest member of the Santa Rosa City Council. Before taking her place at the far end of the council dais, Swinth, 45, warmly shook hands with each member of the council, as well as the city clerk, city manager and city attorney. Santa Rosa council says media center too important to lose Swinth, who is also a former city planning commissioner, will fill the seat vacated by Susan Gorin, who was elected to the county Board of Supervisors with two years left on her council term. Swinth took the oath of office at the opening of the City Council meeting on Tuesday. "I'm just really looking forward to working with the council and working with the community," Swinth said. After the ceremony, Swinth said her priorities on the board would be working on budget issues and economic development. She also said she's eager to start her work as the council's representative to the Sonoma County Water Advisory Committee. Swinth was selected Jan. 29 from a pool of 17 candidates after a three-week application process. She was able to get six votes from council members during the first round of voting. She received significantly more votes than other applicants, including Caroline Ba?elos, who received three, and Don Taylor, David Rosas, Curtis Byrd, Gary Saal and George Steffensen, who received two votes each. Swinth, a native of Santa Rosa, lives in Bennett Valley with her family. She has two daughters, ages 8 and 9. A former Agilent Technologies engineer, Swinth and her husband own a small business that helps disabled people find work. You can reach Staff Writer Martin Espinoza at 521-5213 or martin.espinoza@pressdemocrat.com.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/9514

Asian group of nations at UN changes its name to Asia-Pacific group 7:30 am on 1 September 2011 The Asian group of nations at the United Nations has changed its name to the Asia-Pacific group. The change this week comes ahead of Ban Ki-moon becoming the first UN secretary general to attend a Pacific Islands Forum summit in Auckland next week. The 193-state United Nations has been divided into five regional groups since 1965 to negotiate responsibilities and elections to UN bodies. Pacific island nations, starting with Fiji, started joining the Asia group from 1970 as they started to become independent. With Fiji, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu now in the group, they make up more than one fifth of the membership and started pressing for the name to change last year. Diplomats say at China's insistence the group will be officially called Group of Asia and the Pacific Small Island Developing States. But documents will be allowed to use the Asia-Pacific Group. Fiji's UN ambassador, Peter Thomson, says the move shows Pacific states are wanting to play their full part and assume their rights and responsibilities. The UN secretary general will attend the Pacific Islands Forum summit next week as part of a tour of the region. He will also visit Australia, Solomon islands and Kiribati. MSG signing in Fiji delayed

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/9690

The United States and Europe stood up to Serbia. Can they stand up to North Korea and Iran? SlateFighting WordsA wartime lexicon.July 26 2010 2:39 PM Why Kosovo Still Matters The United States and Europe stood up to Serbia. Can they stand up to North Korea and Iran? By Christopher Hitchens Slobodan Milosevic The impressive decision last week by the International Court of Justice in The Hague—to reject the claim submitted by Serbia that Kosovo's 2008 declaration of independence was unlawful—was mostly either ignored or reported in articles festooned with false alarmism about hypothetical future secessions. Allow this precedent, moaned many, and what is to stop, say, Catalonia from breaking away? This line of thinking is wrong twice. To begin with, there is no actual or theoretical world in which Kosovo could possibly have continued to be ruled from Belgrade, let alone considered part of Serbia. In the first place, the international treaties that originally recognized Kosovo as a constituent of Yugoslavia did just that: It was a member of a wider post-1918 federation and not a segment of just one province of it. (For the legal details of this crucial distinction, see Noel Malcolm's Kosovo: A Short History.) Even the old-style Yugoslav Communists granted Kosovo the status of an autonomous region in their 1974 constitution. It was the great crime—one of the many great crimes—of former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic to negate both these previous agreements. Almost as soon as he seized power in 1989, he repealed the autonomy of Kosovo. And he went on to destroy the entire Yugoslav federation in a mad and genocidal effort to put a conquering "Greater Serbia" in its place. The independence of Kosovo is the closing act in the defeat of that wicked and crazy scheme. The Albanian majority would no more agree to a restoration of Serbian sovereignty than Poland would seek to fuse itself with Russia or Germany. Advertisement As for the question of "precedent," which is constantly and hypocritically brought up by Russia and China, one is forced to ask, "What precedent?" Moscow and Beijing were the protectors and armorers of Milosevic while he sought to bring ethno-fascism to Europe, and both of them have restive minorities within their own borders or territorial claims against near neighbors. Would their line on Tibet or Georgia really change if the ICJ had ruled either way? The question answers itself. It's risible enough that either regime pretends to take any notice of international law. What, then, of Catalonia and the Basque region and Quebec and Scotland? These are very ancient and complex questions, none of them having anything at all in common with the recent history of the Balkans. Experience seems to teach us that nations within larger nations do not embark on the course of secession lightly. If Spain or Canada or the United Kingdom were now treating their minorities with anything like the violence and bigotry and contempt with which Serbia handled Kosovo, then there is more than enough in the history of the Catalans and Basques and Quebecois and Scots to suggest that they would have rebelled unstoppably by now. What seems to "brake" this nationalism, at least in the European cases, is the continued appeal of membership in a larger European Union that requires member states to respect smaller nations and remote regions. And this opportunity is now available to both Serbia and Kosovo as well, in a way that it could not have been while the Milosevic regime was violating every known principle of law. Meanwhile, the idea of Catalans or Scots rallying for independence under the slogan "Remember Kosovo" is barely even a fanciful one. Apart from the peaceful and uncontested separation of the Czechs and Slovaks in the early 1990s (also conducted within the framework of potential European integration), in recent history I can only think of two actual "secessions" on what you might call European soil. Both were completely fraudulent and lawless. The first was the creation of a Turks-only statelet on the territory of Cyprus in 1983, and the second was the proclamation of a Serbs-only statelet in the territory of Bosnia a decade later. Neither "coup" was in any way the work of the inhabitants: Both were made possible only by the presence of invading and occupying troops. Neither ever secured, or will ever secure, international recognition. So much for "precedent." There is no need to romanticize the Kosovo state. At least two aspects of it need real and critical attention: its policy toward the Serb-majority enclave around the city of Mitrovica, and its attitude toward the treasury of Serbian religious and national architecture that stays on its soil. But the international community is in a far better position to safeguard and negotiate these matters than any fantasy of restored Serbian "sovereignty." We lose something important if we forget Kosovo and the harrowing events that finally led to the self-determination of its nearly 2 million inhabitants. Long deprived of even vestigial national and human rights, then forced at gunpoint onto deportation trains and threatened with the believable threat of mass murder, these people were belatedly rescued by an intervention that said, fairly simply, there is a limit beyond which law cannot be further broken and conscience further outraged. There is no oil in Kosovo. The state interests of Israel were not involved. There were no votes to be gained; rather to the contrary, in fact. A large proportion of the victim population was and is Muslim. The least embarrassing way of phrasing this is to say that American and European honor was rather hastily saved, and a horrible threat to the peace of the region removed. Many brave and principled Serbs have good reason to recognize that a menace and an insult to their country, too, was abolished in the process. That was then. Now it seems incautious to speculate how far a rogue regime can go, and still feel itself immune from reprisal or consequence. The Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts have sapped and eroded our confidence. The dictators in Iran and North Korea sense this, and probe, and often find only mush. And as in the case of Kosovo then and now, Russia and China can be counted on to provide the protection and the excuses. Like Slate on Facebook. Follow Slate and the Slate Foreign Desk on Twitter. Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) was a columnist for Vanity Fair and the author, most recently, of Arguably, a collection of essays.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/9696

Friday March 14, 2003 national Increased Labor majority on the cards as independents stifle Libs The Coalition's task seems to be to avoid a disastrous result, rather than just a loss, writes Antony Green. If the opinion polls are to be believed, the Carr Government will easily win the March 22 election. In the past week, three different opinion polls have indicated the Government's two-party preferred vote has increased since the 1999 election. On that evidence, it may well be returned with an increased majority. This would be a remarkable result for a government after two terms in office which is asking voters to extend its tenure to 12 years. Given the growing beat of war drums in Washington, it is hard to see how the Opposition can gain enough traction in the next week to turn around the result. It may be that expectations of an easy win for the Government is the Opposition's best chance of clawing back some ground, calling on voters to make sure Labor doesn't end up with too big a majority. Looking at the primary vote breakdown in the polls also makes depressing reading for the Coalition. The primary vote for both Labor and the Coalition has risen slightly compared to 1999, albeit from a record low base for the Coalition. However, the biggest change has been the disappearance of One Nation and the rise of the Greens. It seems unlikely that the Greens are luring support across the political divide from One Nation and the Coalition, so Green growth must be at the expense of the Labor Party. Labor's increased support has then come at the Coalition's expense. This was a trend evident in last year's elections in Victoria and Tasmania. Both saw large rises in Green vote. Yet in both cases, this rise proved politically insignificant, thanks to Labor's ability to push the Coalition out of the middle ground. It seems likely that the Green vote will pass 15 per cent in some seats, in which case preferences may play an important part in Labor's final haul of seats. Labor's statewide vote may be up, but the denial of Green preferences could yet prevent Labor winning marginal National Party seats such as Burrinjuck and Monaro. A far bigger problem facing the Coalition is the continuing support for independent candidates in safe conservative seats. When the Unsworth government was defeated in 1988, 11 seats finished as a contest between major parties and an independent. Of these, six were in safe Labor, with independents winning such Labor bastions as Balmain, Newcastle, Swansea and Wollongong. This independent challenge to Labor has never been repeated, and since 1988, independents have become overwhelmingly a problem for the Liberal and National parties. In the seven Australian lower houses of parliament where MPs are elected from single member electorates, there are 24 MPs elected and sitting as independents. Of these, 19 hold once-safe Liberal or National Party seats, compared with only three in Labor seats and two holding marginal seats. Sixteen of these seats lie in non-metropolitan areas. Most of the independent challenges at this election fit the traditional pattern of local issue campaigns. In seats like Myall Lakes, Tamworth and Barwon, well-known local identities are challenging the National Party, while in Albury, prominent local concerns are overriding statewide issues. The bigger worry for the Liberal Party is the appearance of independents challenging the party after contentious preselection ballots. In Bega, South Coast, Hawkesbury and Willoughby, the contest seems to be as much about the direction of the Liberal Party as a contest over local issues. At the moment the Liberal Party looks set to lose seats, not to Labor, but to candidates who are political fellow travellers. If the result is bad for the Coalition on March 22, the aftermath may be an outbreak of factional warfare in the Liberal Party, as both left and right in the party indulge in a blame game over who was responsible for defeat. Antony Green an ABC election analyst and is writing exclusively for the Herald through the campaign Printer friendly version Also in NSW Election Sports grants denounced as vote-buying Lib diehard sings praises as Carr appeals to the bush $10m plan to bring visitors to the bush Days to go: 9 Della detoured from the election road by chauffeur car scandal Greens push trams Boost for rural home buyers

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/9756

MY IASC Arms Show Reports Papers & Studies By Program & Issue Iran in Latin America: Threat or Axis of Annoyance? Senior Fellow Douglas Farah's analysis of the debate over the level of threat posed by Iran's expanding diplomatic, trade and military presence in Latin America, and its stated ambition to continue to broaden these ties. Chinese Naval Modernization: Altering the Balance of Power Richard Fisher details China's naval modernization program and the potential impacts on U.S. interests in the Western Pacific. HomeResearch Ecuador�s Role in Iran�s Latin American Financial StructureA Case Study of the Use of COFIEC Bank by Douglas Farah, Pamela Philips Lum Published on March 12th, 2013 Since November 2008, when the Central Bank of Ecuador agreed to accept $120 million in deposits from the internationally sanctioned Export Development Bank of Iran (EDBI), the desire of Iran to use the Ecuadoran financial system to access the world banking system has been evident. In 2008, EDBI was sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury�s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) for "providing financial services to Iran's Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics (MODAFL)," in an effort to "advance Iran's WMD programs." What has emerged since early 2012 is a far more sophisticated plan to use a little-known Ecuadoran bank in state receivership, known as COFIEC, to open correspondent accounts with sanctioned Iranian banking institutions through a state-owned Russian bank. There have also been serious discussions of clandestinely selling the Ecuadoran bank to sanctioned Iranian banks, talks which senior government officials have acknowledged are still underway. Read the whole report: Ecuador�s Role in Iran�s Latin American Financial Structure Report Annexes Annex 1 Annex 1A �copyright 2004. All rights reserved.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/9788

When Alan Dershowitz Debated Meir Kahane A battle for America’s Jewish youth and Israel’s soul in 1985 By Yair Rosenberg March 25, 2014 • 9:43 AM Alan Dershowitz and Meir Kahane (Harvard/John Prieto) 29 years ago today, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz publicly debated radical Israeli politician Rabbi Meir Kahane on Israel, theocracy, and Jewish identity. The two had attended the same yeshiva high school in New York, where they both captained the debate team, but had taken dramatically different paths. While Dershowitz became the youngest tenured professor in Harvard Law School history, Kahane made a name for himself as a right-wing Jewish ideologue, whose political party “Kach” would be banned from the Knesset for racism. (Among other policies, Kahane advocated expelling Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza who refused to leave voluntarily, and defended acts of Jewish terrorism against them.) Despite the extremism of his views–or rather because of them–the charismatic Kahane attracted a growing base of supporters, composed largely of young people disaffected from the Jewish establishment. In 1984, after a failed attempt to ban it, his party won its first Knesset seat, and was soon projected to take more in the next election. But even as Kahane toured campuses in America to drum up support for his program–including imposing his brand of Jewish law on the Israeli populace–many in the Jewish establishment refused to engage him, not wanting to lend legitimacy to his views. (Many Hillels tried, sometimes unsuccessfully, to ban him.) Rather than diminish Kahane’s influence, however, such reticence only added to his notoriety. And so in 1984, Dershowitz challenged Kahane to the first of a series of public debates. The inaugural one took place at the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale on November 12, 1984. Five months later, they met again in Boston. The ensuing disputation is a testament to how much the Jewish community has changed in the intervening three decades–and how much it has stayed the same. Some elements are quite familiar: Kahane rails against the purportedly non-representative and feckless mainstream Jewish organizations; Dershowitz defends them. Young people in the audience cheer for Kahane’s radical politics; Dershowitz rejects them. Kahane claims that Judaism and liberal democracy are incompatible and calls for the advent of theocracy; Dershowitz labels this a false choice, and rebuffs Kahane’s attempt to define and legislate a “pure” Judaism. “I think it’s imperative that the world know not only that the vast majority of Jews repudiate Rabbi Kahane’s views, but also why we repudiate those views,” the professor said. “With God’s help,” countered Kahane, “when I become Prime Minister, not a single Arab will ever be killed in Israel, because not a single Arab will be there.” Other aspects of the debate are foreign: Dershowitz defends the prospect of a two-state solution in the face of Kahane’s opposition, at a time when many in the broader Jewish community remained deeply skeptical of the concept. Thanks in large part to advocates like Dershowitz who worked to mainstream it, the two-state solution would go on to become the watchword of American Jewry and every major Jewish organization. The entire debate–whose contents remain just as relevant today and offer a provocative mirror to our own historical moment–is well-worth watching in full: MORE IN:1985Alan DershowitzJewish Defense LeagueMeir Kahane Thou Shalt Read

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/9824

Brown tight-lipped on DC buzz In his first press conference since losing a bid for re-election last week, U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., spent much of his time ducking questions about whether he might seek a return to the Senate if Massachusetts� senior senator, Democrat John F. Kerry, is nominated for a slot in President Barack Obama�s Cabinet.�I have a job to do right now and there is not an opening right now for governor or senator, but there is an opening for a dad and a husband and that�s the role that I want to play,� Mr. Brown declared Tuesday.Mr. Brown contended that his �biggest concern� at the moment is ensuring a �smooth transition� between himself and Sen.-elect Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who ousted Mr. Brown on Nov. 6.Mr. Brown said he has told Mr. Kerry that he would make an �excellent secretary of state.�Mr. Kerry, a Vietnam War veteran, has been mentioned as a possible nominee for defense secretary. If Mr. Kerry were to be nominated for the Cabinet and confirmed by the Senate, Gov. Deval Patrick, a Democrat, could appoint a temporary successor, but a special election would have to be scheduled for a date between 145 and 160 days to fill the remainder of the term. Mr. Patrick has indicated he does not plan to seek re-election in 2014, and there has been speculation about a possible bid by Mr. Brown for governor.Mr. Brown said he wants to focus on completing his term over the next seven weeks by helping to resolve the fiscal cliff, when the expiration of Bush era tax cuts and the implementation of across-the-board, automatic budget reductions occur in January. Economists have warned the combination could cause the United States to slip back into a recession.Mr. Brown emphasized the importance of finding a way to step down from defense cuts under the sequestration process, as well as easing cuts in social services such as the low-income home energy assistance program.Labeling himself as a �bipartisan guy,� Mr. Brown said he is hopeful in light of Ms. Warren�s statements that she plans to work with both parties to help resolve the country�s issues.�Regardless of the outcome of the election, we�ve heard from both sides that we are tired of the gridlock and lack of cooperation,� he said. �I�m hopeful you�ll give (Elizabeth Warren) the same scrutiny you�ve given me throughout the past two and a half years.�As for the GOP, Mr. Brown said, �We need to be a larger tent party.�He declared: �I�m a pro-choice moderate Republican and the middle is vanishing. I�m hopeful that the Republican Party will be a more open-minded and tolerant party.�

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/9834

Obama, Park and Abe to discuss North Korea on Thursday WASHINGTON - Tuesday, March 29, 2016 11:28 North Korean leader Kim Jong Un salutes as he arrives to inspect a military drill at an unknown location, in this undated photo released by North Korea's Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) on March 25, 2016. Reuters/KCNA Defiant North Korea fires ballistic missile into sea, Japan protests North Korea fires missiles, liquidates Seoul's assets North Korea may get plutonium from restarted reactor in weeks: U.S. Pentagon chief says U.S. keeping eye on North Korea's missile program U.S. President Barack Obama will meet with South Korean President Park Geun-hye and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on Thursday to discuss North Korea's nuclear program, the White House said on Monday. The meeting on the sidelines of the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington will take place the same day Obama talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping. "This meeting will be an opportunity for the three leaders to discuss common responses to the threat posed by North Korea and to advance areas of trilateral security cooperation in the region and globally," the White House said in a statement. Relations between Park and Abe have been frosty in the past, but the two have been brought together in recent months by shared concerns about North Korea, which conducted a fourth nuclear bomb test on Jan. 6 and launched a long-range rocket into space last month. The United States has been keen to encourage better relations between Seoul and Japan, its two biggest allies in Asia, given concerns not only about North Korea but also an increasingly assertive China. Beijing has said Xi will push Obama to resume talks on the North Korean nuclear issue. Their meeting could also touch on U.S. concerns about Chinese computer hacking and Beijing's assertive pursuit of territory in the South China Sea. Obama, Park and Abe last met trilaterally on the sidelines of the previous Nuclear Security Summit in The Hague in 2014, but only at the cajoling of the U.S. president. Last November, Abe and Park held their first formal bilateral talks since taking office and the following month Japan and South Korea reached a landmark agreement to resolve their long-running dispute over women forced to work in Japan's wartime brothels. Military officials and defense officials said after the North Korean nuclear test in January that shared concerns about North Korea could cement the reconciliation and open the way for increased military cooperation between Japan and South Korea. Washington is relying increasingly on its Asian allies to work together and says trilateral defense cooperation is critical to maintaining regional security. China has signed up for tough new U.N. sanctions against North Korea but it has said repeatedly sanctions are not the answer and that only a resumption of talks can resolve the dispute over North Korea's weapons programme. Numerous efforts to restart the talks have failed since they collapsed following the last round in 2008. More : North Korea nuclear South China Sea

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/9858

Countdown: GOP unity frays as shutdown grows near Published September 30. 2013 9:00AM | Updated September 30. 2013 2:56PM DAVID ESPO, Associated Press Washington — Republican unity showed signs of fraying Monday as the Senate swatted aside the latest tea party-driven demand to delay the nation's health care overhaul in exchange for averting a partial government shutdown at midnight. Even in advance of the 54-46 party-line Senate vote, the stock market dropped as fears spread that the first shutdown in 17 years would inconvenience millions and harm the economy. "We're at the brink," said Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., as House GOP leaders calculated their next move.Ironically, the issue at the core of the dispute, implementation of key parts of "Obamacare," will begin Tuesday on schedule, shutdown or no.As lawmakers squabbled, President Barack Obama urged them instead to "act responsibly and do what's right for the American people."At the White House, he said he was willing to discuss long-term budget issues with members of Congress, and expected to do so soon. But, he added, "The only way to do that is for everybody to sit down in good faith without threatening to harm women and veterans and children with a government shutdown."Obama's Democratic allies prevailed easily in the Senate on a vote to reject the latest House-passed bill, a measure that would delay the new health care law for a year and repeal a tax on medical devices that helps play for the program.Anticipating their legislation would be rejected, House Republican leaders met in Speaker John Boehner's office to plan their next move. Officials said that even though time was running short, they expected at least one more attempt to squeeze a concession from the White House, likely a demand to force a one-year delay in the requirement for individuals to purchase health coverage or face financial penalties.A shutdown would cause an uneven impact across the face of government, inconveniencing millions.Many low-to-moderate-income borrowers and first-time homebuyers seeking government-backed mortgages could face delays. Passport applications would be delayed.About 800,000 federal workers, many already reeling from the effect of automatic budget cuts, would be ordered to report to work Tuesday for about four hours — but only to carry out shutdown-related chores such as changing office voicemail messages and completing time cards. Once they departed, they would be under orders not to do any government work.Some critical services such as patrolling the borders, inspecting meat and controlling air traffic would continue. Social Security benefits would be sent, and the Medicare and Medicaid health care programs for the elderly and poor would continue to pay doctors and hospitals.For the first time since the showdown began more than a week ago, there was public dissent from the Republican strategy that has been carried out at the insistence of tea party-aligned lawmakers working in tandem with GOP Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.Rep. Charles Dent, R-Pa., said he was willing to vote for stand-alone legislation that would keep the government running and contained no health care-related provisions. "I would be supportive of it, and I believe the votes are there in the House to pass it at that point," he said.Dent added he has been urging the Republican leadership to allow a vote along those lines.A second Republican, Rep. Doug Lamborn of Colorado, said, "We haven't given up on Obamacare ... but for this week we may have to give up. We tried everything and Harry Reid won't budge," he said of the Senate majority leader.In response, a spokesman for Boehner said the leadership would discuss options with the rank and file at a closed-door meeting later in the day.On Sunday, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said she, too, was ready to vote to keep the government open without conditions.In remarks Monday on the House floor, Boehner criticized the Senate for taking the day off on Sunday, after the House had passed legislation shortly before 1 a.m. "Well my goodness, if there's such an emergency, where are they?" he said.Other Republicans sought to blame Democrats for any shutdown, but Dent conceded that Republicans would bear the blame, whether or not they deserved it.The last time the government shutdown, in 1996, Republicans suffered significant political damage, and then-President Bill Clinton's political fortunes were revived in the process.Now, as then, Republicans control the House, and senior lawmakers insist even a shutdown isn't likely to threaten their majority in the 2014 elections. "We may even gain seats," Oregon Rep. Greg Walden, who chairs the party campaign committee, said recently.For all the controversy about other matters, the legislation in question is a spending bill — and there was little if any disagreement about the spending-related issues.The House and Senate have agreed to fix spending for a wide swath of federal programs at an annual level of $986 billion.Without separate legislation to make further reductions, across-the-board cuts would automatically take effect early next year that would reduce the level to $967 billion.Associated Press writers Alan Fram, Andrew Taylor, Laurie Kellman, Pauline Jelinek and Donna Cassata in Washington and Marc Levy in Harrisburg, Pa., contributed to this report.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/9878

Home | Video | Policy Areas The HillTube Panetta: Ex-SEAL’s bin Laden book weakens US ability to ‘go after enemies’ By Justin Sink - 09/11/12 11:33 AM EDT Defense Secretary Leon Panetta reacted angrily Tuesday to the publication of a new book, not vetted by the Pentagon, that reveals details of the Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden.While Panetta conceded "that the American people have a right to know about this operation," he said the book, written by a retired SEAL involved in the mission, put troops in future operations at risk.Service members who were part of that operation had committed "themselves to the promise that they will not reveal the sensitive operations and not publish anything without bringing it through the Pentagon, so that we can ensure that it doesn't reveal sensitive information," said the Defense secretary in an interview with CBS News. "When they fail to do that, we have got to make sure that they stand by the promise they made to this country."ADVERTISEMENTAsked by correspondent Norah O'Donnell why he used the phrase "sensitive" rather than "classified," Panetta said. "There's always fine lines here."But even beyond that, the fact that he did it without running it by the Pentagon so that we could take a look at it ... that's a concern," Panetta continued."I cannot, as secretary, send a signal to SEALs who conduct those operations, 'Oh, you can conduct these operations and then go out and write a book about it ... and/or sell your story to The New York Times.' How the hell can we run sensitive operations here that go after enemies if people are allowed to do that?"Panetta also warned that the man — who wrote the book under a pseudonym but whose identity was quickly revealed — might be in danger now."He was very much a part of the operation that got bin Laden," Panetta said. "There's no question that that should make him concerned, makes us concerned about his safety."The secretary was visibly upset by the content of the book — and by O'Donnell's next question: whether it was "irresponsible" for the Pentagon not to have developed a contingency plan if the proposed billions in cuts to the defense budget as part of sequestration came to fruition."What's irresponsible is the fact that they've put these cuts into place and that they are failing to come up with the answer as to how to prevent this from happening," Panetta said. "They put a gun to their head. That's what a sequester was all about. They said, 'Let's put a gun to our head and if we don't do the right thing, we'll blow the heads off.' But the purpose was for Democrats and Republicans to do the right thing and prevent this from happening. That's what's irresponsible." Share on Facebook More in News Panetta: US has been able to 'prevent another 9/11-type attack'

时政

2014-42/1379/en_head.json.gz/2363

Posted on September 13, 2010 by John Hinderaker Did Castle Vote to Impeach Bush? The madness continues, as activists who support Christine O’Donnell in the Delaware Senate primary have stepped up their attacks on Mike Castle by alleging that he voted to impeach President Bush. That will come as a surprise to those who wonder how they missed such a vote, but Dan Riehl assures us that it is true. Not only that, he explicitly ties this claim to radio talk show host Mark Levin’s attack on us; he titles his post “Paging Powerline.” He says that he would “like to hear from Powerline as to why they are supporting someone who signed on to such ‘moonbattery’ and did such damage to our country.” First of all, Riehl’s claim–which he says may have originated with Mark Levin–is absurd on its face. The House of Representatives never voted on whether to impeach President Bush. The vote that Riehl and other anti-Castle pundits refer to is this one, to refer Dennis Kucinich’s impeachment resolution to the House Judiciary Committee. That motion passed; obviously it was not an impeachment resolution, or we would have had an impeachment trial. Castle was one of 24 Republicans who voted for the referral resolution, along with conservative stalwarts like Peter King, Kevin Brady, Ralph Hall, and others. Was a vote for this referral resolution tantamount to a vote to impeach President Bush, as Dan Riehl and, reportedly, Mark Levin claim? That certainly isn’t what left-wingers thought. Here is how the web site Impeach Bush covered the vote: Q: Is it a good thing that it was referred to the Judiciary Committee? A: Yes. The mainstream media is saying the resolution was “scuttled”. But referral to Judiciary Committee is the normal process for moving forward with an impeachment resolution. Now HRes 1258 can be fine tuned while we build support in Congress and with the public. But there is a danger. If we cannot convince John Conyers to schedule time for HRes 1258 then it could die. Which, of course, is what happened. So Congressman Castle voted, as the media reported at the time, to “scuttle” Kucinich’s impeachment resolution. Here is more from Impeach Bush: Q. How did our Reps vote and what does it mean? A: Kucinich moved that HRes 1258 be referred to the Judiciary Committee. All of the Democrats and 24 Republicans voted “Aye” (yes). A yes vote could mean that the Representative supported the resolution and wanted to see it developed further in the Judiciary. Or it could mean they wanted to send it to committee for a slow death. It is a reasonable supposition that the Republicans who voted for HRes 1258 did so in order that Kucinich’s impeachment drive could die “a slow death.” Is that what Congressman Castle had in mind? Yes, it was. This left-wing web site sounded out Delaware’s representatives on their position on impeachment. The site’s author was bitterly disappointed by Congressman Castle’s response: First I called Senator Carper and was told that they would not support Impeachment at this time. I also called Congressman Castle’s office and was completely shocked. I was told that the Congressman would not support Impeachment because they believed there weren’t any crimes committed by the Bush administration. There you have it. Mike Castle never voted to impeach President Bush; no such vote ever occurred on the floor of the House. He did vote to commit goofball Congressman Dennis Kucinich’s impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee, where it died, as intended, a slow death. And Castle’s office said that it opposed impeachment because “they believed there weren’t any crimes committed by the Bush administration.” Is Mike Castle as conservative as I am? No, I am sure he is not. On the other hand, he, like me, is a Republican, and he, unlike me, has an excellent chance to be elected to the Senate from Delaware. If some conservatives, like Mark Levin, prefer a different candidate, fine. There is a case to be made on both sides. But attacking the motivations of their fellow Republicans and fellow conservatives is stupid; and it is worse than stupid to misrepresent positions that have been taken by Mike Castle, or any other candidate. Such falsehoods are typical of the Left. We conservatives are better than that; or should be, anyway.

时政

2014-42/1379/en_head.json.gz/2372

Russia Slams U.S. for Accusing Syria of Terrorism MosNews | January 21 2005 Russia has slammed the United States for accusing Syria of having ties to terrorism, criticizing it for harming security in the Middle East with such statements. “It’s well known that slapping labels on countries and unilaterally describing certain states as part of the ’axis of evil’ has not improved anyone’s security,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko was quoted by Interfax as saying on Friday. “Syria is one of the key players in the region and resumption of talks with Israel on the Syrian question is important in the context of the Middle East peace process.” U.S. Secretary of State-designate Condoleezza Rice has warned Syria it faces new sanctions because of its suspected interference in Iraq and ties to terrorism. Russia, meanwhile, is embroiled in a diplomatic crisis with Israel over intentions to sell anti-aircraft missiles to Syria, Israel’s foe. Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon urged Russian President Vladimir Putin in a Thursday telephone call not to sell arms to Syria because that would strengthen the Lebanese Hizbollah guerrilla group. Yakovenko’s comments — and Sharon’s telephone call — came just ahead of a visit to Moscow by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad next week. The United States has tried to put pressure on Russia in the past over its nuclear cooperation with Iran, which Washington says seeks to acquire nuclear weapons. Get Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson's books, ALL Alex's documentary films, films by other authors, audio interviews and special reports. Sign up at Prison Planet.tv - CLICK HERE.

时政

2014-42/1379/en_head.json.gz/2492

What is the 'indefinite detention' bill? Since its Senate approval several days ago, controversy has been mounting over a military authorization bill referred to as the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, which President Obama is expected to sign. At the core of the controversy is a provision allowing for the long-term military detention of individuals accused of terrorism, including U.S. citizens, "without trial until the end of the hostilities." The bill does not pertain to immigrant detention, which is carried out by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. However, civil rights groups who deal with immigrants, including Muslim civil rights organizations, have been among those voicing opposition, fearing further codification of war-on-terror practices that over the years have landed a number of innocent people in federal custody and, in some cases, eventually in deportation proceedings. Salon's Glenn Greenwald has been closely following the NDAA over the course of several posts, including this recent "three myths" post in which he interprets the detention aspect: Source: Salon It simply cannot be any clearer within the confines of the English language that this bill codifies the power of indefinite detention. It expressly empowers the President " with regard to anyone accused of the acts in section (b) " to detain them "without trial until the end of the hostilities." That is the very definition of "indefinite detention," and the statute could not be clearer that it vests this power. Anyone claiming this bill does not codify indefinite detention should be forced to explain how they can claim that in light of this crystal clear provision. It is true, as I"ve pointed out repeatedly, that both the Bush and Obama administrations have argued that the 2001 AUMF implicitly (i.e., silently) already vests the power of indefinite detention in the President, and post-9/11 deferential courts have largely accepted that view (just as the Bush DOJ argued that the 2001 AUMF implicitly (i.e., silently) allowed them to eavesdrop on Americans without the warrants required by law). That"s why the NDAA can state that nothing is intended to expand the 2001 AUMF while achieving exactly that: because the Executive and judicial interpretation being given to the 2001 AUMF is already so much broader than its language provides. Read more at: www.salon.com Growing up Nisei: The social clubs of Japanese-American girls In the news this morning: DHS to screen Arpaio's inmates after civil rights probe, deportations could split family between three countries, Join the discussion.

时政

2014-42/1379/en_head.json.gz/2504

News Release From the Office of State Senator Royce West - District 23 Monday - November 8, 2010 For Immediate Release CONTACT: Kelvin Bass, 214-467-0123; or Graham Keever, 512-463-0123 Senator Royce West prefiles legislation for 82nd Session Bills focus on empowering homeowners; protection from predatory lending DALLAS — State Senator Royce West (D-Dallas) filed 11 pieces of legislation today, the first day to file bills for the upcoming 82nd session of the Texas Legislature. Among them is Senate Bill 142 that addresses homeowners' associations. It is a reprise of legislation that came up one vote short of final passage in 2009. "Many Texans consider living in residential communities overseen by homeowners' associations (HOAs) as a plus. They feel that it enhances the value of their property," said Senator West. "But as the HOA industry has expanded, overzealous and unreasonable enforcement of deed restrictions has occurred. Now, many HOA residents feel powerless when they attempt to negotiate with HOA boards, management companies, and attorneys about purported violations and associated fines, which can ultimately lead to foreclosure. "SB142 attempts to curb the worst abuses in the HOA industry, and return to residents the ability to participate in their own communities' governance," said Senator West. Senate Bill 143 looks to reign in the proliferation of payday loan companies in certain neighborhoods. The bill will also bring interest rates charged by payday lenders back in line with state lending practices. "The number of payday lenders operating in the state has nearly tripled since 2006 (from 1,270 to 3,594)," said Senator West. "This, of course, is indicative of the recent economic downturn from which the country is slowly recovering. While I recognize the need to make credit available to working people, these payday lenders and car title companies - that charge interest rates as high as 500 percent in some cases - are taking advantage of people when they're down. "By closing a loophole in existing law, SB143 should help people get credit in a pinch without falling into an endless cycle of debt from which they cannot recover," Senator West added. In other legislation filed today by Senator West, SB167 authorizes the state to represent a person who has been exonerated of a wrongful conviction in having the records of that offense expunged. And SB148 prohibits municipal utility districts from using the power of eminent domain outside of their boundaries. "Between redistricting and the $25 billion dollar state budget deficit, it's going to be a difficult session," Senator West concluded. "But there should still be plenty of opportunities to do good work that will move Texas forward, and I think these bills are a good start."

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/10046

Asia US Condemns Release of Afghan Detainees January 27, 2014 2:53 AM FILE - An Afghan prisoner waits in line for his release from Parwan Detention Facility after the U.S. military gave control of its last detention facility to Afghan authorities in Bagram, outside Kabul, Afghanistan, March 2013. U.S. military headquarters in Afghanistan has condemned a decision to release 37 detainees it calls "legitimate threats to security." A statement Monday from United States Forces-Afghanistan calls the release a "major step backward" for developing rule of law in Afghanistan. The detainees are part of a group of 88 being held at a prison on the U.S.-run Bagram air field. Talking to VOA's Afghan Service, Abdul Shakoor Daadras, a member of the Afghan panel that reviews the cases of detainees at Bagram, said these prisoners have been detained for too long without legal recourse. "I am not a judge nor a prosecutor," said Daadras. "But I can say that the cases of these prisoners have not reached the level where a judge could hear them. We are assigned to assess them before they get to that level." President Hamid Karzai ordered a review of their cases, and earlier this month his office said all but 16 would be released because there was not enough evidence to put the majority on trial. On Saturday, he called the Bagram facility a "Taliban-producing factory" where Afghans are tortured into hating their country. The U.S. military statement says there is strong evidence for prosecution or further investigation of the 37 detainees being released. It says 17 of them are linked to improvised explosive attacks, three were involved in wounding or killing Afghan soldiers, and four are connected to attacks against coalition troops. U.S. Army Colonel Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman, said, "These are individuals with blood on their hands, both U.S., coalition and Afghan blood on their hands." The commander of international troops in Afghanistan, General Joseph Dunford, said earlier this month that the detainee release would raise concerns for the safety of his troops and the Afghan people. A group of U.S. senators who visited Afghanistan this month said releasing the detainees without trial would have a devastating impact on relations between the two countries. Those ties are already strained by negotiations over a security pact that would allow some U.S. forces to remain in Afghanistan past the planned withdrawal of international forces by the end of this year. An assembly of Afghan elders and politicians endorsed the agreement late last year, but Karzai has refused to sign it, saying he wants the U.S. to end raids against Afghan homes and help begin peace talks with the Taliban. US Condemns Afghan Order to Free 37 Prisoners Karzai Stands Firm on Terms of US Presence US Considers Options for Troops in Afghanistan Afghanistan Cracks Down on Advertising in Favor of US Troops Afghanistan to Release 72 Prisoners Deemed Threat by US

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/10069

Letter: Where are our priorities? By John Tradup, Willmar How about a few non-partisan comments about this year's political campaigns? The situation is almost laughable, if it wasn't so tragic. Twisted remarks, lies, you name it; we've had it this year.The thing that surprises me the most is all the attention paid to "the last eight years." I suppose that makes President Bush responsible for everything from 9-11 to Hurricane Katrina. But wait. If the Democratic Party has all the answers, where have they been the last two years when they've been in control of Congress?As for the to-do about the economy, didn't the "Great Society" programs of LBJ become the "Great Giveaway"? And from that time on both parties lined up to give everything to everybody -- free-spending us into the chaos we have today. There's plenty of blame to go around to both parties. But if my memory serves me correctly, the liberal faction was led by stalwarts from ultra-liberals like Ted Kennedy, and yes, Hubert Humphrey. Their battle cry was, "We can afford it."And by the way, weren't the Democrats in control of Congress about 40 years during this time?The philosophy of "give everything to everybody" took over our national thinking, and both sides of the aisle are guilty of jumping on the bandwagon. And Americans believed in it and lined up with their hands out. Kinda caught up with us, didn't it? But of course it's George's fault. For my money there's no such thing as a conservative any more. It's a race to see who can give away the most.At the state level, I've had "Pawlenty" of our current governor preaching we can't raise taxes. How do you budget for gas at $4 a gallon and still plow snow on a budget that was perhaps two years old? All he's done is push higher taxes on to cities, townships, school districts, etc. And our society has had to "dumb down" education and raise more money on the local level.Where are our priorities?And a proposed constitutional change to raise funds for the environment and the arts! No way. Explore related topics:letterslettersElectionCampaignDemocratsconservativeliberalspendingJohntradup

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/10106

Feds Gave 'Conflicting' Answers on Controversial Immigration Program: Report Share on Facebook Mirela Iverac Federal officials provided “unclear and conflicting responses to inquiries and concerns” related to the federal immigration program known as Secure Communities that Governor Andrew Cuomo opted out of last year, according to a new report.Though Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency did not intentionally mislead the public, the report finds, it did cause states confusion over whether the federal program aimed at identifying and deporting criminal aliens was mandatory.“Confusion within the agency regarding intent and participation led ICE to misinform and confuse stakeholders and the media,” concluded the report issued by the Department of Homeland Security Office of General Inspector. After some contradicting statements related to whether the program was mandatory, ICE said last year states could not opt-out of the program and that it would be implemented nationwide by 2013.Cuomo withdrew New York from the Secure Communities program, noting that it failed to meet its stated goal to “deport serious felons.”Critics of the program argued that it ensnared victims of domestic violence, individuals with no criminal record and low-level offenders. The report, released last Friday, also says the program met its goal of finding and removing immigrants with criminal convictions and identifying them earlier in the justice process with “little or no additional cost to local law enforcement.”States regularly send fingerprints of arrestees to the FBI to check for a criminal record. With Secure Communities, the FBI automatically sends the fingerprints to ICE to check against its immigration databases. If these checks reveal that an individual is unlawfully in the U.S. or has a criminal conviction, ICE takes action. Last April, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, top Democrat on the Immigration Subcommittee, requested an investigation to determine whether the program was effective, and whether misleading and false statements were made by administration and ICE officials intentionally regarding the mandatory participation.She said the report failed to answer crucial questions, such as whether individuals with no criminal history get caught up in the program and if it is susceptible to racial profiling. In New York, 31 counties became a part of the program before the Governor withdrew the state. Since January 2011, 409 undocumented immigrants were removed from those counties. ICE also activated the program in New Jersey and Connecticut in February 2012. As of April, the program has been activated in 2,670 jurisdictions across 48 states and territories. More than 692,000 criminal aliens have been removed through the program since it was introduced three years ago.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/10183

By Katrin Teel, Special to the BDN It’s no secret Maine families are struggling. Taxes continue to rise, family budgets are stretched thin and too many bright young Mainers are turning to other states to start their own lives and families. That’s because Maine government has failed to address our challenges and our concerns. This cannot continue. I am running to represent part of Bangor in the Maine House of Representatives. I’m running to refocus our government on the issues that are important to you. As a registered nurse and educator, I’ve seen a lot. I’ve had the good fortune of teaching in both the Business Management and Allied Health Department at Beal College. Also, I have served local businesses as director of the Wellness Council of Maine, within the Bangor Region Chamber of Commerce to help employers support employee wellness programs designed to improve health and reduce health care costs. As a volunteer, I’ve also seen the challenges facing those less fortunate. Over the course of seven medical missions to Latin America, I’ve served as an operating room nurse, helped establish teaching programs on women’s health, participated in a pilot program to provide health care in remote Indian communities within the jungle areas of Ecuador, and as a nurse educator in several schools in Bolivia.Story continues below advertisement. But I am also a mother. I want my children to live and work in Maine. I want your children and grandchildren to have the opportunity to do the same. That is why I am running for office. I want to put my experiences to work for you, and change the direction Maine is heading. It is Maine’s small business community that will create the jobs that bring us out of recession. In a recent report citing the best states for business and careers, Forbes Magazine ranked Maine 50th, the lowest of all states. In Augusta, I will champion legislation that reduces burdensome regulations on small businesses so they can focus on investing in our community and creating new jobs. More Mainers will find good jobs, and our economy will grow stronger. I’m running to make Maine an ally, not an adversary, to business owners. We can no longer punish the entrepreneurs we need to get Maine working again. We must also reject the idea that Maine can continue borrowing its way to economic recovery. Maine’s public debt is a staggering $11.5 billion. This burden is more than $22,000 per Maine household that families will have to pay. As your representative, I will vote against any increases in our government debt and fight to reduce that debt without raising or shifting taxes. Our kids and grandkids deserve a chance at real financial security in Maine. The days of unchecked borrowing must end. And during these challenging economic times, Maine families have had to live on less and less while government demands more and more. Just like borrowing, we cannot spend our way to prosperity. In Augusta, I will take a stand and do whatever is necessary to rein in wasteful government spending, while ensuring our highest priorities are fully met. I’m running to bring people of all political stripes together behind common-sense solutions that will make Maine a great place to live, work and raise a family. Many believe Maine is beyond repair. That’s the wrong attitude. We have a tremendous opportunity to fix our state, and address those concerns that prevent peace of mind for Maine families. I’m running to be a part of the solution, and to be your voice in Augusta. You can count on me to fight for the positive reforms to save Maine. Katrin Teel is a nurse and the Republican candidate for House District 17, which includes part of Bangor. She can be reached by e-mail at kteel@midmaine.com. https://bangordailynews.com/2010/10/27/opinion/fighting-to-move-mainersquos-economy-in-better-direction/ printed on October 1, 2016

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/10263

Item 9: Response to the Report of Special Rapporteur Doudou Diene US Mission Geneva U.S. Mission to the UN U.S. Mission to the WTO U.S. Delegation to the CD U.S. Delegation to the HRC Refugees / Migration Intl. Trade / WTO Intellectual Property / WIPO Labor / ILO Foreign Agricultural Service – Geneva Office Conf. on Disarmament CCW Treaty Iran Nuclear Agreement Other Intl. Security Issues Telecoms / ICT / ITU HRC33 Special Sessions of the HRC UPR of the United States Internet Freedom Fellows International Organization Affairs IO’s Diplomatic Missions UN Effectiveness Americans Abroad Video Series Presolicitation US Mission Geneva>Human Rights > Item 9: Response to the Report of Special Rapporteur Doudou Diene Item 9: Response to the Report of Special Rapporteur Doudou Diene Statement by the Delegation of the United States of America Geneva, June 16, 2009 Thank you, Mr. President. The United States is pleased to respond to the report of Special Rapporteur Doudou Diene’s mission to the United States of America last year. My government welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s visit and appreciated the opportunity for constructive dialogue. We arranged numerous meetings with various federal government agencies involved in enforcing the nation’s civil rights laws and administering the myriad programs whose goals are the elimination of racial discrimination and the promotion of respect for civil rights. We appreciated the professionalism and intellectually rigorous approach the Special Rapporteur exhibited in the course of these meetings. The United States also appreciates the Special Rapporteur’s report and its constructive spirit. We note, as the Special Rapporteur did in his report, that the United States is profoundly committed to the fight against racism and racial discrimination, and we are aware of the ongoing challenges in this regard. As described in the report, the United States has made great progress in creating a legal and institutional framework to combat racism and racial discrimination, but we recognize that more needs to be done. We circulated his report to the various government agencies with whom the Special Rapporteur met and they will consider it as they review existing laws, policies and programs in the various areas addressed by his report. Permit us to briefly highlight some initiatives that respond to issues raised by the Special Rapporteur. President Obama is committed to reinvigorating traditional civil rights enforcement in the United States and increasing the number of enforcement actions in a variety of areas, including police misconduct and employment discrimination. As evidence of this commitment, the President has requested 145 million dollars for civil rights enforcement by the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division in 2010. The Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties within the Department of Homeland Security, which is charged with reviewing public complaints of discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, and other bases, will strengthen its various programs by hiring additional investigators, immigration experts and other personnel. It will continue to strengthen efforts to engage with various religious and ethnic communities in the United States who have been impacted by government laws and policies enacted after the terrorist attacks of September 11. The Office has also recently created a training module designed to enhance the cultural competency of DHS personnel, as well as state and local law enforcement and intelligence analysts. Topics of discussion include: misconceptions and stereotypes of members of minority religions; a how-to guide for community interaction; effective policing without the use of ethnic profiling; and the U.S. Government’s approach to engagement and outreach. To bolster enforcement of employment discrimination laws, including the prohibition against race and color discrimination in employment, the President is seeking a 23 million dollar increase in the budget of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. This would allow the Commission to hire more front-line investigators and attorneys. As part of a renewed emphasis on wage protection laws, the President’s budget calls for increasing by more than 280 individuals the staff of the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division. The laws the Wage and Hour Division enforce protect employees without regard to race or immigration status. In addition, the Division has developed a series of “We Can Help” posters that are available in English and Spanish and that are designed to increase the public awareness of the wage protection laws and the Division’s services. These posters supplement workers’ rights cards, already provided in a variety of languages, to explain the protections afforded to vulnerable workers by the government’s wage protection laws. The United States continues to look for ways to support school districts seeking to achieve diversity and avoid racial isolation in its schools, as well as reduce the achievement gap between white and minority students. For example, Congress recently appropriated funds under Title Four (IV) of the Civil Rights Act program for technical assistance to school districts seeking to develop and implement student assignment plans to promote diversity and avoid racial isolation. And finally, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provides new funding to improve education for at-risk students and to narrow the achievement gap while stimulating the economy. Follow Us!HumanRights.gov Related posts: U.S. Joins UN Human Rights Council Explanations of Position on Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children and Human Rights in Sudan Item 10 General Debate - Technical Assistance and Capacity Building Item 10 - Interactive Dialogue with the Independent Expert on Haiti Item 9: Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance Item 4: Presentation of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Sudan, Dr. Sima Samar Previous: Item 9: Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance Next: Item 10 – Interactive Dialogue with the Independent Expert on Haiti Follow Us!Outcomes of the 31st HRC Permanent Mission of the United States of America to the United Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva 11 Route de Pregny

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/10335

You are hereHomeThe MagazineHawks Against the Bomb Hawks Against the Bomb By Tyler Wigg-Stevenson November 2009 Print What on earth happened to George Shultz? So wondered Republicans and Democrats alike when, in 2007, President Reagan’s former secretary of state emerged as one of the leading champions of the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. Their confusion was forgivable. Whether or not you liked Shultz, you knew where he stood: a consummate Cold Warrior and the architect of a foreign policy regarded as the modern apotheosis of “peace through strength.” Detractors regarded this legacy with alarm, recalling what they saw as unremitting nuclear brinkmanship and ideological anti-communism. In the eyes of supporters, these same traits established him as a chief spokesperson for the halcyon days of Ronald Reagan. That’s why this new move to ban the bomb seemed, to many, like an about-face for Shultz—reminiscent of Robert McNamara’s famous retrospective disavowal of Vietnam-era policies he’d designed. But it turns out that this represents a fundamental misunderstanding, both of Shultz the man and his nearly seven-decade career. I sat down with Shultz in his Stanford office to talk about his status at the forefront of the latest—and most vigorous—campaign to end the nuclear threat once and for all. What I discovered was that Shultz’s current position actually stands in remarkable continuity with his history. Far from turning into a dove, Shultz wants to eliminate nuclear weapons because he’s still a hawk. In fact, George Shultz hasn’t changed at all. It’s the world that’s changed around him. And understanding this fact is the key to understanding the surprising new coalition that’s trying to eliminate the bomb. Read the Full Article

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/10402

Click here to search Greater London Council Former government body, London, United Kingdom in London (national capital, United Kingdom): Greater London The same two-tier pattern, with its attendant tensions, was repeated in 1965 when the LCC was replaced by the Greater London Council. Its boundaries were extended to include suburbs developed after 1888—i.e., more or less the entire built-up area within the Green Belt. At the same time, more than 100 existing local councils were amalgamated to form a modernized system of 33 boroughs,... opposition of Thatcher in Margaret Thatcher: Prime minister ...the work of the Irish Republican Army, nearly killed Thatcher and several senior members of her government. After battling Ken Livingstone’s Labour-led London government, Thatcher abolished the Greater London Council in 1986. By the end of Thatcher’s second term, few aspects of British life had escaped the most sweeping transformation of Britain since the postwar reforms of the Labour... Greater London Council

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/10530

Benghazi: From cradle to grave of the NTC? Published time: 14 Dec, 2011 18:05Edited time: 15 Dec, 2011 03:40Get short URL BENGHAZI : Libyans hold a slogan which is read in Arabic "Hey revolutionary and free Libyans, No amnesty for fighters loyal to Kadhafi, who committed crimes" during a protest against the National Transitional Council and its head Mustafa Abdel Jalil in the eastern city of Benghazi on December 12, 2011. (AFP Photo/Abdullah Doma) / AFP The Libyan city of Benghazi, the birthplace of the rebellion that toppled Muammar Gaddafi, might also prove to be the deathbed of the ruling NTC. For two days, thousands of people have been protesting against the NTC and its chairman. TrendsLibyan conflictTagsProtest, Bill Dod, LibyaThe rallies directed against the ruling National Transitional Council (NTC) erupted on Monday, following the council’s conference on Saturday, during which chairman Mustafa Abdel Jalil called for forgiveness for former Gaddafi loyalist fighters. Protesters gathered at Shajara Square, which was the birthplace of the anti-Gaddafi rebel movement back in February. Their slogans included “The NTC must quit,” “Jalil must go” and “The people want another revolution,” AFP reports. Apart from calling for more transparency and a quicker pace of reforms, they also demanded the publication of a full list of NTC members and expressed their anger over the NTC’s decision to pardon Gaddafi loyalists. Mustafa Abdel Jalil responded by calling for patience: “I want to reassure Libyans that a lot will be done. Be patient. The NTC will start its own website on which the list of its members and the activities of the NTC will be made public.” The NTC also issued a statement, in which it promised to decentralize power and to make Benghazi the economic capital of Libya. But the rallies continued on Tuesday, with approximately 5,000 people taking to the streets to demonstrate against the NTC. Bassem Fakhri, a political science professor from the University of Benghazi, was quoted by AFP as saying: “Jalil’s statement did not affect or touch anyone. Who is he to tell us this? He is not the president. Benghazi is not expecting only to be the economic capital. We want transparency, representation for women, decentralization, representation for youth and the full list of NTC members.” NTC member Fathi Baja also backed protesters saying their demands “reflect the beat on the streets of Benghazi and other eastern cities.”Mark Almond, a professor of international relations from the University of Bilkent, believes one of the main issues the demonstrators have against the new government is the redistribution of revenues from oil and gas, found primarily in the east of the country.“One big issue with the people of Benghazi and in eastern Libya is many of them felt that Gaddafi’s regime distributed too much of the income away from the oil and gas that was predominantly to be found in their region” Almond told RT “And they fear perhaps now that the new self-proclaimed government is also taking control of the revenues and distributing them as it sees fit rather than perhaps as the people who started the uprising hoped would be the case – that they would get the money. In the west the people with guns who overthrew Gaddafi in Tripoli and took control of Tripoli, of course, don’t want to see the revenues redistributed back to the east. They feel they are entitled to cash because they, after all, did the fighting is what they tend to say.”Patrick Hayes, a reporter for the online magazine Spiked, disagrees, saying east-west divisions don’t play such a big role now and that they were “put on ice by Western intervention.” He believes the real issue all Libyans have with the NTC is the council’s undemocratic and secretive nature. “I think it’s a very interesting development because the National Transition Council was never part of a democratically-forged Libya anyway” Hayes said in an interview with RT “They were never on the streets really, fighting with the Libyan people against Gaddafi. A lot of them, in fact, were in other countries at the time, waiting to almost be helicoptered in when it was safe enough to enter Tripoli. But what you had with the NTC from the start, and we’ve been talking about this for several months now, was a transitional council which is made up of, to the extent we know how it was made up, it was made up of Gaddafi cronies, people who were basically cherry-picked by the West as being suitable people to represent the Libyan people.”Hayes explained why many Libyans are angry with the NTC: “The Libyan people are saying, hang on a minute, these people don’t represent us. We don’t really know who they are. We have this Western-orientated National Transitional Council, which doesn’t yet represent the Libyan people and understandably the Libyan people are getting quite cross about this. They fought for democracy, a lot of them lost their lives for democracy and now effectively as the banners on the protests say, we came this far only to now be represented by former Gaddafi cronies.”Stephen Brown, contributing editor from the FrontPage Magazine, believes Libya may be on the brink of another civil war.“People are very dissatisfied with the way things are going. They fought hard, especially in Benghazi. They don’t think they’ve been properly rewarded,” he told RT.“And now you are going to see the county fall apart into different areas of warlords, just like in Afghanistan.”embed video Benghazi to NTC: Dismantle militias! Where is our army? Saif al-Islam Gaddafi may face death penalty in Libya New Libya: Guns to go silent but future elusive War-torn Libya last resort for jobless Gazans

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/10554

UN general assembly backs call for Assad to quit as Syrian president Russia and China oppose resolution which backs Arab League plan calling on Syrian president Bashar al-Assad to step down Bashar Ja'afari, the Syrian ambassador to the United Nations, calls a point of order before the general assembly voted to condemn the violence in Syria. Photograph: Justin Lane/EPA David Batty @David_Batty The UN general assembly has approved a resolution backing an Arab League plan that calls on the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad to step down and strongly condemns human rights violations in Syria by his regime. The vote in the 193-member body was 137-12 with 17 abstentions. Russia and China, who vetoed a similar resolution in the security council, voted against the resolution. There are no vetoes in the general assembly and its resolutions are not legally binding, but they do reflect world opinion on major issues. Western diplomats were hoping for a high yes vote to deliver a strong message to Assad to immediately end all human rights violations and attacks on civilians and hand power to his vice-president. "Today the UN General Assembly sent a clear message to the people of Syria - the world is with you," US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice said in a statement. "An overwhelming majority of UN member states have backed the plan put forward by the Arab League to end the suffering of Syrians. Bashar al-Assad has never been more isolated." Following the vote, British foreign secretary, William Hague said the resolution "sent a clear signal of the international community's condemnation of the Syrian regime's actions and intention to hold to account those responsible for the ongoing atrocities." He added: "The message is unambiguous. The violence must stop immediately. President Assad and the Syrian regime must heed the call of the international community and allow a peaceful political transition to resolve the crisis." The resolution said the assembly "fully supports" the Arab League plan and urges UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to appoint a special envoy to Syria. It also condemns Assad's remine for "widespread and systematic violations of human rights" and calls for the withdrawal of Syrian forces from besieged towns and cities. Syrian ambassador Bashar Ja'afari rejected the resolution, telling the assembly that it was part of a plot to overthrow Assad and allow the "terrorist" opposition to take over the country. "We have deep concerns vis-a-vis the real intentions of the countries that have co-sponsored this draft, particularly that these countries are leading a political and media aggression against Syria," he said. Russian ambassador Vitaly Churkin said the resolution "reflects the worrying trend ... to attempt to isolate the Syrian leadership, to reject any contact with it and to impose an external formula for a political settlement." He said before the vote that a large majority in favor of the resolution would increase the pressure on Assad to comply with the Arab League plan, and would highlight the isolation of Russia and China on the issue. Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and Bolivia were among other countries that opposed the resolution. 'They are pushing Syria into a religious war that they will certainly get' Martin Chulov observes life and death in a terrified town near Homs preparing for a bloody onslaught by the Syrian army Ban Ki-moon accuses Syrian regime of potential crimes against humanity UN secretary general demands end to indiscriminate force against civilians as troops loyal to government fight rebels

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/10555

Bush Spins at the UN George W. Bush's September 21 speech to the United Nations, marked by an air of unreality and hypocrisy, was insulting to many other nations. By the Editors September 23, 2004 George W. Bush’s September 21 speech to the United Nations, marked by an air of unreality and hypocrisy, was insulting to many other nations. Bush presented the United States as the world’s premier social worker, leading the fight against AIDS, poverty, child trafficking, human cloning and genocide in Darfur. At best, the Administration has a mixed record in these areas, while the United States continues to give less overseas aid as a percentage of gross national income than any other industrialized country. Moreover, the Administration has focused virtually nonstop on terrorism and Iraq, even when other countries have wanted to talk about trade, economic development and other issues. Ad Policy Bush further insulted his listeners by speaking about Iraq as if the United States did what other UN members were not willing to do–namely, enforce UN Security Council resolutions. By arguing that the war on Iraq was necessary to enforce such resolutions, he ignored the irony of the situation as revealed after the US invasion: Iraq, it turned out, was in substantial compliance with UN demands to disarm. Bush made no acknowledgment of error in the US assessment of the Iraqi threat or its violation of the UN charter in going to war there, nor any acknowledgment of the chaos and destruction caused by its misguided adventure. At the same time, Bush presented Iraq and Afghanistan as cases in which the United States was leading a noble cause to bring democracy and liberty to the peoples of the Middle East, while ignoring the problems his policies have helped cause: He made no mention of growing radicalism, heightened hostilities or the money and lives wasted. He likewise gave no sense that the United States is willing to rethink its policies and priorities, and thus offered little reason for other countries to extend significant help in stabilizing Iraq. He did give a nod toward a somewhat more evenhanded approach to the Israeli-Palestinian problem, but he started by talking about the failures of the Palestinian leadership, not the illegal Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. The President’s speech, with its grandiose claims of bringing liberty and democracy to the world, contrasted sharply with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s emphasis on the rule of law. “Those who seek to bestow legitimacy must themselves embody it, and those who invoke international law must themselves submit to it,” Annan said in remarks before Bush’s speech, an implicit criticism of US actions. Annan’s approach is far more likely to create the foundations for an international order that makes possible the spread of democracy than is a self-determined and selective American crusade. Bush’s remarks stood in sharp contrast to a speech the day before by his rival for the presidency, John Kerry, in which Kerry promised to work closely with foreign leaders and international bodies to restore stability in Iraq (see David Corn, “Kerry’s Iraq Plan,” page 4), although he gave little idea of how he intends to accomplish that. Bush and Kerry will meet in their first debate, devoted entirely to foreign policy, on September 30. Iraq is an important but by no means the only foreign policy issue facing the next President. Voters deserve to hear a serious exchange about Iraq as well as the candidates’ plans to advance peace, nuclear disarmament and economic justice. And, as Annan’s remarks indicate, we need to know how each candidate proposes to restore the United States, now widely viewed as an outlaw, to good standing among the nations of the world. Facebook Global Organizations Rand Paul’s Eye-Roll Marked the End of the 9/11 Era By George Zornick Jun 24, 2015 No Matter Who Wins, 2016 Will Be All About the Bankers By Nomi Prins Sep 28, 2016 More Squandered Opportunities to Deal With the New Cold War By Stephen F. Cohen Sep 23, 2016 In Greece, the Refugee Crisis Worsens While the World’s Attention Turns Elsewhere By Anna Lekas Miller Yesterday 3:04 pm The US-Russia Backed Cease-Fire in Syria Hangs in the Balance: Will Cooler Heads Prevail? By James Carden May 25, 2016 The Era of Rogue Justice After 9/11 By Karen J. Greenberg May 10, 2016 Will These 2 Court Cases Finally Hold Our Torturers Accountable? By David Cole Sep 29, 2016 Fear of Flying By Russ Baker Sep 28, 2004 The Ethics of George W. Bush By Katherine C. Reilly “AN INDISPENSABLE VOICE IN OUR POLITICAL DIALOGUE.”

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/10683

By Mario Moretto, BDN Staff Posted April 07, 2014, at 8:29 p.m. AUGUSTA, Maine — A surreal reversal in the Maine Senate on Monday saw majority Democrats advance a bill to ban the use of welfare dollars for alcohol, tobacco, lottery tickets, gambling and bail, while Republicans voted against the clampdown — despite having originally supported it. The move by Democrats, who narrowly approved the bill 18-17 Monday night, is an attempt to blunt Republicans’ attack line that they aren’t serious about welfare reform. Members of the GOP have advocated for wholesale reform of a system they consider too generous. By passing the governor’s bill, the Democrats could have an effective rebuttal during the approaching campaign season — a bill in which they supported tighter restrictions on taxpayer-funded programs. It also allowed the majority party to flip the script on Republicans: Not long after the vote in the Senate, the majority office put out a press release blasting GOP senators for “squawking” about the need to ban the purchase of tobacco, liquor and the like but voting against it. The bill, LD 1822, was submitted by the governor in March. As originally proposed, it would have prohibited dollars distributed through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program from being spent on the listed goods and activities.Story continues below advertisement. On Monday, Sen. John Patrick, D-Rumford, proposed a version of the bill that barred such purchases and prohibited shops from accepting EBT cards — state-issued debit cards loaded with TANF cash and other benefits, including food stamps — for people buying any of the so-called “prohibited five.” Patrick’s amendment went further, requiring TANF recipients to sign an agreement promising not to use their benefits for the prohibited five, and charging the Department of Health and Human Services with studying the costs of the proposed prohibition and reporting back to the Legislature. Patrick said he submitted the amendment in deference to his constituents, who want welfare reform. Still, Republicans in the Senate unanimously voted against the proposal. The reason, they said, was that penalties for violating the new rules aren’t stiff enough. “The public wants real reform,” said Senate Minority Leader Mike Thibodeau, R-Winterport, after the vote. “They don’t want another study. They don’t want a written warning to people defrauding the system. They want real action.” Under Patrick’s amendment, initial violations would result in a warning, while subsequent violations would cause the recipient to lose benefits for up to six months. Republicans said they want the same punishment that exists for people who use TANF cash to buy drugs or who sell their EBT cards illegally. Those violations can cause a recipient to lose their eligibility for years. When asked whether it was better to reject their own proposal than to accept the decreased penalties, Thibodeau said he’s banking on voters to call out the majority party. “I’m hoping that the public comes to the realization that Maine Democrats are trying to put together a weak package, and that there will be pushback and they’ll come to their senses,” he said. Senate Majority Leader Troy Jackson, D-Allagash, said in an interview Monday night that Republicans had been disingenuous. “For them, it’s not really about good policy or anything, it’s about putting Democrats on the spot,” Jackson said. “But the point is, we feel welfare fraud in all forms is wrong.” LD 1822 is one of four welfare reform bills submitted by Republican Gov. Paul LePage, and the only one that had much chance of attracting bipartisan support. Any Democrat in the State House will say that no one wants TANF cash being used to fund vice purchases or bail. Left out of the discussion is how to enforce the proposal. TANF funds can be used with a swipe of an EBT card or withdrawn from an ATM. Once that cash is taken out, it’s untraceable. That could be a sticking point for the majority of Democrats in the House, where the bill will now head for concurrence. Its approval there is no sure thing. Two of the provisions in Patrick’s amendment originated in proposals by House Majority Whip Jeff McCabe, D-Skowhegan, and Rep. Diane Russell, D-Portland. McCabe and Russell’s amendments were defeated in the House, which approved a version of the bill that banned the use of EBT cards at smoke shops — but not the use of TANF cash on tobacco — and directed DHHS to institute an education regime about proper use of welfare funds. Democrats’ traditional allies on welfare policy may even turn out to pressure lawmakers in the House to reject the Senate’s proposal. Christine Hastedt, public policy director for Maine Equal Justice, said her organization opposes the Senate’s plan because it is unenforceable, and that Democrats should not feel forced into supporting what she said was a bad plan. “I think [Democrats] think they’ve heard from their constituents on this issue,” she said. “But if you ask, ‘Do you want to pass a law that cannot be enforced?’ we think they’d say no.” Two of LePage’s other bills — one that would have required TANF applicants provide proof of job applications before receiving benefits and another that would have eliminated an exception to the job-training requirement for recipients — were rejected by the Senate on Monday night, after meeting the same fate in the House last week. The governor also had proposed a bill to restrict the use of Maine EBT cards to be used in Maine only. That proposal was turned into a study bill in the House last week and the Senate concurred Monday night. Follow Mario Moretto on Twitter at @riocarmine. http://bangordailynews.com/2014/04/07/politics/senate-democrats-flip-the-script-on-republicans-with-bill-banning-welfare-spending-on-tobacco-liquor-lottery/ printed on October 1, 2016

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/10713

Rhode Island now 10th state to allow gay marriage Print Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee holds up a a gay marriage bill after signing it into law outside the State House in Providence, R.I., Thursday, May 2, 2013. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa) PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — Rhode Island has become the nation's 10th state to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed, after a 16-year effort to extend marriage rights in this heavily Roman Catholic state.Gays, lesbians, their friends and families erupted into cheers Thursday following a final 56-15 vote in the Rhode Island House, and then again an hour later when Gov. Lincoln Chafee signed the bill into law on the Statehouse steps."Democracy feels good, doesn't it?" said House Speaker Gordon Fox, D-Providence, who is gay. Fox struggled to keep his composure as he addressed the crowd at the Statehouse, looking over at his longtime partner, Marcus LaFond. "This tells me our relationship does matter. It means that we mean something."The first marriages will take place Aug. 1, when the new law takes effect.The day was bittersweet for Deborah Tevyaw, whose wife, state corrections officer Pat Baker, succumbed to lung cancer two years ago. Months before she died, Baker, relying on an oxygen tank, angrily told lawmakers that it was unfair that Tevyaw wasn't considered her wife in Rhode Island despite their marriage in Massachusetts."I'm ecstatic, but sad she's not here to see this," Tevyaw said. "I'm sure she's watching, but she's not here next to me. Before she died, she told me, 'I started this, and now I'm leaving it in your hands.' We worked hard for this. There were petitions, door knocking, phone calls. I think people decided, 'just let people be happy.'"Once consigned to the political fringe, gay marriage advocates succeeded this year thanks to a sprawling lobbying effort that included support from organized labor leaders, religious clergy, leaders including Chafee and Providence Mayor Angel Taveras and hundreds of volunteers. Their efforts overcame the opposition of the Roman Catholic Church and lawmakers including Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed, who voted no but allowed the issue to come to a vote anyway.Supporters framed the issue as one of civil rights, arguing in daylong legislative hearings that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights and protections given to opposite-sex married couples. The Catholic Church was the most significant opponent, with Bishop Thomas Tobin urging lawmakers to defeat what he called an "immoral and unnecessary" change to traditional marriage law.On Thursday, Tobin repeated his opposition, writing in a letter to the state's Catholics that "homosexual acts are... always sinful.""Catholics should examine their consciences very carefully before deciding whether or not to endorse same-sex relationships or attend same-sex ceremonies," Tobin wrote. "To do so might harm their relationship with God."The Rhode Island legislation states that religious institutions may set their own rules regarding who is eligible to marry within the faith and specifies that no religious leader is obligated to officiate at any marriage ceremony and no religious group is required to provide facilities or services related to a gay marriage.While ministers already cannot be forced to marry anyone, the exemption helped assuage concerns from some lawmakers that clergy could face lawsuits for abiding by their religious convictions.Under the new law, civil unions will no longer be available to same-sex couples as of Aug. 1, though the state would continue to recognize existing civil unions. Lawmakers approved civil unions two years ago, though few couples have sought them.The first marriages will take place Aug. 1, when the new law takes effect. Raymond Beausejour, 66, used to photograph weddings, but the gay North Providence man never expected he would have one himself."I've been waiting 32 years for this day, and I never thought it would come in my lifetime," said Beausejour, who has been with his partner for 32 years. "For the first time in my life, I feel welcome in my own state."Delaware could be the next state to approve gay marriage. Legislation legalizing same-sex marriage has narrowly passed the Delaware House and now awaits a vote in the state Senate.Advocates in Rhode Island say that while they're proud the state is the 10th to legalize gay marriage, they expect other states to quickly follow as support for gay marriage grows around the country. According to polling experts at Gallup, 53 percent of Americans support giving gay and lesbian couples the right to marry, up from 27 percent in 1996.Rep. Frank Ferri, D-Warwick, who lobbied for gay marriage before becoming a lawmaker himself, recalled that years ago he asked a sitting lawmaker if he would consider supporting same-sex marriage. "He said 'I'll pour gasoline on my head and light myself on fire before that bill passes,'" Ferri recalled.That has changed, said Ferri, who is gay. Ferri said he hopes Fox can marry him and his partner on Aug. 1, which also happens to be the couple's 32nd anniversary."Today a dream has come true," he said. "No more hiding in the shadows. No more being ashamed of who we are." 'Death collection'

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/10715

Tag Archives: south korea IDAHOT 2016: LGBT Human Rights Around The World By Ian Lekus May 17, 2016 at 12:00 AM Today, May 17, Amnesty International celebrates International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia. This IDAHOT, Amnesty International condemns the ongoing discrimination, violence, and denial of fundamental human rights faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people around the world. SEE THE REST OF THIS POST Posted in Africa, Americas, Asia and the Pacific, Censorship and Free Speech, Europe, Identity and Discrimination, LGBT Rights, Middle East and North Africa, Prisoners and People at Risk, Torture, USA What’s behind the arrests in Turkey? By Howard Eissenstat December 15, 2014 at 3:55 PM Over two dozen people were arrested in raids against media critical of Turkish president. (OZAN KOSE/AFP/Getty Images) A wave of arrests Sunday morning shook Turkey and made headline news throughout the world. The arrests, which are part of a broad campaign against the Gülen Movement, were hardly a surprise. A twitter user had leaked information about it some days in advance, it was preceded by some typically fire-breathing speeches by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and the Istanbul Prosecutor’s office issued a press release before the arrests were made. In total 27 people were arrested, including a number of journalists and media figures. Along with other human rights organizations, Amnesty has called on Turkish authorities to release those arrested yesterday unless authorities can produce “credible evidence that they have committed a recognizably criminal offense.” SEE THE REST OF THIS POST Posted in Asia and the Pacific, Business and Human Rights, Censorship and Free Speech, Europe, Military, Police and Arms, Police and Human Rights, Security and Human Rights, USA Battle for the Future of India By Govind Acharya May 14, 2012 at 4:27 PM Jagatsinghpur district in the eastern Indian state of Orissa is a poor rural place. But it is at the crucible of a battle for the future of India. In 2005, state and national governments approved a massive steel plant here, and the South Korean steel company POSCO prepared to sink $12 billion into the project. Yet from the beginning, local residents objected to this top-down development, which would push them from their farmland and fishing spots, depriving them of their homes, land, and livelihoods (if history is any guide, they were likely to end up in distant urban slums). After hundreds of villagers were forcibly evicted last summer opposition stiffened locally, across India and around the world. By late 2011, the Orissa government began resorting to jailing peaceful protest leaders on false charges. First it was Abhay Sahoo – who had also been jailed for 10 months in 2008-9. Then, it was Narayan Reddy. Posted in Asia and the Pacific, Business and Human Rights, Poverty and Human Rights, Prisoners and People at Risk South Korea's Death Penalty: Forgotten, But Not Gone By Brian Evans March 4, 2010 at 11:40 AM South Korea is, to my knowledge, the only place in the world where a former death row inmate went on to become President of the country (and to win the Nobel Peace Prize too). Kim Dae-jung was one of many political prisoners sentenced to death in South Korea in the 1980s. Amnesty International has issued a powerful short film about that era and the people who survived it. Interviews with the former President, and other former political prisoners, are interspersed with interviews with the man who served as Kim Dae-jung’s jailer. South Korea has come a long way since the 1980s, and capital punishment, while still on the books, is no longer really used. There have been no executions in more than 10 years. Nonetheless, South Korea’s Constitutional Court recently ruled that the death penalty was still constitutional, though just barely. The vote was 5-4. Many countries that have moved to abolish the death penalty have done so because of its legacy as a tool of political suppression, and its clear link to other grave human rights violations like torture. Amidst South Korea’s thriving democracy and powerful economy, the death penalty is nothing but an unused relic of an ugly past. Posted in Asia and the Pacific, Death Penalty Stay Informed Defend human rights for all.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/10724

Gov. Chris Christie's double standard on political money Star-Ledger Editorial Board Saed Hindash/The Star-LedgerGov. Chris Christie benefited from a fundraising group that skirted the law. The shady political fund run by Gov. Chris Christie’s team has finally identified its donors. As predicted, they released this damning information during a holiday week in hopes that fewer people would notice. And they withheld details showing how these special-interest donors depend on the Christie administration for favors. The organization calls itself Reform Jersey Now, a grand irony when you consider that its main purpose is to end-run campaign finance laws that Christie supposedly supports. It is run by the governor’s closest political allies, including his political confidante, Bill Palatucci, and his chief political strategist, Michael DuHaime. Yet the governor, the keynote speaker at the group’s fundraisers, denies responsibility for this group’s behavior. So it’s official now — Christie’s transition from prosecutor to politician is complete. Because only a practiced politician would have the chutzpah to make such an implausible claim. In its solicitation letters, Reform Jersey Now explicitly invites contributions that are banned by the state’s pay-to-play laws as a guard against corruption. It opened a back door so firms doing business with the state could curry favor with the governor. Who coughed up money? Most of the donations were modest, no doubt from people sincerely interested in pushing the Christie agenda. Turn to the list of big donors, though, and the story turns dark fast. Ferreira Construction gave $25,000. During 2010, the firm was part of a joint venture that won $174 million in work on state highways and bridges. George Harms Construction matched the $25,000. It won more than $130 million in state highway contracts last year. Michael Perrucci and Douglas Steinhardt gave $22,500 each. They are partners in a firm that won contracts with three state agencies and represents major developers who are heavily dependent on public agencies. Langan Engineering & Environmental gave $25,000. It received $2 million from state agencies last year, and a senior associate of the firm sits on the state’s Site Remediation Professional Licensing Board, which oversees cleanups of contaminated sites. None of this is criminal. To qualify as a bribe, evidence would have to show that these payments were explicitly linked to winning government favors. No one has alleged that here. But Christie himself, when he was a federal prosecutor, favored the ban on big donations from firms doing business with the government. He understood that it’s a sleazy practice that puts both parties within winking distance of a bribe, and that it engenders widespread mistrust. Ask yourself this: If you were competing for a big contract, and the governor asked you for a donation, what would you do? Reform Jersey Now, facing a barrage of criticism, said it would disband Friday and cease its advocacy on behalf of the governor. Better late than never. But this episode tarnished the governor’s reputation. He behaved like a perfect hypocrite. And that’s not something voters are likely to forget.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/10730

Independent Democrats call for audit of MTA finances By Politics on the Hudson on April 11, 2011 at 3:36 PM From Jacob Fischler of the Gannett Albany Bureau: The Independent Democratic Conference in the Senate called today for a forensic audit of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to investigate what the conference called the organization’s “questionable spending decisions.” “It seems like year after year the MTA is coming and asking for more money,” said Sen. David Carlucci, D-Clarkstown, Rockland County. “Whether it’s through increase in fares or asking for new taxes, and it seems like whatever happens, there is never enough money.” Carlucci introduced a bill last week that calls for an independent group to conduct the forensic audit on the MTA and report its findings by Jan. 1, 2013. “There needs to be some accountability to justify all of these taxes and fees that have been put on the counties that receive services from the MTA,” the bill says. A forensic audit is similar to a regular audit of financial records, but is more complex and labor intensive. The MTA is responsible for running and maintaining the New York City Subway system, the Long Island Rail Road and the Metro-North trains that service Westchester County and some of the Bronx. Over the past several years, the MTA has raised its fairs several times and a new MTA payroll tax was approved by the Legislature two years ago. Sen. Jeff Klein, D-Bronx, said the forensic audit would help restore public trust in the MTA. “I think this legislation will once and for all put to rest the notion of this bottomless pit.” Politics on the Hudson Comments are closed.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/10731

Giuliani to speak on "reform night" at GOP convention By Casey Seiler, Capitol bureau chief on August 20, 2008 at 12:48 PM Tuesday brought the news that Gov. David Paterson has nabbed a speaking slot at the Democratic convention, and now comes word that one of his potential rivals in 2010 will get the spotlight at the Republican convention: Rudy Giuliani will kick off Tuesday night’s program, which is dedicated to Reform (other vaguely Boy Scout-sounding themes including Monday’s Service, Wednesday’s Prosperity and Thursday’s Peace). Giuliani is on the bill with fellow GOP also-rans Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson; Mitt Romney appears Wednesday evening. From the GOP schedule/exegesis: John McCain’s life is a testament to the fundamental truth that every American can be a force for change. A restless reformer who has dedicated his career to taking on special interests and the status quo, John McCain will deliver the right kind of change and reform to meet the great challenges of our time. On Tuesday, the convention program will underscore his vision of a government that is transparent, principled and worthy of the American people it serves. Speakers will include: Former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani Former Gov. Mike Huckabee (Ark.) Former Gov. Tom Ridge (Pa.) Gov. Sarah Palin (Alaska) Gov. Jon Huntsman (Utah) Rosario Marin, California Secretary of the State and Consumer Services Agency and former Treasurer of the United States Former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson (Tenn.) Gov. Linda Lingle (Hawaii) Former Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (Md.)

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/10769

"The Untold History of the United States" I've been reading The Untold History of the United States, by Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick. Although this work has been disparaged -- by the liberal bloggers! -- as a collection of wacky conspiracy theories, it is anything but. (I suspect that the critics who say such things have read only the byline, not the text itself.) Although I haven't completed the book, the material in the early chapters is verifiable and backed by the citation of reputable sources. Much of it is probably familiar to Cannonfire readers. That said, we should confess that Cannonfire readers probably know about a lot about matters which remain hidden from the general population. For example, Stone and Kuznick pay much attention to America's ghastly war in the Philippines -- an adventure which prompted Mark Twain to suggest changing our flag to red, white and black, with skulls replacing the stars. To the best of my recollection, that hideous war received no mention in my high school American history text -- and I took an AP course! I doubt that this war receives much coverage in the books approved by Glenn Beck and the Fox News crowd. (As you may know, the rightists have been concocting their own appalling answers to Howard Zinn.) Stone and Kuznick do make some errors of judgment; for example, Theodore Roosevelt deserves better treatment than he receives in these pages. TR was a complex figure, now admired by liberals -- who applaud his willingness to take on the "malefactors of great wealth" -- and by neo-cons like Karl Rove, who don't understand that TR's dreams of empire were mostly just verbal bluster, not an actual program. Many readers may be surprised by what Stone and Kuznick have to say about that other Roosevelt, FDR: Magazines began calling bankers “banksters.” The Nation observed, “If you steal $25, you’re a thief. If you steal $250,000, you’re an embezzler. If you steal $2,500,000, you’re a financier.”... In this climate, Roosevelt had pretty much a free hand to do what he wanted. Brain Truster Raymond Moley noted, “If ever there was a moment when things hung in the balance, it was on March 5, 1933—when unorthodoxy would have drained the last remaining strength of this capitalist system.” Senator Bronson Cutting concluded that Roosevelt could have nationalized the banks “without a word of protest.” Rexford Guy Tugwell, director of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, and other advisors urged Roosevelt to do just that. A run on a bank, February 1933. Between 1930 and 1932, one-fifth of U.S. banks failed. By the time Roosevelt was inaugurated, banking had been halted completely or sharply limited everywhere. But Roosevelt chose a much more conservative course of action. He declared a four-day national bank holiday, conferred with the nation’s top bankers on his first full day in office, called a special session of Congress to pass emergency legislation, and calmed citizens’ fears with the first of his famous fireside chats. Congress passed and Roosevelt signed the Emergency Banking Act, written largely by the bankers themselves. The banking system had been restored without radical change. Congressman William Lemke remarked, “The President drove the money-changers out of the Capitol on March 4th—and they were all back on the 9th.”... Roosevelt’s solution to the banking crisis would serve as a template for how he would handle most issues. His instincts were fundamentally conservative. He would save capitalism from the capitalists. As Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins, the first female cabinet officer in the nation’s history, explained, Roosevelt “took the status quo in our economic system as much for granted as his family . . . he was content with it.”... But the means he would use to save capitalism would be bold, visionary, and humane. They would transform American life for decades. Perhaps longer. Though clearly not a radical, Roosevelt laid out an ambitious recovery program during his first hundred days in office. This chapter gives us some idea as to why FDR succeeded while Obama (so far) has largely failed. In part -- but only in part -- Obama has had to take a more conservative course of action because he operates against a very different political background. The financial power structure had stronger muscles in 2008 than in 1933, and the American electorate remained quite conservative as it entered the 21st century. Thirty years of neo-liberal propaganda will inevitably have an impact on which thoughts are considered permissible and which proposed solutions may be open for discussion. The important point to take away the Stone/Kuznick account is that FDR was not a radical, not a socialist who hated capitalism. At the time, many considered Roosevelt the man who would save capitalism from itself. Quite a few people (including his own Vice President) thought that he should have gone much further. We need to say a word or two about the Glenn Beckians who insanely try to conflate the New Deal with Hitler's fascism. These people never research the actual history of the time, and never look into what the actual followers of Hitler thought about Franklin Roosevelt. Directly after his election, some fascists (both European and domestic) felt cautiously optimistic about FDR. But within months, they turned on him, mounting a very powerful subversive movement which prefigured the Tea Party: Hitler, too, had more than his share of U.S. defenders. Among the more notorious was Republican Congressman Louis T. McFadden of Pennsylvania. He took to the floor of the House in May 1933 to decry the international Jewish conspiracy, reading passages from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an anti-Semitic screed purporting to prove a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world, into the Congressional Record and announcing that the president’s abandonment of the gold standard “had given the gold and lawful money of the country to the international money Jews of whom Franklin D. Roosevelt is the familiar.” “This country has fallen into the hands of the international money changers,” he charged. “Is it not true,” McFadden asked, “that in the United States today the Gentiles have the slips of paper while the Jews have the gold and the lawful money? And is not this repudiation bill a bill specifically designed and written by the Jewish international money changers in order to perpetuate their power?” Not only did the New Deal reject fascist solutions, it resisted attempts to impose any unified, coherent philosophy. It was more of a hodgepodge of agencies. Raymond Moley wrote that viewing the New Deal as the product of a consistent plan “was to believe that the accumulation of stuffed snakes, baseball pictures, school flags, old tennis shoes, carpenter’s tools, geometry books, and chemistry sets in a boy’s bedroom could have been put there by an interior decorator.” Roosevelt was more pragmatic than ideological. And he was willing to allow government to play a vastly bigger role than any of his predecessors could have imagined. Eventually, these same fascist forces within the United States tried to mount a coup against Roosevelt. The military leader they chose for that program was General Douglas McArthur -- a man later revered by the Birchers, and, later still, the Tea Partiers. Don't decry Stone and Kusnick's work until you can prove to me that the history books being taught in today's schools give a more accurate account of that era. posted: 4:08 PM Or was it Gen. Smedley Butler?-viowacity posted by Anonymous : 10:53 PM Butler was recruited first. He blabbed. posted by Joseph : 11:37 PM The film Gabriel Over the White House, a Hearst propaganda film from that period encouraging "benevolent dictatorship," has been put online by Glenn Beck, or his cohorts. Apparently, they imagine that William Randolph Hearst was a communist.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iz8sNARc6mw posted by Mac : 12:00 AM It's extremely telling that in the book version of Stone's new "alternative history" pageant, the JFK hit merits only a passing reference (to "conflicting opinions") on less than a full page of text, with a waffling conclusion no better than the pap offered up in public-school history textbooks.And this after all the intricate conspiracy hullabaloo Stone once embraced (back in 1991) and promoted, as he quoted and paraphrased extensively from Fletcher Prouty and Jim Marrs.Methinks that Arnon Milchan, the money man behind Stone's JFK film (one of the chosen tribe, of course) initially backed the project because it promised to wholly deflect suspicion away from the Meyer Lansky/Mossad factions at work back in '63 -- but in later years Stone has been "re-educated" that it's wiser (for his remaining career) to stay even further away from the shadow of the temple. Hence his full support of the official 9/11 myth, with a big-budget cinema spectacular that (ironically) also demonstrated how realistic imagery of the (mysteriously small) rubble pile could be perfectly SIM-ulated with Hollywood craftsmanship. posted by Andy Tyme : 1:24 AM I don't buy on books that might not be any good, can't afford to anymore, so I thought I'd watch the series to see if it was alright. Didn't get halfway through the first episode, couldn't take all the hard-right rah-rah jingoism.Doesn't Andy Tyme's comment go dangerously close to CD, or even holographic planes and actors? And anti-semitism. posted by Stephen Morgan : 8:20 AM Congressman McFadden was such an "anti-semite" that he believed the privately owned and mostly foreign controlled Federal Reserve Bank was a threat to the freedom and independence of American citizens. The quote about him also fails to mention that he survived two assassination attempts shortly before his death, one by gunfire and one by poisoning. His death was almost certainly a result of poison. In the 1930's, congressmen didn't fly on aircraft all that much, so classical methods of murder had to be employed. Historical footnote:the value of the US dollar has dropped by 99% during the 99 years of the Federal Reserve's existence.Look up Andrew Jackson and his war against a central national bank. He must have been an anti-semite too. posted by cracker : 9:51 AM Rules for determining whether a conspiracy exists, apply and you won't wind up sounding like Andy or Crakcer;1. Determine known facts2. Apply law of Parsimony posted by joseph : 3:38 PM Saw the series on Showtime; sounds like the book is good too.A question for Joe: just how would Wallace have worked out as the new President? The standard histories say that his refusal to expel Communists from the Progressives in 1948 is what doomed his candidancy. Certainly, by 1948, the die for Eastern Europe had been cast; democracy there had been exposed as a sham, and Stalin was giving everyone a good scare. posted by ColoradoGuy : 11:28 PM

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/10776

Perry wants flat tax with some popular deductions Associated Press 2:31 PM, Oct 25, 2011 Categories: Caucus Insider More posts by Associated Press Print/Email Tags: economy, flat tax, Rick PerryCandidate Tags: Rick Perry Tweet GRAY COURT, S.C. — Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry proposed a sweeping economic plan Tuesday that includes a flat tax proposal, private retirement accounts for Social Security, a lower corporate tax rate and reforms aimed at keeping Medicare solvent. In a pitch to right-wing conservatives, the Texas governor outlined a proposal he calls “Cut, Balance and Grow” that he says is bolder and more aggressive than what his Republican rivals or President Barack Obama would do. “America is under a crushing burden of debt, and the president simply offers larger deficits and the politics of class division,” Perry said. “Others simply offer microwaved plans with warmed-over reforms based on current ingredients.” In his speech, Perry outlined a broad plan that would make fundamental changes to the tax code and to the nation’s entitlement programs. After weeks of calling Social Security a “Ponzi scheme,” he offered five concrete principles for reforming the program. Perry said he wants to keep benefits intact for current retirees, but allow younger workers to choose to put their income into private accounts instead. He wants to allow states and local governments to opt out of the federal program and invest in different funds instead. And he wants to raise the retirement age for younger workers. Perry also wants to make major changes to Medicare. His plan would allow Americans to receive a payment or a credit for the purchase of health insurance instead of the direct benefits provided through the current program. He would also gradually raise the Medicare eligibility age and pay people benefits based on their income levels. Perry’s plan sets a flat 20 percent income tax rate, but also gives taxpayers the option of sticking with their current rate. He would also maintain popular deductions for families making less than $500,000 a year and end taxes on Social Security benefits. Perry would end corporate loopholes and lower the general corporate tax rate to 20 percent. Many elements of Perry’s plan are controversial – and others have tried and failed to pass them. President George W. Bush tried to add private accounts to Social Security, but the proposal was widely condemned and did not pass. “I am not naive. I know this idea will be attacked,” Perry said of the proposal. “Opposition to this simple measure is based on a simple supposition: that the people are not smart enough to look out for themselves.” President Barack Obama’s campaign immediately criticized Perry’s plan as hurtful to middle class Americans. Perry’s plan, Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said, “would shift a greater share of taxes away from large corporations and the wealthiest onto the backs of the middle class.” The major policy rollout is a critical part of Perry’s efforts to right a struggling campaign. It’s an opportunity to demonstrate a heft and seriousness that wasn’t on display during recent debates. Distracting from Perry’s speech, however, were new comments he made questioning whether Obama was born in the United States, a debunked controversy that centered on Obama’s birth certificate. In an interview with CNBC, Perry said it was “fun to – to poke” at the president on the birth certificate issue. “I don’t have a clue about where the president – and what this birth certificate says,” Perry said. He was defending an interview he did with Parade magazine, when he said he did not have a “definitive answer” about whether Obama was born in the United States. Republican strategist Karl Rove ripped Rick Perry for casting doubt on Obama’s birth. “You associate yourself with a nutty view like that, and you damage yourself,” Rove told Fox News. But the comments do appeal to a segment of the Republican Party’s right wing – a group Perry is clearly trying to court. Perry’s policy speech Tuesday sets him distinctly to the right of chief rival Mitt Romney, who wants to make less sweeping changes to the tax code. The birth certificate comments and policy rollout comes as Perry prepares to air TV ads in Iowa and has hired a roster of experienced national campaign operatives to help him. Perry’s chief adviser on the economic plan is former presidential candidate Steve Forbes, who proposed a 17 percent flat tax when he ran for president in 1996. It’s taken Perry about 2 1/2 months to put together an economic policy package, and he’s had to attend the series of debates without his detailed proposal. Romney also has attacked him repeatedly for not having a plan. Romney released a 59-point jobs plan in early September, about three months after officially announcing his bid. Perry’s plan would make more dramatic changes than Romney’s. While Perry’s plan includes the flat tax, Romney would lower rates on corporations and on savings and investment income for middle-class Americans. Back in 1996, Romney criticized Forbes’ flat tax plan as a “tax cut for fat cats.” In the CNBC interview, Perry said if Romney renews that criticism, “he ought to look in the mirror, I guess. I consider him to be a fat cat.” Perry chose South Carolina, where he announced he was running for president, to unveil his economic plan. The first-in-the-South primary state is critical to his path to the nomination, though he has fallen in the polls here just as he has dropped nationally. He also planned a news conference in the state capital, Columbia, and a fundraiser at the home of former South Carolina GOP chairman Katon Dawson, his top South Carolina adviser.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/10823

China Debate Puts GOP Under Pressure on Cuba Tony Karon Tuesday, May 23, 2000 So let's try and get this straight: The best way to undermine repressive communist states is to trade with them, allowing their people that heady whiff of freedom that floats aromatically off a Big Mac, forcing their governments to lift the economic shackles and unleash an avalanche of entrepreneurial creativity that makes nonsense of Marxism. Well, yes, and no — if you're Trent Lott, that is. According to the Senate Majority Leader and other congressional Republican honchos, an influx of U.S. goods will help force China's communist bureaucracy to democratize, but would only strengthen the hand of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. Which is why the GOP leadership is fighting to stop a bill authorizing a partial lifting of trade sanctions against Cuba from reaching the House floor. Embarrassing Lott is the fact that the measure was initiated by Washington Republican representative George Nethercutt; even more embarrassing is that despite the efforts by GOP congressional leaders to maintain the Cuba-embargo shibboleth on the Hill, Nethercutt and his allies — many of whom are Republicans — may have enough support to force a vote. Put on the spot by reporters Monday, Senator Lott was at pains to distinguish between trade with China, of which he's an enthusiastic advocate, and trade with Cuba, which he firmly opposes. Cuba "is the only remaining communist country in the world except for North Korea," Lott maintained, and "Castro has shown no repentance; he's running a dictatorship, a repressive dictatorship." There is, of course, no disputing the argument that China's communist leadership has, over two decades of trade with the U.S., enthusiastically embraced economic reform, while Cuba's has for the most part fiercely resisted it even while welcoming European, Latin American and Canadian investors. But even China's leaders themselves might take issue with Lott's exclusion of Beijing from the communist fold — after all, China remains a one-party state and the party that monopolizes power is unrepentantly communist. And everyone from human rights organizations to the State Department concurs that in the sphere of political rather than economic freedoms, the charge of maintaining a repressive dictatorship applies as much to China as to Cuba. "It's very easy to see the distinction," Lott insisted. "And if you all can't see it, I don't know, maybe you're just blind to it." Perhaps, but the Elian Gonzalez debacle and the argument trumpeted in support of the China trade bill that trade is a weapon against repression may actually have helped to swell the ranks of the "blind" on both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill.

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/10887

Azerbaijani president hopes for solution on Nagorno-Karabakh through negotiations 10 August 2014 15:41 (UTC+04:00) The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict must be resolved, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev said at a trilateral meeting of the Azerbaijani, Russian and Armenian presidents in Sochi on Aug. 10. "It has been protracted for a long time," President Aliyev said. "This problem must be resolved," President Aliyev said while appealing to the Russian counterpart. "It has been protracted for a long time. I hope that your personal involvement in this process will give a new impetus to the negotiation process. As you stressed, there is a format of negotiations. There is also a legal basis for the conflict settlement. The UN Security Council passed four resolutions requiring immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the Armenian occupying forces from the territory of Azerbaijan. Unfortunately, more than 20 years have passed but these resolutions remained on paper." "Of course, I think that Russia, as our close friend, partner and neighbor, has a special role in the settlement process," President Aliyev said. "We hope that in the near future we will find a solution through the negotiations in a peaceful way. And this solution will meet the norms and principles of international law and will conform to justice." A trilateral meeting on the Nagorno-Karabakh with participation of Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan was held in President Putin's Sochi residence Bocharov Stream on August 10. The bilateral meetings have been recently held among Russian President Vladimir Putin, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan. The conflict between the two South Caucasus countries began in 1988 when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan. As a result of the ensuing war, in 1992 Armenian armed forces occupied 20 percent of Azerbaijan, including the Nagorno-Karabakh region and seven surrounding districts. The two countries signed a ceasefire agreement in 1994. The co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, Russia, France and the U.S. are currently holding peace negotiations. Armenia has not yet implemented four U.N. Security Council resolutions on the liberation of the Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding regions. Tags: Ilham Aliyev Ilham Aliyev receives member of French Assembly Politics President Ilham Aliyev receives UEFA head (PHOTO) Politics Ilham Aliyev offers condolences over Shimon Peres’ death Politics Ilham Aliyev receives Argentine delegation (PHOTO) Politics Ilham Aliyev meets rector of Moscow Int’l Relations Institute (PHOTO) Politics Ilham Aliyev: Azerbaijan owes no one, depends on no one (PHOTO) Politics Ilham Aliyev receives ISESCO director general Politics Ilham Aliyev receives Russian delegation Politics Ilham Aliyev receives UN assistant secretary-general Politics

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/10914

The man, the Mitt, and the half-million-dollar albatross By David RothkopfDavid Rothkopf is CEO and editor of the FP Group. His latest book, National Insecurity: American Leadership in an Age of Fear, was released in paperback earlier this year. There is a myth that Mitt Romney is somehow a weak candidate, can’t get his tone right, will fold under pressure from the rabid right and the posturing of cardboard panderers like Rick Perry. But watch his progress, his steady, measured campaign, his ability to raise money, and note that while the press spins up the buzz-worthy stories of the day, he soldiers on in a way that has essentially guaranteed that the Republican presidential contest will be "Mitt Romney vs. someone else." That may have the far right licking its chops, but trust me, in the White House Romney’s measured march forward is a source of unease. What they fear — even taking fully into account Romney’s sometimes robotic (but improving) delivery and his coolness (one wag I know framed the contest between him and Barack Obama as "the refrigerator versus the icebox") — is his solid professionalism. You could see that professionalism at work in Romney’s address to the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention. And since we spent a little time yesterday breaking down the remarks of Governor Perry, it is only fair that we perform the same public service with regard to the speech of Mitt Romney. The White House should be doing the same thing. Because Romney’s speech was both a template for his campaign and a clear sign of what a formidable opponent he may be. He gets it. And pair him with a candidate who plugs him in to the right and a key state — Marco Rubio, perhaps — and this man could make 2012 much more difficult for Obama than all the hyperventilating Perry promoters might suggest. Here are the words of Romney and what they really mean: "You know better than most that the world is still infected with purveyors of hate and oppression. Some are jihadists, some are communists, and some are simply tyrants who clothe themselves in any convenient political manifesto. And so once again, American heroes are called upon to defend liberty." OK, so this is just scare tactics and pandering. It’s contemptible and simple-minded, and the evocation of the communist threat is downright quaint. But the bad news for all of you out there in foreign-policy land is that scare tactics and pandering work. "Twenty-five million Americans are out of work, or have stopped looking, or have only part-time jobs but want full-time work. Home values have dropped more than they did during the Depression. National debt is almost as large as our entire economy, and we owe a huge chunk of it to China. Incredibly, unfunded government promises now total about $530,000 per American household. This cannot possibly stand as the legacy we will leave the next generation." The worse news for all of you out there in foreign-policy land is that foreign policy is going to have precious little to do with next year’s election, barring some unforeseen development (which is certainly possible). That makes this second excerpt the money paragraph of the speech — literally and figuratively. That the great national security issue of our time is the great economic security issue of our time is the central issue of this election. The economy is busted. He who seems most likely to be able to fix it wins. Romney describes the problem effectively here, and that half-million-dollar albatross he notes is hanging around every American household’s metaphorical neck is a persuasively heavy number that’s getting heavier all the time. "The peril of this mismanagement may even be more imminent. We stand near a threshold of profound economic misery. Four more years on the same political path could prove disastrous. Career politicians got us into this mess, and they simply don’t know how to get us out." This is either generous or out of touch. My money is on the latter. If this is near a threshold of misery, I’d hate to feel like what it is when we get to the real thing. Of course, the best part of the comment is the slam on "career politicians," which means not our president but Rick Perry, the man who stands between Romney and the political job he has been working for all his career. "I am a conservative businessman. I have spent most of my life outside of politics dealing with real problems in the real economy. Career politicians got us into this mess, and they simply don’t know how to get us out." OK, the conservatives will debate whether Romney is a conservative anything. The best I can come up with is that he is a conservative dresser with a conservative haircut. Still, while the word "conservative" is political window dressing, the word "businessman" is the one he’s counting on to get him into the Oval Office. It’s not hard to do the math. If the economy is the story, Romney’s main objective is to appear more competent than Obama at handling it. And frankly, the way things look at the moment, he may be able to accomplish that by standing quietly in a corner and not saying anything stupid. "When members of Seal Team 6 boarded their helicopters, they did so not as Republicans or Democrats or independents; they did so as Americans. And the final image that Osama bin Laden took with him straight to hell was not a party symbol — not a Republican elephant or a Democratic donkey — but an American flag on the shoulder of one straight-shooting U.S. Navy SEAL." This is barf-worthy. Just as states such as New York have laws that prohibit criminals from writing books profiting from their crimes, there ought to be a law disqualifying politicians from misappropriating the heroic actions of others that they had nothing to do with. And, as a word of caution to Governor Romney, you ought to remember that the chain of command those Navy SEALs worked in ran straight up to their commander in chief. Barack Obama gave the order. It was an act of unmistakable leadership, and therefore this is a place where you probably don’t want to pick a fight. "Have we ever had a president who was so eager to address the world with an apology on his lips and doubt in his heart? He seems truly confused not only about America’s past but our future. So critical was President Obama of America before the United Nations that Fidel Castro complimented him for his ‘courage’ and ‘brave gesture.’ And Venezuelan dictator and thug Hugo Chávez joined in on the praise." Obama the defeatist is an emerging theme of this campaign. Linking the president to withdrawal, decline, and capitulation will be the core formula for the Republican Party. They will seek to channel the Gipper. It’s shaping up to be 1980 all over again. (And, having lived through 1980, I can tell you that’s not a pretty prospect. Among the singers with No. 1 songs that year: The Captain & Tennille, Lipps Inc., Olivia Newton-John, Christopher Cross, and Kenny Rogers. No wonder we thought America was on its last legs.) Linking Obama to Castro and Chávez is ugly but effective. But going after Obama for starting out with an apology — geesh, given the record of his predecessor he had plenty he had to apologize for before he could get anyone to even pay attention to us. "First, the White House proposed cutting military spending by $400 billion over the next 12 years. Then, President Obama agreed to a budget process that could entail cutting defense spending by $850 billion. The incoming chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has called a cut of that magnitude ‘very high risk.’… This is the first time in my memory that massive defense cuts were proposed without any reference to the missions that would be foreclosed and the risks to which our country and its men and women in uniform would be exposed." This will certainly be another Republican theme. They will argue for cutting programs for old ladies and children but preserving programs for Boeing and Lockheed. They will argue for fiscal discipline and continued excess at the same time. That may be hypocritical. It may involve impossible arithmetic. But hypocrisy and bad math are basic food groups in Washington. This kind of language is red meat in red states, even if the result is more red ink. "That leaves us with the belief that America should become a lesser power. It flows from the conviction that if we are weak, tyrants will choose to be weak as well; that if we could just talk more, engage more, pass more U.N. resolutions, that peace will break out. That may be what they think in that Harvard faculty lounge, but it’s not what they know on the battlefield!" In one press report, an excerpt from this quotation was followed by the words, "said Romney, himself the recipient of two Harvard degrees." Still, it’s more about Obama, the declinist wuss. Although, again, careful Mitt. On what battlefield did you earn your stripes? (Note: Playing "Call of Duty" in your 3,000-foot game room doesn’t count.) "In the Mideast, we are pressuring our closest ally, Israel, to make concessions while putting almost no pressure on Palestinians. The administration was quick to criticize Israel but slow to confront Syria’s strongman, Bashar al-Assad, even though he facilitated arming Hezbollah, allowed terrorists to cross his border into Iraq to attack U.S. troops, and turned weapons on his own people.… President Obama’s reticence to criticize Mr. Assad echoes his unwillingness to say a harsh word about the ayatollahs of Iran when they engaged in a bloody crackdown on the dissidents who bravely protested the stolen 2009 election. The White House was so tentative in its criticism and so eager to continue its policy of ‘engagement’ that Iranian protesters question whether Obama was with them. What a disgrace." Expect the Republican candidates to draw themselves so close to Israel during the campaign that Jackie Mason ends up on a shortlist for the V.P. slot. As for the criticism of Obama’s stance re: Iran and Syria, it’s cynical — they probably would have done the same — but it will continue because it is effective. The president was too slow to take a stand in both cases. "In Afghanistan, the president has chosen to disregard the counsel of the generals on the ground. I don’t know of a single military advisor to President Obama who recommended the withdrawal plan the president chose, and that puts the success of our soldiers and our mission at greater risk." When I read this, I think: Romney has a very professional team of foreign-policy advisors who are in close touch with the top brass in the Pentagon and who will increasingly become a conduit for complaints and political flanking maneuvers like this one. "Our Air Force is now older and smaller than it has been for decades. Our Navy has fewer ships than it has had since World War I." And then, after an attack on bloated purchasing apparatus in the military, "I will slice billions of dollars in waste and inefficiency from the defense budget. I will use the money we save for modern ships and planes and for more troops. And I’ll spend it to ensure that veterans have the care they deserve." Neat trick. Yes, this is a line from a speech that moments earlier had attacked the president for seeking cuts. Now, Romney actually manages to become three-faced by decrying the president for making cuts, then arguing for deep cuts himself, and then promising to spend what he saved on more ships and planes and troops. No deficit-cutting there. Just moving around piles of money in the Pentagon. Is it possible? Sure. Is his critique of waste and bloat on target? Of course. But shouldn’t the businessman know to keep his eye on the bottom line? "We’ve lost a couple of years, but we haven’t lost our way. The principles that made America the hope of the Earth are the principles that will keep us the great shining city upon a hill. It’s time for us to come together and carry our message across this country, that we’re taking back America." That great shining city on a hill is back. Republicans may not be so strong on environmental issues, but they sure do know how to recycle old slogans. Once again, their primary goal is not to defeat one another; it is to channel Reagan’s ghost. Come to think of it, maybe the one guy who could defeat Romney and Perry both is psychic James Van Praagh, the medium who could reconnect Republicans to the one candidate they really want in the first place. Share + About David RothkopfDavid Rothkopf is CEO and editor of the FP Group. His latest book, National Insecurity: American Leadership in an Age of Fear, was released in paperback earlier this year.@djrothkopf

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/10915

Prestowitz How Obama can change the game with Japan By Clyde PrestowitzClyde Prestowitz is the founder and president of the Economic Strategy Institute (ESI), where he has become one of the world's leading writers and strategists on globalization and competitiveness, and an influential advisor to the U.S. and other governments. He has also advised a number of global corporations such as Intel, FormFactor, and Fedex and serves on the advisory board of Indonesia's Center for International and Strategic Studies. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe arrives in Washington today with a long shopping list. First, he’ll want to be assured of solid U.S. backing, including willingness to go to war on Japan’s behalf if necessary, in Tokyo’s face off with China over control of the Senkaku islands. Next, he’ll want U.S. agreement to his policy of devaluing the yen to promote exports and growth of the Japanese economy. Finally, he’ll want to politely refrain from joining the U.S. sponsored negotiations for a Trans Pacific Partnership free trade agreement (TPP). Here’s what the White House should give him. Although in the light of history, China’s claims to the Senkakus are arguably as good as Japan’s, there is no way that Abe can accede to Chinese pressure to cede sovereignty over the islands in the face of Beijing’s military threats. Because the United States has recognized Japan’s administrative authority over the islands and guarantees Japan’s security under the terms of a security treaty with Japan, Washington is obligated to back Japan in resisting any threats of force regarding the islands. At the same time, the United States desperately wants to avoid war with China and would like to get some negotiation or global inquiry going. The problem is that to their own publics both China and Japan would appear to be backing down if one of the proposed submitting the dispute to the World Court. One way around this would be for Washington publicly to voice support for Japan, but at the same time to persuade the World Court to invite Japan and China to submit their dispute to it. In this way, neither side would lose face by accepting the invitation. On the economy and the yen, the White House, unfortunately, has already pretty much spoken. Undersecretary of the Treasury Lael Brainard voiced U.S. support for Japan’s policies to stimulate its economy at the recent G-20 Finance Ministers Meeting. This, in effect, constituted a White House blessing on Abe’s efforts to drive the yen lower as a way of creating jobs by reducing the price of Japanese exports. In his personal meeting with Abe, President Obama should make it clear that Brainard had gone rogue and was not voicing White House policy. Indeed, he should emphasize that the opposite is the case — the United States strongly opposes Japan’s efforts to manipulate the value of the yen and may be forced to take countervailing action if such efforts continue. Some will argue that Japan is doing nothing more than imitating the Federal Reserve’s easy money, quantitative easing policies. But this is not entirely the case. The Fed doesn’t talk the dollar down or call for greater U.S. exports as a main driver of rising GDP growth. But Abe does all of this (and the Bank of Japan is acquiescing) in his drive to stimulate the Japanese economy. What Japan desperately needs, and what Abe assiduously avoids mentioning, is to undertake far reaching structural reforms of its economy. Japan has been pursuing easy money and high stimulus policies for twenty years without much to show for it. Yen devaluation will not provide a long term fix but it will disrupt U.S. markets and reduce U.S. employment at a moment when Washington very badly needs to create jobs and make America more competitive. The president should make this crystal clear to Abe while emphasizing that he can’t expect enthusiastic U.S. geopolitical support while indirectly subsidizing exports. As far as the TPP is concerned, the White House should forget about it with regard to Japan. Tokyo is unlikely to join because of the opposition of its farmers and other domestic groups and also because at this stage of the negotiations (scheduled to end in October) Japan would be unlikely to be able to obtain many concessions. More importantly, bringing Japan into the TPP would increase the U.S. trade deficit and by reducing tariffs in key industries such as autos without gaining reciprocal reduction of non-tariff barriers in Japan that effectively keep many Japanese markets closed despite the absence of tariffs. Instead of a futile and probably counter-productive effort to get Japan into the TPP, the president should go for something big that would be good for both economies while also reinforcing the geopolitical ties. He should propose that Japan join the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and that NAFTA be developed into a true economic union with a common trade policy, currency coordination arrangements that prevent currency manipulation, and a common anti-trust and competition policy, as well as a high level of regulatory coordination. Eventually, a common currency — the yelarso — might be adopted along with a single financial system. If the president truly wants to change the game, and do something for the history books, this is it. Share +

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/10945

Political and economic analysis Two wonks and a right to become US President Business Times - 30 Mar 2012THE BOTTOM LINETwo wonks and a right to become US PresidentBy LEON HADAR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENTAMERICAN comedian Bill Maher describes the presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney as 'the most boring man in the world'. Romney is so boring, he quips, that 'the paint on the wall looks at him when it dries' and 'Ambien (a drug for the treatment of insomnia) takes him when it cannot fall asleep'.Well, the comedian may be exaggerating a bit. Mr Romney is probably not the most boring man in the world but he certainly could compete for the title. Indeed, there is something about his robotic persona that makes human beings feel uncomfortable about him. He does look and sound like an automaton that has been programmed to look and talk like an American president who reiterates his love for family, country and God, and promotes this or that plan to solve this or that problem.In fact, during his long career in public service, Mr Romney seems to have been all over the place when it comes to his policy ideas, at times sounding like a liberal (he once supported the women's right to abortion) and at other times repackaging himself as a conservative (he now wants to criminalise abortion) or is somewhere in between (perhaps the states and not the federal government should decide on the abortion issue).Mr Romney is, after all, attacking President Barack Obama now for adopting the same government-backed healthcare programme on the federal level that he himself helped pass as Governor in Massachusetts. And he pledged, if he becomes president, to repeal Obamacare - something that only Congress can do anyway.So no one is shocked when some of his critics accuse him of being a 'flip flopper', or of pandering to voters and interest groups, of lacking an 'ideological underpinning' and a 'political backbone'. But then this same kind of criticism can be turned on its head and be applied to suggest that Mr Romney is 'pragmatic' and 'open minded', a 'non-ideologue' and 'problem fixer'.'Do we really need a moral crusader in the White House?' ask supporters of the former governor and financial business executive. Which is exactly how he likes to paint himself - someone with experience in state government and in the private sector who would be able to come up with 'solutions' to US economic problems. He even has a Power Point presentation that details those policy solutions - just right for those who suffer from insomnia.And the irony is that much of the criticism and the praise directed against Mr Obama as a president and as a candidate is that, like Mr Romney, the present president has been a man for all political seasons, sounding at times as the man of the political left (let's get out of Iraq and regulate the financial system) or the political right (let's expand our military presence in Afghanistan and refrain from nationalising the banks). He uses populist rhetoric - but gets his economic advice from free marketers; he won the Nobel Peace Prize - but has expanded the use of drones to attack suspected terrorists.Indeed, even his Obamacare plan that conservatives like to hate was modelled after the healthcare programme that the Republican Romney implemented in Massachusetts - under which private insurance companies remain in control. And unlike his Republican predecessor, he ended-up killing Osama bin Laden as well as other leading terrorist figures around the world.Mr Obama is younger than Mr Romney and may be more attuned to contemporary popular culture and, therefore, scores higher than his Republican challenger on the 'cool' barometer. But in many ways, if you forget that Mr Obama is bi-racial and has an exotic name, the current White House occupant is not so different from the former Massachusetts governor in terms of Ivy League education and of their non-ideological and pragmatic modus operandi, if not technocratic approach to policy issues.Notwithstanding all the talk about his charisma and his being a transformational president, Mr Obama is not really a very inspiring president. He is not a bad orator who knows how to read his prepared speeches that sound as 'wonky' and robotic as those of Mr Romney with their emphasis on the management of policies as opposed to rousing the people with new ideas.It may be a paradox. But at a time of ideological polarisation in US politics, dominated by the rhetoric of the likes of the Tea Party and 'Occupy Wall Street', America's two major political parties will be running for the president in the coming election two political figures who are not driven by any grand ideology. Both are detached policy intellectuals who like to build coalitions and manage things.Indeed, Barack Obama is not FDR - and Mitt Romney is not Ronald Reagan. The two remind us of the men and women who run for the Prime Ministership of governments in Europe. So don't be surprise if the televised debate between these two wonks will be very, well, boring.Copyright © 2010 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved. Leon Hadar Well, he is a Republican, isnt he supposed to be boring? After all, a president needs not only to get the job done, but to present its country before others, therefore, to be a charismatic person. Lovely Vacation Pretty interesting and valuable reading. President have to perform his duties effectively and to present the country in front of the rest of the world, so I agree that he needs to be charismatic. But not all the Republicans are boring. The Realpolitiker A global affairs analyst, journalist, blogger, and author. I am a senior analyst at Wikistrat, teach political science at the University of Maryland, and cover Washington for the Singapore Business Times. I also write for Ha'aretz, blog at The Huffington Post, post commentaries on The National Interest, and am a contributing editor at The American Conservative. Formerly a research fellow in at the Cato Institute and the United Nations correspondent for the Jerusalem Post, I have published in American and international newspapers and magazines, and have been affiliated with think tanks and academic institutions. I authored "Quagmire: America in the Middle East" (Cato Institute, 1992) and of "Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East" (Palgrave Macmillan, 2005). I have a Ph.D. in international relations from American University, and graduated from Columbia University with MA degrees from the schools of journalism and international affairs and a certificate from the Middle East Institute. I also graduated with an MA degrree in communication and received a BA degree in political science from Hebrew University. My stuff in: Quagmire: America in the Middle East Review of "Quagmire" in Foreign Affairs Review of "Sandstorm" in Foreign Affairs Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East TheGlobalist Unz.org What Green Peril? (Foreign Affairs)

时政

2016-40/4032/en_head.json.gz/10953

PoliticsHear the candidates: Ward 6 on housingby David Alpert • February 18, 2014We interviewed candidates for DC mayor and competitive council races for the April 1 primary, and recorded the conversations on video. We will be posting the videos for each subject area and each race over a few weeks. Here are the discussions about housing with candidates for Ward 6 on the DC Council. See all of the articles here. Images from the candidate websites. It's not that easy to find specific policy issues where Charles Allen and Darrel Thompson disagree. Both candidates vying to succeed Tommy Wells talk about affordable housing, jobs, seniors, and education. Indeed, in their freeform statements about affordable housing, both cited the need to ensure housing for families as well as singles and roommates. Compare the candidates' initial statements on affordable housing: The biggest difference between Charles Allen and Darrel Thompson is in their political paths. Allen worked as Wells' chief of staff and knows city policy backward and forward. Thompson also has a long record in public service, but at the federal level working for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid; he has not been very active in local politics or policy in the recent past. Thompson has been a quick study and has compelling values for the ward, though ones not very different from Allen's. Thompson said the ward needs "new leadership," but when pressed, did not articulate much in the way of specific objections to Tommy Wells' tenure, while Allen is running on the record he and Wells built. When I asked each candidate about how DC would add the 41,000-105,000 new housing units it needs in the next 20 years, both cited Hill East as a place with substantial development opportunities. While continuing to emphasize the need for family housing, Allen also said we need to add housing by using existing buildings in "smarter or more flexible ways," like accessory dwellings:We're a community full of alleys. We have a lot of homes that have carriage houses or they have alley access properties. To be able to allow those to be legal residences is important. It's important because it allows for that housing to be created. It's also important because—I'll bring it back to affordability. If you have a property that has a carriage house, you're looking at rising costs in the city. Being able to have that be part of your rent is actually a great part of making your home help you in terms of achieving affordability. In a subsequent email, Thompson said he also supports this proposal. He wrote, "With the growing rate of the population in our city, we need to provide more housing and this is a way to do that. Additionally, allowing homeowners to collect income on their property increases the affordability of owning their home, especially seniors on fixed incomes." When I asked him about housing supply during the interview, Thompson also talked about being "smart," using the same word as Allen, but also said "we've got to make sure we don't overbuild," and that "there are developments on the table in Ward 6 that have split neighborhoods because residents didn't feel like they had the input." Was Thompson talking about the Hine school development, the mixed-use project at Eastern Market Metro? Among other things, yes, and he had this to say:Clearly something didn't go right. A lot of folks are outraged. I've talked to folks throughout Ward 6 and that part of Capitol Hill often, and folks feel like—some feel like it's too large. I think it's too large. I think under the current proposal we've got right now it's important we go back and look at this again. Even talking about the affordable housing units that are offered, they're not like the market rate units. So we're creating housing for 2 different classes of people and making sure people clearly know that's what we did. That's not right. We're talking about building something that's much larger than anything else in the surrounding neighborhoods. So I think, again, we should have proper community input; input that actually is meaningful and is adhered to before we sign off on projects. It's important. Lots of folks would like to see that project done, including myself, but not under the current proposal. On this, Allen does not agree. I asked him over email for his view, and he wrote:This is a project that will create a vibrant mix of housing, retail, office, market space, and important affordable housing in the heart of Capitol Hill and on top of a Metro station. Fitting the character and context of the community is crucial and I believe the Advisory Neighborhood Commission did an outstanding job of managing the complex array of issues and interests put before them. In regard to affordable housing, a much needed mix of affordability will be created in both the north and the south buildings, including dedicated affordable housing for seniors to help ensure our city prioritizes successful aging-in-place within our neighborhoods. The project has been the focus of countless community meetings, living room conversations, and many hundreds of hours of public work by the local Advisory Neighborhood Commission, neighbors, the project's Community Advisory Committee throughout the decision-making and zoning process.To get the best sense of Thompson and Allen unfiltered, watch the whole 10-15 minute housing exchange I had with each. In upcoming days, we'll look at the two candidates' views on education and transportation. We conducted the interviews at the Watha T. Daniel/Shaw library and the Gibson Plaza apartments, a mixed-income market rate and affordable housing building also in the Shaw neighborhood. Both locations are now in Ward 6 following the 2012 redistricting (but we talked to the Ward 1 candidates there, too). Thanks to Martin Moulton for organizing the space and recording and editing the videos.14 commentsTags: 2014 primary, accessory dwellings, affordable housing, Charles Allen, Darrel Thompson, DC, development, Hine school, housing, politics, Reservation 13, Ward 6 David Alpert is the founder of Greater Greater Washington and its board president. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He now lives with his wife and daughter in Dupont Circle. Follow @alpertCommentsAdd a comment »Thompson is clearly a good candidate. His only weakness is in addressing Ward 6 specific issues. So here's my question: What sense does it make for Thompson to challenge the strongest council candidate in the city? Why not run against Anita Bonds for the at-large position? She's not as strong a candidate, and you don't have to overcome the disadvantage of having to try to play an "away game" on her turf. It seems like a simple strategic error to try to make your inroad into city politics against a guy like Allen, who has probably been gearing up to run for this exact seat for years. by Matt on Feb 18, 2014 2:28 pm • link • report the failure in understanding the Hine site's characteristics is a failure in communicating how to do planning. Sites at a Metro station, at a "100% intersection", that are commercial, aren't judged and evaluated the same way that a project on a residential block comprised of one- to three-story buildings is judged. Most everybody commenting on the Hine project's "inappropriateness" are evaluating the site's conditions from an inappropriately applied set of criteria. by Richard Layman on Feb 18, 2014 4:02 pm • link • report Thanks for running this. Just the statements on Hine (I live two blocks from the site) give me strong reasons both to support Allen and to not vote for Thompson. I also learn that Allen, in addition to being sensible about Hine, sees some of the potential of the neighborhood's alleys. I may volunteer for Allen. I will certainly send him a contribution (as I did for my representative on the ANC that Allen credits with "an outstanding job of managing the complex array of issues and interests" in the Hine matter). by A Streeter on Feb 18, 2014 4:35 pm • link • report I heard Thompson on the Politics Hour a few weeks ago. He really couldn't have been much worse. I would encourage everyone to listen to that. He kept saying how he was born in DC and later returned after living in Baltimore. Tom Sherwood asked him how old he was when he moved away from DC and why he thought that having been born in DC made him a better candidate. The guy would not answer when he moved. Sherwood asked him 3 or 4 times and all he got were meaningless talking points. It was maddening. by TakomaNick on Feb 18, 2014 5:26 pm • link • report I am the ANC Commissioner for the SMD that includes the Hine development. I don't begrudge Darrel's opinion about the project being too big. But his claim that "we should have proper community input; input that actually is meaningful and is adhered to before we sign off on projects," is simply outrageous. I believe there were more than 100 public meetings on this project. The Zoning Commission had about 9 hours of public testimony, the HPRB had at least three public meetings, the Council has had multiple votes and hearings, the ANC had more meetings on this than any other topic and probably more than all other topics combined during our process. There is a difference between not liking the outcome and actually understanding the process and the reality of what happened. Either Darrel doesn't understand what the process is on these cases and was in this case, or he is happy to play politics with this to get himself elected. Either is unacceptable in my opinion. As to the idea that we should start again, this also suggests a highly frivolous or uninformed view. If we start again that means a new proposal has to go through every level of City review that I just described and the whole process all over again and in all likelihood puts us 4 or more years away from any action on this site. Already the law suit by a dozen neighbors is costing the City and estimated $4m a year in lost revenue as the project is delayed I hope Darrel is prepared to really back up his assertion that we need to start over and understands what that means because doing so as a casual / political comment in the campaign is pretty serious stuff. Ultimately Darrel says we need new leadership in Ward 6. Well, we are going to get it one way or another. The question is whether we will have experienced leadership that understands the issues in this City and this ward and treats them seriously. I am firmly convinced that Darrel is not ready to meet that standard. And just so people are clear on the politics of this - in addition to a very intense and engaged public process, the ANC action on this was followed by an election where the two incumbents who supported the project moving forward were challenged by opponents of the project in a campaign that was largely about this project. The opponents were well organized but lost - and handily. The new commissioner adjacent to the project also supported the project in the election and won that open seat against an outspoken opponent. Why does this matter? Not because any one of us has the right or wrong answer about how big or small this development should be, but because elections matter. For someone who wants to represent this area to come in without having been engaged at all in the process and try to play politics with is is immensely disheartening. by DCIvan on Feb 18, 2014 5:48 pm • link • report Thanks for doing these. It's hard to find too many ways in which they differ so it helps me decide. I'll be really curious for the education one; it seems both candidates both live in the part of Ward 6 that is zoned for Eastern and that gives them little incentive to push for the part of Ward 6 that's currently zoned for Wilson to stay that way. Allen told me he would be happy to see them go to Eastern, but I don't know Thompson's position yet. by sbc on Feb 18, 2014 5:51 pm • link • report Thompson's absurd and pernicious answer to the Hine question is a dealbreaker for me. I'll gladly support Allen. Anybody who believes an 8-story building, on one of the widest streets in the District and directly across from a Metro station, is "too big" doesn't belong anywhere near DC government. by Jermaine on Feb 18, 2014 11:01 pm • link • report I am not a Democrat so approach this without a dog in the fight, but just because the planning process for Hine is over doesn't mean that we can't look back and realize that the whole process from beginning to end is a net loss for the city. The Hine site should have been retained as an educational campus for DCPS to create the new, world-class Middle school Capitol Hill needs. We can build office buildings up and down N Cap, M Street etc but we will never get another chance to build a public school next to a metro station and cross-city bus line. by Mike on Feb 19, 2014 11:48 am • link • report I like Thompson and I don't like Allen. Reason being Thompson position about Eastern High School was spot on and extremely well-thought out and researched. Allen's take on Eastern was so web-site reveiwed that it was embarrasing. Thus the case about don't believe everything you read is quite accurate about Allen. This need to be the "homeboy" of DC is vain attempt to woo what voter? I used to live in DC it wasn't because you had a choice Allen, it was because you were a child. Someone will need the vote and someone will get the vote needed because of the mere fact they are the best candidate and not just the best "used to be" resident. Sheesh!!! by MLR on Feb 19, 2014 11:50 am • link • report Can I vote for the baby or wife of the white dude? If not, then why are they in the picture? To show the he does not physically abuse them? by Jasper on Feb 19, 2014 12:14 pm • link • report Thompson's stance on the Hine development is amateur and clearly shows how out of touch he is with his would-be constituents. After reading this, I'm all for Allen. Thanks GGW for this series, and for helping me make up my mind! by Eastern Market Resident on Feb 19, 2014 1:17 pm • link • report Jasper, much to my dismay, I'm going to quote Gallagher. "He's tired of sc---ing her and he'd like to try us for awhile." I like Charles Allen, but that's a good joke. by David C on Feb 19, 2014 1:29 pm • link • report @MLR- I don't understand your comment. Do you have your candidates reversed? Darrel Thompson is the one who has a talking point about having been born in DC, not Charles Allen. Which points about Eastern are you talking about? Where did you hear them? by Todd on Feb 19, 2014 2:04 pm • link • report I second DCIvan with regard to Hine, Darrel Thompson is way off the mark. However, I met him when he first started canvassing, and I was impressed by his command of the issues that affect the city. For that reason, after Darrel loses this election, I would advise him to pick up the pieces, and target the next open at-large seat. The intervening time will allow him to reach out to the broader city and get some exposure. I'll be voting for Charles Allen for Ward 6. I worked with him extensively, he knows the Ward backwards and forwards, and there are few issues where we don't agree. by Will Handsfield on Feb 20, 2014 9:32 am • link • report

时政